Typical Democratic "we no best what's good for you".

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/business/news/e3icc47e3003d2 7448b69c1e0c82335330a

I'll be the first to say that TV programming is at it's worst ever. However, that's what the low life who watch hours of TV choose. If they didn't it would go away. People with half a brain left so something other than watch TV.

But, what makes the Democrats think they can legislate what you watch and it will be better. Have you ever seen the government be able to do anything well?

"In exchange for getting the use of the airwaves for free from the government, broadcasters are required to operate in the "public interest, convenience and necessity." While there have been different obligations placed on broadcasters under that legal rubric, exactly what that is has never been explicitly spelled out."

I think it is very easy to define: Live and local.

Is this like when the Republican Congress went into a tizzy about Janet Jackson's breast incident and the FCC massively increased penalties and fines against broadcasters who permitted lewd or obscene content? All in the name of the "public interest."

Retitle this thread "Government wants to control what you watch on TV!" and then we can have an honest discussion of regulation in general.

>>>"Is this like when the Republican Congress went into a tizzy about Janet Jackson's breast incident and the FCC massively increased penalties and fines against broadcasters who permitted lewd or obscene content? All in the name of the "public interest."


Edselehr, you won't get any argument out of me. That was about as stupid and unnecessary involvment of government as we've recently seen.


>>>"Retitle this thread "Government wants to control what you watch on TV!" and then we can have an honest discussion of regulation in general."


Read the article. It's the Democrats who are making these demands, not the Republicans. The Republicans have their own stupid ideas about controlling what we see and hear. They just happen to be different ideas, but equally stupid.

The dems want to silence Rush and Hannity, too

Herb

I think it's pretty funny seeing Dems upset about too much sex and scandal programming! To me, this is no different than trying to legislate other kinds of morality. All bad.

Deane: Things our government has done well: national forest service, infrastructure, social security, etc... there are lots of good things that have happened. --just saying.

TV is in a sorry state for sure.

My take on this story is a bit different. Seems to me the call is not for the elimination of some programming, but the inclusion of some programming currently very diminished, or absent from the airwaves period. There will continue to be sex, junk and scandals, but maybe there will also be more of substance as well.

Very curious to see what "public interest" ends up being, in this context. It might be really good, or it could go horribly bad too.

Seems to me there are plenty of venues where people can pay for crap programs. Heck, most of us are doing that right now with our subscription television feeds. Radio could go that way with Satellite systems as well.

That leaves broadcasters, using the spectrum, having to do something that benefits the public besides entertain them and show them ads.

Really that seems to be the focus of this story. So, let's pre-empt the Dems a bit and discuss just what "public interest" actually should mean!

I'll start:

-news IMHO, every broadcast station should run a newscast

(I would like to see live and local news and commentary, but would be ok with regional stuff)

-educational programming

(News for kids!)

-political programming

-locally produced programming

With your idea of "public interest", include what percentage of airtime should be in the public interest. I'm gonna say 20 percent, but that 20 percent must not be in the middle of the night.

Since this is a radio board, defining "public interest" might not be all bad! Depending on how it all goes, there might be more room for employed radio and TV people!

Thoughts?

Missing, what good does it do for the government to mandate "public interest" type programming if nobody wants to watch it?

Never, and I mean never, has the government been able to force feed programming that the public wants. Since the public "owns" the air waves, why shouldn't they be able to choose what is on the air by what they watch, not what some government bureaucrat thinks they should watch.

Which politician or bureaucrat would you pick out to dictate the programming you watch?

There is no better way to choose programming than for it to get an audience. I believe most of the things you suggest are available somewhere on cable.

We just happen to be different in that I don't subscribe to the Democrat view point that "we know what's best for you".

Heck.....99.999% of people don't even know what is best for them let alone anyone else.....especially a politician!

Actually the "we know what's best for you" bit is a non-partisan one. Both parties try this. Re-read ed's post above.

We only get to "choose" from those things large corporations deem worthy of our choice. IMHO, we either have some regulation in this, or we have less consolidation. Pick one.

I'll pick less consolidation. Consolidation was the worst move ever made in regard to broadcasting and the public benefits.

Yes, both parties do their stupid things with regard to broadcasting. The Democrats want to control content, the Republicans want to control moral issues, thanks to the religious right kooks. I don't support either party in these matters.

It can be said that the "mother" of censorship, at least in the music industry (the one most responsible for the Parental Advisory sticker on CDs with "offensive" messaging) is Tipper Gore ... and she's hardly conservative.

The Republicans get a bad rap for wanting to control peoples lives (pro-life, anti-gay rights, etc.) but in some ways people on the left are the same way.

Exactly right, Brianl. This is a non-partisan issue. The party in power will do it's best to impose it's morality on all of us through regulation. In this regard, people on the left, and people on the right, both like it when their party imposes it's will on the masses. You will like the restrictions you agree with, dislike those you don't.

Do Democrats want to have television controlled more than Republicans do? I don't think so. Democrats generally feel that our elected representatives in government are the best suited to set limits that serve the public interest. Republicans generally feel that the mass media free market is better suited to create television that serves the public need.

Hmmm... I just realized something. We have "public need" and "public interest". I believe public need refers to what people want - and a free market of ideas, as well as a free market of ownership, may very well be best suited to serve that need.

But, what exactly is "public interest?" Does this go beyond the public's wants and desires, and strives to deliver what is best for the public, despite themselves?

For example, lets assume that almost all motorcyclists prefer not to wear helmets. However, the government makes helmet use mandatory, because they feel motorcyclists need to be protected from their own willingness to assume risk, and the general public should not have to be burdened by the health care costs of caring for brain-damaged motorcyclists. Should the public interest override the public need/want in this case?

Does the broadcasting spectrum, as a public space, qualify as an arena where the government has the responsibility to minimize risk to the public? Or is the responsibility primarily to protect it as a free speech forum?

>>>"Democrats generally feel that our elected representatives in government are the best suited to set limits that serve the public interest. Republicans generally feel that the mass media free market is better suited to create television that serves the public need."

Aren't you saying here that Democrats think government knows best and that Republicans believe the people know best.

Perhaps a bigger question might be "what is the pubic need" from television?

I think "the people" is not quite accurate. Republicans believe private interests know best.

--the more substantial people, put another way.

In both cases the people are speaking. Democrats feel that voice is best transmitted through elected representatives in government. Republicans feel it is best transmitted through market forces (listenership, boycott, ownership), or "private interests" as Missing said.

I think it's important to get a bead on what is meant by "public interest". With so many of these discussions, you often go round and round until you realize what you are really debating are definitions.

"Republicans believe private interests know best."

Better than 'government knows best.'

Herb

That really depends. Sometimes government is good, other times private interests are good.

Edselehr, of course.

A survey of a coupla hundred people about what do you want, what do you need, what are you not getting from the airwaves would be very enlightening.

Herb, this is probably another whole thread or two, but differentiating those two can be interesting.

I suspect this move is to get some stuff included that Democrats want. They floated the idea of eliminating some things and that fell flat. So, adding "for balance" and "in the public interest" is the next best move.

This is not something I support without a lot more detail.

The neo-CONs want to SILENCE anyone that doesn't think as they do!

"Consolidation was the worst move ever made in regard to broadcasting and the public benefits."

Deane, right on target!

I also agree with the general consensus here that partisan politics should be of no concern to the FCC. It ought to regulate the engineering side of broadcasting, move quickly to understand new technologies and keep the airwaves from chaos. It ought to ensure that every market has a variety of owners that serve the community with live and local content without regulating the programming of the outlets.

It should not be their duty to decide what is and is not available to the public at large. It should not be their duty to deregulate and arbitrarily decide which city deserves local ownership or local content. Isn't much of what is wrong due to the agency skewing the playing field?

Aren't they there to make certain that broadcasters exist without talking over one another and to make sure that the equipment is manufactured and maintained to high standards? Isn't that enough to do for one agency? Especially when they are dealing with the whole broadcast spectrum, not just media outlets.

Local stations can decide if their audience wants something with much more insight than networks, regulators and legislators. If it won't sell or it will piss people off, I think it is obvious to the local broadcaster. They ought to have the right to act and react independently without someone holding their hand. In the long run, isn't the viewing and listening community better at deciding what it will and will not abide on the airwaves?

This congress has many more important things to do. They ought to let the rest of us spin the dial, sift through the TV Guide and decide for ourselves.

Watch what you ask for, when it comes to government intervention.

They may change the current ownership landscape once more. But the way the government works, you may be allowed only one Reggae station per market.

Go figure.

Herb

Deane... glad to see you back in the PDX saddle and I'll assume everyone's home where they should be?!

Democrats will be able to control TV companies about as much as Republicans can control Oil companies.

Mike: Yes, back in the saddle.

Everyone else:

Government control of programming is totally unworkable, no matter who wants to do it, no matter what the goal.

I don't know if some of you guys were active in the business during the previous ill-conceived attempt at control, but it was ridiculous. I was.

You had to have certain percentages of different types programming, public affairs, news, entertainment, etc. What did we do? Simple. Got doggy, canned programs off the networks and other sources and ran them in dead times like 4AM Sunday morning. No one listened to them, no one wanted to. So much for government control of programming.

Let me ask you a question. You've selected the station that plays your favorite music. All of a sudden, they have to stop playing it and run some government mandated category of programming. What do you do? We know don't we. You hit the button. Same thing will happen with TV. Remember, we now have remote controls. How fast can you exit something you don't like? Faster than a speeding bullet, I suspect.

TV is loaded with discussion programming, mostly on Sunday morning. No doubt you are all glued to it, right.

Anyone who thinks government should be involved in any way in TV programming, including Janet Jackson's breast, is surely smoking the good stuff.

Glad things went well Deane.

I think I agree with this.

We do need government to establish a market that encourages the right kinds of competition and innovation. No way around that.

define public interest, If entertaining the general people isnt in the public interest,, I dont know what is.

Or is in the public interest, giving a elite minority public supported entertainment, that couldnt survive in teh free market place.

If the people want Hogans Heroes, why should the govt try to force Masterpiece theatre on them?
Hey Hogans Heroes was great, about time someone showed the humerous side of the Gestapo!

I agree. I hope you don't misunderstand me. I am only saying that if a station were required to have a newsroom -- for instance -- and they wanted to cover nothing but fire hydrant tests and canoe racing at the top of every hour, then it is up to the market to decide if they want to hear it or not.

The only requirement is to have a news outlet available for use at the station during the broadcast day, not what it can say or how it can cover a story. At the least, a journalist on-call would be readily available for a breaking local news story in the same way that an engineer is on-call for a technical emergency. They might get there late, but they will have the tools for the job.

Good discussion Littlesongs.

Requiring a station to have a newsroom would be akin to requiring them to have a certain percentage of news as was done before. The news room would be a joke, just as the "main studios" were in the 80s.

It really boils down to the only thing that works is the marketplace. If you want to make money, you better do it right. If they don't, it's my firm belief there is nothing the government can mandate that will make it better. It's the public that has to decide with their on/off switch.

Deane, you present the free market position very well. But I keep coming back to what public interest really means - and I"m not sure what that is.

Is the radio spectrum public property? If so, then the spectrum should be managed in such a way as to serve the "public interest, convenience and necessity." Is entertainment the only way to fulfill this charge in radio? What if the "Big One" hits a 7+ on the Richter scale, and information needs to be disseminated quickly, but the local station is VT'd and there is no one there to answer the phones? What if a highly controversial decision needs to be made by the electorate and public discussion is needed, but the all-Polka station won't modify it's format for fear of losing it's audience? And we are talking about the 24th largest media market here in Portland, but what about the hundreds of small towns that have only one station, do they have a special responsibility to serve their community interests more than a station in a large market would?

I agree that market forces should, and probably would, make stations provide the appropriate mix of entertainment, news, public affairs, to meet the public interest.

But, what if they don't? The thing about freedom, and free markets, is that there also exists the freedom to screw up. Markets cannot be counted on to do the best thing every time.

DJ..
You child is safe and sound and resting at home ready to be a kid again???

"The news room would be a joke, just as the "main studios" were in the 80s."

Deane, I remember that rule too, but as a green student listening to the anguish of my elders. Since you were cited at the time -- and still are -- for being one of best in the business, I value your insight. Thank you.

If, in fact, the totally token "main studio" idea had stayed intact, didn't part of that rule include keeping a warm body in said studio all the time?

This certainly might have forced a few of these big giants to reconsider firing absolutely everyone or even make them have second thoughts about owning so many stations when they are forced to maintain so many facilities and staff. It might have kept "live and local" the rule almost everywhere, but I agree with you, even at that point, some stations were just the bird and a board-op.

Forgive my candor, I am obviously (I hope) playing devil's advocate. I think the FCC has more than enough on their plate with engineering regs and new tech. I agree with everyone who believes in letting the free market bear the burden of programming decisions.

As some here have already pointed out, the question is simple. How free is the market -- or are our airwaves, really? Many of us have asked that question of our legislators and regulators in the last decades. We still have not been given a satisfactory answer. Deregulation resulted in less competition and severe wounds to the industry. Beyond a cash injection for equipment upgrades to individual stations, it was widely a failure. What next?

Just because a store doesn't carry cocoa or bananas, doesn't mean there isn't a large market for them, only that they are unavailable. Decision makers in media headquartered thousands of miles away miss the local money every day by being out of touch with the communities they are supposed to serve. A hex be upon them for their blind stupidity.

>>>"If, in fact, the totally token "main studio" idea had stayed intact, didn't part of that rule include keeping a warm body in said studio all the time?"

Yes, during normal business hours. We simply gave a few free spots to an insurance office (or similar) to let us put a microphone and small remote amp in the office, along with the public file.

Wow. Sneaky, but brilliant. It also really answers the question of regulation quite simply.

So, we are left with the original problem. The fairness thing is a sticky issue. I have quite a few black friends (by Portland standards) and not one of them sets the Tivo or their alarm clock for the marginalized programming that targets them on our local stations at three in the morning. So, yes, it is a token and a waste of time.

Oddly enough, 24 hours a day, African-American athletes, comedians, reporters, singers and actors are driving the industry on television networks and radio stations virtually everywhere. Seems the corporate gurus will gladly catch the magic in a bottle from those who perform, but apparently giving them autonomous voices is not viewed as a viable option or a profitable investment.

It is a strange paradox that a fellow like Bustos is able to generate enough income to build a dysfunctional kingdom of Spanish stations, but WHAT, one little historic black station in Philadelphia, can't survive without being eaten by Marconi.

http://www.examiner.com/a-505946~Longtime_Black_Station_Shut_in_Philly.html

KOHI is an example of a local owner selling to local owners and not putting it in the hands of an empire. It might look genius in a few decades. When there are humans packed in so tight that it is basically one big town from Linnton to Rainier, those people will still want a voice to call their own.

Perhaps consolidation will continue until it eats itself. If, or when, the mega-corporations dump these candles back into the communities at a loss, I hope everyone gets a chance to roll up their sleeves and make some magic. The listeners have not turned the radio off nearly as much as radio has turned off the listeners.

(Sorry, in my earlier post it should obviously read, "Consolidation resulted in less competition..." I suppose the regulations on consolidation were deregulated, but that logic reminds me of Abbott & Costello.)