Everyone, I was not quite sure where to put this as it's likely to get political. In the end, some of that is relevant, so let's be nice and consider the ramifications of this move, setting aside the actual merits of any one ideology. IMHO, the effect on political parties to reach potential voters is on the table for discussion, as that's relevant, by way of example.

Seems Dennis Kucinich (D), is looking hard at media reform. Here's a teaser from the main article below:

http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=333927

---

quote:

The Presidential candidate said that the committee would be holding "hearings to push media reform right at the center of Washington.” The Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Government Reform Committee was to be officially announced this week in Washington, D.C., but Kucinich opted to make the news public early.

---

I think that if this doctrine were brought back, it would play very differently in today's conglomerate-run environment. For instance Clear Channel could say that their Portland operations present a balanced point of view because the talk programming on KEX tends to lean right and that on KPOJ tends to lean left. However, KBOO might find itself in a bind.

Also, if the doctrine were brought back, would all radio stations be forced to present some type of news programming, even if the format is music?

It would probably be ruled a violation of free speech.

You know what the intent is here, don't you. Since this is the radio side of the forum, we can't really talk about it.

The fairness doctrine was about more than "balanced". If you said anything about anyone, you had to contact them and offer them response time. Get the picture.

Yep. It's about that. For what it's worth, I don't agree even though my side of preference would likely benefit.

Having said that, I'm really more interested in the types of things Alfredo brought up. In this day and age, the whole approach just might not have the effect desired.

Additionally, would it be necessary given other media reforms are put on the table? Less corporate ownership may well put market forces to this task, leaving the need for a doctrine unnecessary.

Also, I included AM because talk is a biggie right now. If talk were diminished, would other content forms fill the gap, or would AM wither on the vine?

Open up a thread on the political side if you want. I'm sure we will have plenty of takers

Biggest problem is finding a judge/method to determin what is fairness, and what isn't.
For example, 620 is like 100% "left", but 1190 is only 3 hours "right". The other daily shows on 1190 I would consider for the most part as non-political. So thats not really fair. Does 620 have a "progressive" counterpart to Dr. Laura? C2C (Bell/Noory)? Do you throw in a multiplication factor for 50,000 watts? Factor in ratings to compensate for audience size? Like a Handicap system? Can 2 moderate hosts balance out one extremist on the other side?
It seems to me the only system that might work is the talk format which the host is neutral/non-opinionated, and has equal time guests for controversial issues. Or the 2 hosts method, like KandA on 750. If more people want to hear one sided opinionated biased host(s), and that gets better ratings, then congloms that own 2 frequencies would have unfair advantage over owners that only had one frequency.
Would sat radio and other new delivery methods be subject to same fairness content rules?

The fairness doctrine originated at a time when there were probably more newspapers in America than TV and radio stations combined. we're talking about a time when there were 3 networks, a few hundred TV stations in the entire country with most markets having no more that 4 TV choices if that, and maybe a few thousand radio stations across the nation.

I would say with the growth in media overall the need for a fairness doctrine has obviated itself.

Now nearly any viewpoint is easily available with 13,500 radio stations, hundreds of cable TV channels, a dozen TV stations over the air in all the larger markets, blogs and the internet, etc.

the need to balance the content on each and every media outlet is nothing more than political based media micromanagement.

every person can now access any idea they want in the media.

It is still and always has been incumbant on the population to seek out the information they desire in a free and unincumbered way.

The fairness doctrine assumes that the population are idiots who believe everything they hear and cant change the channel.

now maybe there is a grain of truth to that but since when do we legislate the dissimination of information to a point that one has no personal responsability for the condition of their own intellegence?

last I checked being uniformed and narrowminded was still legal...

why should the content of the media be manipulated to cater to those who freely choose not to do the work to inform themselves on the major issues of the day?

There's a lot of political motivation behind this move, but since this thread was started outside the Political section, it really can't be discussed.

Hear, hear, Notalent! Wonderfully said!

As long as this thread doesn't deteriorate into name calling, I think that it is completely appropriate to discuss the political aspects of the doctrine here. I think that throughout its history, the doctrine has been used for political purposes. Some John F. Kennedy administration people have been known to acknowledge that they had used the doctrine to force broadcast commentators critical of Kennedy to tone down their rhetoric. The Nixon administration also used similar tactics against its critics. Today, there are people who would like to use the doctrine to curb what they see as a culture of "liberal-bashing" on the radio.

Despite not being a proponent of the doctrine, there is one case that does make me think, "maybe this isn't all bad." That case has to do with Jackson, MS's WLBT television, as it operated in the 1950s and 1960s (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WLBT ). At that time, the station was operated by people who were flagrant White supremacists. If the NBC nightly news were running a piece that seemed too supportive of the civil rights movement, it would be "interrupted" for "technical difficulties." The station also sold airtime to the Ku Klux Klan. After numerous complaints were filed with the FCC, the Commission revoked the station's license in 1969.

Reinstating an old set of rules is not the answer because the rules of ownership are radically different now than when the Fairness Doctrine was conceived/overturned.

The biggest failure is the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996. If anything needs to be revised and/or amended, that is it.

If you only look at the percentage of total stations owned by the huge congloms as a ruler, you might easily conclude that there are still many small and independent licensees out there whom could operate as they see fit to provide the diversity of opinion today's media seems to lack. It has boiled down to hard left vs. hard right for the most part, but the truth can be seen by looking at the more than lion's share of broadcast revenues that these same big conglomerates have garnered by concentrating their licenses in profitable markets, in essence driving the small players totally out of the big markets.

There are those of you that sometimes defend the corporate take over of broadcast as a good thing. Clearly, when the automation science reaches the point when your job is eliminated you will sing a different tune.

The Fairness Doctrine caused station management fits, but I don't remember it ever really impinging on program content. In reality, there were never many requests for equal time.

Typically, hosts send out invitations, and very few people accept. What Republican really wants to spend three hours on Air America, and what liberal Dem really wants to spend three hours taking calls from Rush's listeners?

The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine opened the door for the Rush Limbaughs of this world. Before that, hosts were moderators and the audience was decidedly older. There were entertainers but they walked a pretty fine line when it came to politics.

The fairness doctrine is the least of radio's problems.

HD is still consumer invisible, programming is stagnant and uninvolving to most and new talent simply is not being groomed for the future.

I'm not necessarily in favor of a government mandated Fairness Doctrine (it would depend on the details)but having been a talk show host and listener in the Fairness Doctrine days I have to say that talk show hosts then definitely expressed strong political opinions on the air. The difference was that most stations had a range of hosts with varying opinions and there were more "debate" style interviews with guests expressing differing opinions. I think there was a lot less of the grade school playground type insults that seem to be so common in talk radio now, but that is probably more a result of changes in our culture than the Fairness Doctine. As a listener I find the clash of different viewpoints far more entertaining than the "one point of view 24/7" style of talk popular now. That said, I did hear #1 since the dawn of time KGO over the weekend and was very impressed with the hosts, topics, and variety of opinions. Way to go Jack Swanson!

Interesting posts so far.

IMHO, I'm not sure returning to the doctrine is justified. Too many variables and it's gonna be tough for legislators to show cause (harm) and effect (diminished harm) where this doctrine is concerned.

Non starter.

However, this debate has shown more than a suggestion that the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996 has done a lot of damage.

Seems to me, we can either allow continued consolidation until we get megabigradioco, and then regulate content --the doctrine. Or, we can diminish consolidation and let market forces then provide the diversity necessary for some measure of fairness, or at the least, simple availability of balanced content for most Americans.

Doing both is too much.

The legislators need to pick one, show cause and effect, then see where it all goes.

After some consideration, I remain in favor of not reinstating the doctrine at this time.

Mega-corporate ownership of stations is the big nut to crack that will have the best returns at this time.