regulation of the AIRWAVES exists because of the limited finite nature of the broadcast spectrum. this point supercedes any other consideration in all the whiney and pouty arguments i hear on the airwaves. that in itself validates the reason for a fairness doctrine. stop using my public airwaves to dissementate your point of view.

the fact the discussion on the airwaves omits the important primary fact about the fairness doctrine and limited broadcast spectrum validates the justifacation for the fairness doctrine.

the lack of restraint and judgment when the leash was removed by those renting the public airwaves justifies reinstatement of the fairness doctrine. human nature being what it is i'm not surprised.

there is no fairness doctrine for print. why not? why are broadcast tv and radio are regulated? you can have an infinite number of newspapers or magazines as opposed to the finite nature of the broadcast spectrum. broadcasting over the public's airwaves is a privilige not a right just like a drivers license. no one is limiting anyone free speech, in fact now the playfield is leveled and anyone can disseminate their point of view in a variety of ways just as i'm doing now. and no one is limiting anyones free speech......go hook up on satellite radio.............oh i see, your too cheap to pay for that, getting your own satellite network....i thought thats what you anti-government assistance/pro-entreprenuer blowhard right-wing radio talk show hosts were all about. now i'm really confused??? you would rather just take the public handout of a broadcast license and freeload off the public....which is it? you right-wing crybabys can't have it both ways.....

Satellite radio? That is transmitted over the air too, even if reception isn't free. I would argue that if a fairness doctrine were enacted, it should encompass satellite radio.

I find it interesting that the focus of fairness doctrine discussions is entirely on conservative-leaning talk shows. What about community radio stations like KBOO, which often feature programs that are built around a certain ideological--often left of center--view? Would they have to bring in Republicans, evangelical pastors, Libertarians, or representatives from the Cascade Policy Institute to balance things out?

Even more interestingly, Monday afternoon, Victoria Taft lampooned the potential effects of re-instating the fairness doctrine saying that broadcast radio would turn into "a nation of KBOOs." She then did an impression of a hypothetical hippy-dippy DJ talking about how a particular record reminded her of a protest march she attended in Brazil. If I had been near a phone, I might have felt compelled to call in and ask, "hey--wouldn't the fairness doctrine shut down the hippy-dippy KBOO DJ, as well?"

Why are we even discussing this? I thought they threw it out!

Perhaps. But "a nation of KBOOs" made it worth the read!

There is nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine. Obama and congress seems to have put the issue on the back burner for now but later years it is very likely to come up again...and in our lifetimes could see it reviewed by the Supremes.

I still think a drivers license is a right rather than a privelege. You earn the RIGHT by demonstrating abilities to perform the function. As a privelege, you can demonstrate the abilities, yet someone with the authority can choose to withhold the license with no cause.

Yes semantics, I know.

Fairness doctrine= freedom to offer premium choice national programming. How's that for fairness. The whole country has the opportunity to participate. What's more fair than that?

LISTENERS CHOOSE WITH THEIRSTATION DIAL AND OFF BUTTON!!STATIONS HIRE SURVEY COMPANIES TO MEASURE AUDIENCE AND PICK MOST LISTENED TOO PROGRAM FORMATS!TO BROADCAST!??ADVERTIZERS BUY TIME ON PROGRAMS WITH LISTENERS!!!

So, in other words, you are saying that if a program is so repulsive that people no longer desire to listen to it, the ratings will go down? Furthermore, are you suggesting that declining ratings may be unattractive to prospective advertisers? That is a revolutionary concept! It is almost as if some kind of market system were manifesting itself there.

Without a government plan even!

Let's just break up the mega media ownership, and watch this discussion rendered completely moot.

Eh, it's gonna happen anyways.

The way I hear it, Citadel and Clear Channel may both end up in Chapter 11 in a few months.

Not a moment too soon.

As soon as holding companies quit trying to take their purchase debt out of radios ass, the sooner we get people back to work and radio on the road to improvement.

the fact is the morons running the broadcast radio industry, even without the restraints of a fairness doctrine or screwball financing schemes, make the keystone cops look like rocket scientists. you idiots couldn't air a listenable product if your lives depended on it.

as far as regulation of satellite radio goes, regulation of it would not hold up to a legal challenge since there is nothing to limit the number of satellite mediums (except the freeloading bustout cheapskates that dominate the broadcast radio industry today who don't want to put up the cash to do so...so shut up or put up blowhards).

Sorry 62kgw you have it wrong on advertisers.

You have lobbying organizations who go to advertising agents asking if they have clients who are willing to run ads on conservative talk radio, that the lobbyist will pay for. (Oh by the way it's illegal, but the FCC does not have enough people to uncover the activity and file lawsuits and penalties).

So you have average ratings on some conservative talk stations, but they can't wait to add more conservative talk shows as long as there are conservative causes willing to pay for the ads.

This was the basis that Newt Ginrich used in trying to eliminate NPR back in 1995. His complaint was that NPR was government funded and never presented the right wing view point. The only way the right wing can get their message out was by paying for Rush to be on the air.

Newt's "GOPAC" used it's tax free status to help underwrite commercials on Rush's program.

But NPR did not go away as listeners were willing to increase their contributions to keep NPR and PBS going.

But the right wing still attacks NPR for it's "left" wing slant. But the State of Oregon gives no money for NPR it is 100% listener funded. But you wouldn't know it by the way the right wing complains and lies.

So the fairness doctrine will eliminate programs where hosts and callers lie to benefit those who helped pay for the ads.

"So the fairness doctrine will eliminate programs where hosts and callers lie to benefit those who helped pay for the ads."

Wow, you've got that rubber band of truth stretched about as far as it will go.

I do hear the occasional conservative political ad on talk radio. The number of these seems to go up around election season. However, most of the ads tend to be for products and services that are not political in nature. Occasionally, I even hear ads for things that the listeners are likely ideologically opposed to, such as unions.

So the fairness doctrine will eliminate programs where hosts and callers lie to benefit those who helped pay for the ads.

So who determines what is a lie and what is the truth?

The so called Fairness Doctrine has no revalence today, it was meant when we had just three networks. Today we have cable, internet...

"So the fairness doctrine will eliminate programs where hosts and callers lie to benefit those who helped pay for the ads."


FAUXNews is F'ed then!

I find it funny all the conservatives are here to oppose the fairness doctrine. I have to wonder if the democrats had benefited from the power of talk radio and if talk radio was dominated by liberal hosts, would you conservatives be as up in arms as you are?

Personally, I don't think we really need it. Despite Herb's many declarations of the death of Air America, liberal talk seems to be catching up and is competing with the cons on the radio. Are they as popular as Rush Bigmouth and Savage of the backwoods, no. However, given time and a good product they can be. Let's leave things as they are and let the free market do it's job.

remove Scare-America from 620 and all other frequencies!!remove Scare- America now!!!

This morning I caught a segment of the Michael Smerconish show where he was interviewing a reporter from The Guardian, a British newspaper. The reporter stated that in England there aren't any shock jocks or talkshow hosts who deliberately try to advance specific ideological viewpoints. He stated that he believed that these exist in the US because of the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. However, he said, British newspapers often tend to be ideologically biased. I think that a tube of toothpaste might be an appropriate metaphor for these scenarios.

" Let's leave things as they are and let the free market do it's job."
Best thing I have heard about this subject.

Should a free market be allowed to monopolize a finite resource?

It's as simple as this;

Produce a popular program, listeners tune in, ratings go up, advertisers pay to for spots on the program, the program stays on the air.

If the above doesn't happen the program gets cancelled.

Doesn't matter if it's a right wing program or a left wing program, that's how it works.

Forcing a broadcaster to give equal time is a form of censorship.

The only people supporting the (un)Fairness Doctrine are the leftys and liberals because they can't get a program to stay on the air very long.

But it's not simple.

Edit: Actually it is. It's just broken right now.

Lots of stations, one would argue the majority of good sticks, are controlled by a very few entities.

Producing a popular program is easier when that program doesn't really have to compete with others.

Break up big media, and I'm there. Market forces will work as they should and there won't be any problem.

BTW: Nobody on the left, but for a few that can't get over their own issues, wants a fairness doctrine.

What we do want (and I consider myself on the left solid enough to say) is for the "market" structure to be such that real and meaningful competition occurs.

In that kind of environment, put the programs up, and the good ones, right, left or other, will stand just fine.

And that's equitable to everyone involved too. Not fair. Equitable.

> Should a free market be allowed to monopolize a finite resource?

I don't know that our system could be called a "free" market. Nonetheless, I would argue that our system, as currently implemented, promotes air monopolies for those willing to pay enough for this luxury. Look at Qualcomm's MediaFLO system (marketed as Vcast TV): that is a national license for 716-722 MHz. Qualcomm's FLO TV division owns the license. See http://www.mediaflo.com/

It's always amazing to watch the conversation on the political side of our forum as it's easy to see where most of the opinions weigh in at. That's why I don't jump in on those.

However, after reading this on our standard "blog" side, and being that I am one that still works in radio and see how this "topic" can affect my line of work, I'll ask this simple question. I hope that ALL of my mormally silent radio brothers and sisters will also "chime" in for at least one "yeah" or "nay" to this question.

Who, with my own hand raised, worked in radio prior to 1987 and remembers the former world of the FCC's Fairness Doctrine?

If you said "yes", then being the betting man that I am, who hasn't lost in a ratings book yet (fingers crossed here).... you know EXACTLY what is being attempted and you've just earned what should be "your right" to be in any regulatory meetings involving the governments attempting to do it again.

And my bet is, you DIDN'T get your invitation either, so if you are still in radio, call your senator and representative, before too many of those that don't understand do call.

Having enjoyed my life being born and raised in America, but also spent living time in Canada, Sweden, Russia and America, plus also knowing radio counterparts in those countries, I'm going to work at "STOPPING" the Fairness Doctrine act!

Skybill said:
It's as simple as this;

Produce a popular program, listeners tune in, ratings go up, advertisers pay to for spots on the program, the program stays on the air.


Well then I guess all sports talk should go off the air since their ratings are constantly low.

And if Herb is still here his Church recently sponsored Dave Ramsey's "National Town Hall" about the recesssion. I thought what is the pitch for the churches, to get the liteners to contibute more to their church?

Sure enough it was, the last 5 minutes of the show Ramsey said the recession will end and we must start now giving more to "Charity".

In my neighborhood we have three "Faux" Christian Churches who have seen a huge drop in attendance since the October Stock Market crash, one of them is trying to wiggle out of paying for a traffic light they agreed to pay operation costs for due to their drop in donations.

So they invested in Ramsey to try and get their donations up.

Gee I didn't know Ramsey was God. And if he is he wouldn't need a radio frequency to get his message out.

I'm going to work at "STOPPING" the Fairness Doctrine act!

Hey that's fine, but it's a little like THIS.

No it isn't. The process has not begun yet. There is always a chance.

>>didn't know Ramsey was God
He's not...you're looking to low...look higher.

No it isn't. The process has not begun yet. There is always a chance.

There is better chance that this planet will be destroyed by a foreign object and conservatives will not have to worry about any stinking Fairness Doctrine.

Where would conservative talk radio be without their boogie-men?

Seriously!!

I think the chance is bigger just because those people obssessed with it, won't shut up about it!

NOBODY cares about a fairness doctrine.

The only reason it even continues to come up is many conservatives worried to the point of going nuts about it, or wanting it to move forward so they can motivate the loyal, and a few moron Democrats thinking they can hose things up for a bit of revenge.

Truth is, Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. are doing just fine as they are! Put 'em on the air more! You can't buy progressive advocacy like that! And they are getting paid to do it, looking like fools the whole time.

Most of us get it. We see them as the carnival barkers they are and that's the end of it. Let them bark big. I appreciate their efforts to continue to remind us why we changed direction nationally. Thanks!

Andy summed up the doctrine here a while back. It's not getting past SCOTUS. Nobody will seriously take the legislation anywhere, just like tons of other feel good bills that get written and shown on coffee tables in return for donations from losers, who think that stuff matters.

Best radio I've heard lately is Savage just going bat-nuts crazy over not being allowed to travel to the UK! Hilarious.

There will be no serious legislation on fairness. If anything, addressing media consolidation will come first. Traditional media used to matter more. Choices were less then, and trust was higher. Going down that road made some sense.

Today, trust is lower, relevancy is lower, and choice is off the charts. The interesting thing is keeping this "oh my god, here comes the doctrine" crap up, just exaberates that.

Continue at your own peril.

"The so called Fairness Doctrine has no revalence today, it was meant when we had just three networks. Today we have cable, internet..."

your argument against a fairness doctrine supports my argument for it and supports the contention that all the crybabys out there are too cheap to utilize those alternate infinite mediums..... thats what this is all about..who are you bozos kidding? what strawberry patch did i just crawl out of?

instead they want to control a finite medium which is a public entity..........i don't have any control over the fact that the vast majority of those crybabys happen to be those doing the right-wing schtick....this is not a political argument but these clowns sure like to make it one!

the fact is the majority of radio listeners are mobile so the finite aspect of radios broadcast spectrum is still relevant in how much broadcast radio is accessed as a total percentage of how that medium is utilized as a whole. most listeners tune in the radio in their car, broadcast AM or FM... as a comparison, tv is utilized primarily at home and not moblie so the alternate mediums of satellite and cable are not only available but more readily accesible at home compared to the car.

if satellite radio isn't as easily accessible or if satellite radio isn't as integrated as cable or satellite tv whose fault is that? the unregulated satellite medium awaits any who want to say whatever they want and broadcast whatever they want without any threat of a fairness doctrine or anything else...........go..........do it.......don't let the door hit you in the ass........

its crazy that i can listen to a random aircheck from 1969, 40 YEARS AGO, and it kicks the ass of ANYTHING that exists today.......thats where i am coming from......it isn't political at all

radio can continue it's decent into oblivion for all i care

And that has nothing to do with fairness.

Really, your beef is media consolidation.

Wqxikid, I assume from the flavor of your posts you're about 12 years old. FYI, the Fairness Doctrine has nothing to do with consolidation, what radio sounds like today, or satellite delivery.

....let the free market do it's job."

I would have liked to see that with the banks and auto companies. THAT would have shaken the "Business as Usuals and Mo for me none for you-ers"
The bailouts did nothing to fix the underlying problem. I like free markets too, BUT it comes with a responsibility, and too many MEGA businesses did not police themselves. So, if they were willing to stretch the rules, then they can deal with the consequences of failure and increased regulations........

And as missing points out, the lines are blurring between the fairness doctrine and media consolidation. they may be cause and effect, and linked, but really are two separate issues. I think DE-CONSOLIDATION might make the fairness doctrine issue a moot point.

Back to the free market point. The big boys didn't keep their house in order, didn't deliver what they said consolidation would bring, and time has come to step in. The party turned into a drunken brawl, and it's time for the cops to break it up.

George Santayana, (1863-1952) was a famous philosopher, essayist, poet and novelist, once said "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."


Very timely words in relation to the fairness doctrine. I wonder how many who advocate its return actually worked in radio when it existed. It was undoubtedly one of the most repressive and restrictive policies ever placed on broadcasters.

I would hate to see it return.

It's not the fairness doctrine that's gotten radio into this mess. It's the ownership rules and abandonment of the notion that broadcasters serve the community in the public interest as public trustees. Then you start jiggering around licenses and the allocation tables, then you choke out the few locals that remain and viola' welcome to 2009. But, that's just me.

.... that's just me.

and thousands more.

Joe is right...those times were like walking on eggshells.

As I've heard it, the President says he's not looking for it to be reinstated...and the pro-tem chairman of the FCC has said the same thing.

I think it's safe to stand down...

Oh, and JK...AMEN to that!

Okay we should address the Ownership of the frequencies. When the renewal comes up they state that you can come into the station and review the documents, which are to include "community in the public interest" items.

So when anybody on the air makes a statement that is false and they refuse to correct their misstatement at least ten times a quarter, then their license should not and must not be renewed.

This is not a free speech issue, but making statements of fact must be true and correct. One issue placed by the right wingers now is if we bring in prisoners from Quitmo they will automatically be able to collect food stamps and welfare.

That is so far from the truth, in fact it's impossible. So they could correct the statement within the first commercial break for no penalty. Or if they don't make the correction and do it nine more times then they would loose their license.

So most recently the reason stated for moving the baseball stadium to Lents Park is because the Coliseum really couldn't become a "AAA" baseball park.

The other half of the story is they would need to buy some adjacent land to make the transaction happen.

The owner of the land has a track record of becoming wealthy from being Johnnie on the spot for buying land before a change in use comes up and demanding much much much more than he invested in the land. He continues the investment by going to members in the press and mentions how bad a site Lents Park is, and so the lazy reporters report how bad a site it is.

But the lazy reporters don't report that their information is coming from people who are lobbing, or employees of the developer.

So these reporters should be willing to admit they were fooled, but instead they go on to the next story. So their story was not "in the community interest" as it was false, and really an advertisement for the developer to get get richer.

Author: Saveitnow
Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 12:19 pm

"Okay we should address the Ownership of the frequencies. When the renewal comes up they state that you can come into the station and review the documents, which are to include "community in the public interest" items. So when anybody on the air makes a statement that is false and they refuse to correct their misstatement at least ten times a quarter, then their license should not and must not be renewed."


Why don't you challenge the renewal. The methods for a license renewal challenge is public information. Lots of people and organizations do it. Look it up and file a challenge. Stop being a victim. Stand up and make a difference.

The real issue to deal with is the fact that the FCC wants to force stations to be sold to "minority" owners. What constitutes a minority? How should I know? I'm a radio guy, not a census taker. The fact the FCC wants to force stations to sell against their will is not free market, and is not in the public interest. That is, however, not the most nefarious issue they plan to enact.

They also want to regulate what time and how long "local" programming is done.

Of all the major AM talk stations (who I believe are the targets of this movement), all 4 produce at least 4 to 7 hours of local programming a week. 5-9a is usually local (except KUIK and KPOJ, which have local on from 6-9a), focusing on hard news and info for the people, and the other stations vary on their time frame for when they do their other local schtick.(KXL 12-3p, KEX 4-7p, KUIK 3-6p, KPAM 5-8p)

Unnecessary rules, "local" boards that will attempt to enforce rules that are already being followed without actually being rules, and a lot more, will cause people to find their stuff elsewhere.

"KXL 12-3p"
Actually, it is 12-4P. That fourth hour may be Lars National hour but it originates from KXL and is locally originated. The first three hours are also fed to other stations in the Northwest so you might say it is Regional.

One thing I often wonder about is that if News is so important in morning drive, why isn't it just as important in afternoon drive?

"local" boards"

The stupidest and most worthless idea anyone could come up with.

Radio does not need public input, local boards, anything else other than good local programmers free to do what they know how to do. What needs to go is top end management like John Hogan of CC and Lew Dickey of Cumulus and others like them. It's top management that's killing radio, not the lack of a Fairness Doctrine, not lack of "local committees" (reminds me of Communist Russia).


"I think it's safe to stand down... "

Right on. Not. Go to sleep on this one and watch what you get. This will not be a head-on assault. They'll try to sneak it through before anyone figures out what's happening.

Okay we should address the Ownership of the frequencies. When the renewal comes up they state that you can come into the station and review the documents, which are to include "community in the public interest" items.

And, right here on PDXRadio, it's been said before that one of the most evil things to do is put on your finest suit, and stroll in to the main lobby of a radio station during the lunch hour and ask to view the public file.

They'll try to sneak it through before anyone figures out what's happening.

I'm going to have to say that I agree with Deane on this one. Additionally, there's the added distraction of record companies wanting royalties from radio stations, which has seemed to become a much larger pressing issue.

Who wants music radio to go under and/or all stations play the same five artists that have special radio deals because every other artist/label demands huge sums of money for what amounts to free advertising/publicity for them? I sure don't.

Who wants news radio to go under because stations couldn't air a single story unless they had talking points from both major sides involved? I sure don't. (Note: there are more than two sides to almost every issue.)

If you ask me, it sounds like someone somewhere would like to shut down radio in favor of pay services and/or using the spectrum for something else. I sure don't want that to happen, either.

I take all these arguments against the fairness doctrine to heart; it's clearly unpopular in the industry, as it is a PITA to implement. And it may not have a place in today's multifaceted media environment.

But I do wonder why conservatives are up on arms about the supposed reinstatement of the doctrine. Conservatives are unendingly proud of the "fairness" of their totally fair Fox News. And, conservatives declare loudly that the media up, down, and sideways, (except Fox) is nothing but liberal bias. Conservatives who, accordingly to their own analysis of media bias, SHOULD gain incredibly by a reimplementation of the fairness doctrine.

If this were all true, and the fairness doctrine were reactivated, then every station would be fair and balanced - just like Fox. Isn't that a conservative's dream?

>>every station would be fair and balanced - just like Fox
Have you listened to talk radio lately? How would this whole thing be regulated...it would be a mess to deal with.
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS in America please!

One morning s couple years ago, I interviewed a contractor to do a home repair project.Just after 9 AM, he said he had toleave and go back to his truck because Al Franken was coming on the radio,and he had to listen to that!!guess who did NOT get the project!!??

"guess who did NOT get the project!!??"

Because he was more interested in getting in is truck and listening to the radio rather than doing is job ?

Or because he chose Franken over Rush ?

While I don't advocate a return to the Fairness Doctrine I did host talk shows under the old doctrine (in fact I was on the air doing a show at KXL when the story broke about the doctine being abandoned) and I can honestly say: I never heard the Fairness Doctrine discussed in hiring hosts and choosing topics. (in fact, talk station that took phone calls were generally assumed to be in compliance. Also, there were conservative talk show hosts on the air in those days. It may be that politicians could come up with some sort of rule that would limit right-wing talk (and I'd be against it) but the old Fairness Doctrine certainly didn't do that.

> If you ask me, it sounds like someone somewhere would like to shut down radio in favor of
> pay services and/or using the spectrum for something else. I sure don't want that to
> happen, either.

Over the weekend, I was thinking of a tongue-in-cheek business proposal to post on this board, designed to tick off as many people as possible. Astute readers of this board will notice that I am parodying a service that is already on the air.

Briefly, the idea would be to raise enough money to buy a nationwide license for 106-108 MHz. A network of terrestrial transmitters would be built, first in large metro areas, that would broadcast digital audio streams, using a proprietary encoding technology. To receive the service, one would have to buy a receiver and pay a monthly subscription fee. Subscribers had better hope that the company doesn't go out of business, or else they will be left with expensive electronic paperweights that won't receive anything.

How would this be different from conventional broadcast radio? It would be exempt from the fairness doctrine because it is a pay service. And, of course, the channels are all digital.

Frankly, the plan of a "premium" terrestrial service that offers a wide range of programming does not tick me off at all. Such a service should be uncensored and commercial free. Parental "lock out" features could be incorporated into the receiver design, to provide "user censorship", if desired.

The idea of using the "digital"* part of the FM band for digital radio brings a smile to my face, but I would think that changing the present allocations would be a huge mistake. Ch 6 perhaps?

* The original plan was for 106-108mHz to be used for Fax.

I didn't think that you would get mad; I was thinking more of our "usual suspect" (wink, wink). I had the old proposed facsimile service in the back of my mind, but it was the re-allocation of UHF channel 55 to Media Flo TV that I was really trying to parody.

hey deane_johnson, it only makes sense that the way you choose to refute the irrefutable is to make an immature and juvenille attack against the facts and me. what an exceptional response! no wonder local radio is in such a pathetic state with people like you out there...

yes the truth hurts. however the truth will see the light of day! and all the right-wing crybabys like YOU that have leeched off the public airwaves, well guess what, you are all going to have to go back to selling universal life insurance or shaklee or beanie baby partys or whatever you were doing before you saw the opportunity to try and twist the public airwaves in to your own personal political opinion machine.

you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre and you can't monopolize the public airwaves to dissemenate your political point of view. thats what print and cable and satellite is for so there are plenty of unregulated mediums for you pigs to utilize. and since you slobs continue to cry about your free speech rights when the alternate mediums are there for anyone that wants to use them, one can only conclude this is about you people wanting to have control over the public airwaves which is precisely what broadcast regulation seeks to prevent. gave ya'll the benefit of a doubt, went full circle, you had your chance and you blew it.

with your track record of controlling the public airwaves buy shutting out opposing viewpoints who is guilty of supressing free speech?

As far as I know, "deane_johnson" never did politically themed talk radio; he was a Top-40 guy years ago. He now runs a company that sells Venetian blinds or some similar product.

>>shutting out opposing viewpoints
guess your stations of choice would be KPOJ, KBOO, OPB, and occasionally when the morning FM show's talk political.

I think wqxikid's posts sort of speak for themselves. No need for further comment.