I've been tossing the fairness doctrine up on Kos, for some interesting discussion.

What's the take here on that dynamic? Let's say it's first amendment protected to do conservative radio the way it's most often done. (I'm leaving hate out of the discussion because it's inflammatory, so let's don't go there please!)

Isn't it then also fair to speak up about it?

What can we expect radio to do, should there be more citizen activism? Will the industry adapt? Will there be other programming? Will it kill talk for cost reasons?

Please, stay politically neutral. Let's just discuss the dynamics and how it might play out. Remember, there is some programming everywhere that others will be offended by.

Kos discussion here, FYI. (that is political)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/27/134847/11/84/667070

I'm hoping to get some depth on just what might happen to radio in general, and that won't happen on Kos.

I think a return to the Fairness Docrine is very unlikely, but regardless of the probabilities involved, I don't see anything from our past experience with the FD that threatens talk radio, conservative or whatever. I hosted talk shows under the old FD (I remember being on the air at KXL when the story of the FD being repealed cleared the wire) and there were plenty of conservative talk show hosts around, as well as liberal hosts and many in between. As I remember, since talk shows accepted phone calls they were exempt from the Fairness Doctrine. (it essentially just applied to news and public affairs) My personal theory is that since some hosts seem to thrive on the idea of defending themselves or their opinions from some threat...this is largely an invented, imaginary danger. btw, I don't support a return to the FD, but I don't see any serious support for it anywhere, Pres.-elect Obama and most members of Congress are on record as being against it, aren't they? Anyway, for what it's worth.....

As I recall, Ralph Weagant once used that excuse for a fine and the FCC didn't buy it!

I don't think it will happen either. In fact, I'm really focused on doing what I can to shut that discussion down.

We don't need it today.

What I was interested in was radio focused reaction on a greater emphasis on citizen advocacy. Say we've got more people calling sponsors, posting up audio, and generally being a PITA. (from a broadcasters perspective)

On one hand, I think it will mitigate how easy it is to sell hateful radio. It will still sell easily, but the returns won't be good, or it might actually cost!

So then, what happens?

Will we just get better talk radio, or will something else happen?

That's what I was hoping to talk about...

--->and I'm asking because I'm seriously considering some advocacy toward that exact end, but remain unsure if it's the right thing to do. the perspective here is probably good.

For what it's worth, the various polls and such I've tried indicate that about half of us are into the doctrine. Maybe (40/60). Interestingly, that number drops to about 20 percent or so, if something is being done.

So, is this that something, or is something else that something? Media consolidation comes to mind, but that will take a while...

It would be interesting to see, from the broadcasters' and sponsors' experiences, what kinds of things generate the most listener complaints. For complaints to be generated, somebody needs to get offended by what is on the air. There are a lot of factors in play here:
1) Being offended is subjective. There are things that may not be offensive to you but might be deeply offensive to somebody else, due to the way that person's values or sense of decorum.
2) Popular programs are more likely to generate complaints because more listeners means an increased chance that some of them will take offense.
3) If a program catches the attention of an astute watchdog organization who can effectively mobilize non-listeners to complain, that will artificially generate a lot of reaction.

Other than programming that advocates violence toward or blatant discrimination against a person or group, I believe that "hatefulness" is hard to define. We have grappled repeatedly on this message board, for instance, whether expressions of certain types of Christian doctrine that declare homosexuality to be sinful, are hateful. What about the viewpoint, once expressed by Dr. Laura Schlessinger, that homosexuality is a biological anomaly; is that hateful?

absence of malice

Is it OK to misidentify a Sponser? ther day I heard one announcer/Host refer to the "Salamander Insurance company".We all Know what he was actually refering too!!I Think?Right?to meet F&B rules, if you have a "Imagine world Peace" sticker, you need to also have an "Imagine Whirrlled Peas" sticker!Likewise, if you have a "Save the Whales" you need to also have a :Nuke the Whales!"ticker?

Was the host just talking about Geico when he called them the "Salamander Insurance Company," or was he doing a commercial? Live-read commercials seem extremely rare these days, most likely because of the potential for embarrassing bloopers.

They do live read spots all the time on KGO.

The faux controversy over The Fairness Doctrine is a stunt. It's made Hannity even more unlistenable than before. He complains that newspapers and TV networks wouldn't be held to the rule, a non sequitur used as a diversion. Newspapers aren't trustees of a public resource, and networks aren't broadcasters, only their affiliates. Limbaugh and Hannity wouldn't be held to the FD either. Their affiliates would.

That's where the real cost would be. All the automated satellite talk stations would have to keep transcripts, and have some mechanism for contacting individuals or groups mentioned.

I did talk during the FD days. Stations were required to inform organizations and individuals of negative comments made about them, provide transcripts, and offer time for a response. It was a big paperwork hassle, and added a few inches to the public file, but it was extremely rare for anyone to accept the offer to come on and rebut what was said.

Callers only made it worse. You couldn't dump the call from the delay just because you thought the caller was headed toward a Fairness Doctrine trigger, or you'd be dumping a majority of calls.

The real issue which will prevent the return of the FD is the fear that pinching talk radio would risk the bankruptcy of a large number of AM stations during a deep recession.

not a commercial, talking to a caller!!who had some issue with Salamander Insurance!!

The Fairness Doctrine is a stunt. It's made Hannity even more unlistenable than before.

Than before? Insannity has been that way for at least 6 years now....

What changes will 620 malle to complywith ff-and-b?
more Super62 Oldies???