From The Hill...

June 27

House Republican lawmakers are preparing to fight anticipated Democratic efforts to regulate talk radio by reviving rules requiring stations to balance conservative hosts such as Rush Limbaugh with liberals such as Al Franken.

(snip)

“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

(snip)

Rep. Mike Pence (R), who worked as a syndicated talk radio host in Indiana before winning election to the House, is the main sponsor of the legislation. He is working with Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), a radio station owner, on the bill.

“A liberal think tank recently condemned what they called a massive imbalance on the airwaves,” said Pence. “I think a case is being made for government control of the use of the airwaves. The legislation we’re preparing is aimed at preventing that
from happening.”

(snip)

“Since the demise of the Fairness Doctrine, talk radio has emerged as a dynamic forum for public debate and an asset to the nation,” Pence wrote in his prepared remarks. “Unfortunately, in the name of fairness, there has been much talk in recent days about the need to level the playing field of radio broadcasting by restoring the Fairness Doctrine.

“Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would amount to government control over political views expressed on the public airwaves,” he wrote.

...and I have this old fashioned notion that the market still works and the First Amendment hasn't been repealed...yet!

__________________

During the past couple of decades we have seen a decline in real local radio and the increase in cookie-cutter style programming. The person you hear on the radio may be on the air in several communities and on several different stations. You may be listening in North Dakota, the announcer may be in Arkansas. Ask yourself; when was the last time you called a radio station and actually spoke with the person on the air ... in your town?

With the limited number of frequencies available in the United States, the Federal Communications Commission was assigned the task of managing the issuance of the licenses. In the Radio Act of 1927, Congress mandated the FCC's forerunner, the Federal Radio Commission (FRC), to grant broadcasting licenses in such a manner as to ensure that licensees served the "public convenience, interest or necessity." A public trustee. A licensee had to express the opinion of the minority as well as the well-funded majority. In fact, keeping their license depended on it ... not anymore.

With deregulation the responsibility shifted from serving the public to serving their pockets. Reduce staff, cut corners, syndicate, multitask, simulcast, outsource, consolidate is today's corporate mantra.

Sure, we get to hear big market talent in small towns, but at what cost? Sure, the Weather Channel records "custom" forecasts for all of its radio markets. Is that really localization? It's the freaking weather forecast! It comes FREE from the National Weather Service!

Does local radio even matter anymore? Look at the popularity of satellite radio. I've heard people who are XM or Sirius subscribers say they haven't listened to local (or terrestrial) radio since signing up. Let a natural or manmade disaster occur and we will be glued to our portable radio waiting for the latest local update. The local station will clamor for the first person they can find to go on the air. Case in point: the events of September 11th and hurricane Katrina.

Why can't we learn from these mistakes? Re-implementing the Fairness Doctrine will ignite local radio and local perspective. Its name says it all... it is a doctrine of fairness for the American people.

Of course, there are opponents to the policy. Those that have politically benefited the most from the unbridled conservative spin machine. Quoting Congressman Mike Pence (R-Indiana): "Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would amount to government control over political views expressed on the public airwaves. It is a dangerous proposal to suggest the government should be in the business of rationing free speech. "Congress must take action to ensure that this archaic remnant of a bygone era of American radio does not return. There is nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine."

Congressman Pence's statement is a perfect example of political double-speak. His statement is completely backward. Let me re-phrase his quote to create a true statement...

"Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine means all of the American public will have control over views expressed on the public airwaves. It is a sound proposal for the government to mandate that licensees will share equal time for diverse local opinion. Congress must take action to ensure that this forward-thinking guideline of an impartial era of American radio returns. The Fairness Doctrine is fair for all of America."

Take back American Freedom ... Your opinions count ... reenact the Fairness Doctrine!

I was wanting to start a thread on this but I'm glad someone else is hearing about it.

Before I get into why this shouldn't happen, I would like to point out just how upset, yet not surprised, I am that the government thinks it has a right to put any sort of control over something that can be, and has been, handled in the free market.

Anyways, here is how it looks to me. You have talk radio, which is dominated by conservatives. In the past year or so we saw the emergence of a liberal leaning radio network, air america. It failed miserably and lost a ton of money. So now that it has been determined that liberal talk radio shows can not compete in the market, our all knowing government says that we, the ignorant masses, should no longer be able to listen to what we like and that for every conservative arguement we hear we should also have to hear a liberal one, presumably because we are too stupid to A) acknowledge the fact that we are listening to a conservative/libertarian viewpoint, and B) realize that there could possibly be another side to the story. So, from what I have heard of the plan, it should go like this. When Sean Vanity is saying that we should not pass an amnesty bill the radio station would have to take phone calls from people that disagree, even though the show will be interupted and those that have their radio tuned in to hear Sean Vanity, and not some local yokel, will grow tired of not hearing Sean Vanity and give up on the station. So even though Sean and Bill invite opposing viewpoints onto their show and allow callers to voice their disagreements it is still "not fair."

This is the biggest case of sore loser I've seen. Oh wait, the air waves. Right, the airwaves are limited and therefore, for some reason, that means the government, not the private sector, should have control. Rather than have the liberal side raise the bar and be forced to make a better show and compete for a share of the market, we'll do what liberals love to do and get the government involved. When they start pushing this bull shit on newspapers and tv networks then I'll think they are sincere, but I'd still be against it.

All hail the all powerful, all knowing federal government!

__________________
Neither am I the means to any end others may wish to accomplish. I am not a tool for their use. I am not a servant of their needs. I am not a bandage for their wounds. I am not a sacrifice on their altars. ... I owe nothing to my brothers, nor do I gather debts from them. I ask no one to live for me, nor do I live for others. I covet no mans soul, nor is my soul theirs to covet.

Ayn Rand, Anthem.

Fry - there are other issues involved in this besides equal time for the Al Frankens of the world. As I wrote in my previous post - the bigger question is localizing access. I think the government involvement and rewards would be seen on a local level rather than a federal level. Do you really want the Citadels of the world presenting your local news from a control room in Boise?? That is the major reason I favor the Fairness Doctrine.

But your point about federal government involvement is well taken. Certainly with this inept administration. Maybe they should wait until 2009...

Firstly, all government is inept. It is a necessary evil, but unless the next administration wants to take away all of the power that the government has now I don't see them handling it any better than the current administration.


As far as local events go, I don't listen to Bill Oreilly or Sean Vanity to hear about what is going on in my neighborhood. I either read the paper or listen to the local shows that come on when the syndicated shows go off. If I thought that the people that were advocating the fairness doctrine were really working because they believed in fairness I might give it more thought, but I sincerely believe that they are only serving their own interests. I think that even Republicans are starting to get on board with the fairness doctrine, and this is speculation of coarse, because of the public outcry against the amnesty bill.

__________________
Neither am I the means to any end others may wish to accomplish. I am not a tool for their use. I am not a servant of their needs. I am not a bandage for their wounds. I am not a sacrifice on their altars. ... I owe nothing to my brothers, nor do I gather debts from them. I ask no one to live for me, nor do I live for others. I covet no mans soul, nor is my soul theirs to covet.

Ayn Rand, Anthem.

But what about when your newspapers and television stations are bought out and operated by media beheemoths like Citadel? Its already underway. Its the same philosophy as Walmart vs. Mom and Pop shops. It is driving out the smaller scale competition so that the power to control media will ultimately land in the hands of a select few - who will eventually own everything. I think thats a scary concept and one we are actively heading towards.

Well then we the people should take care of it ourselves. Support locally owned newspapers, stores, etc. Not cry for the emperial federal government to come and save us.

__________________
Neither am I the means to any end others may wish to accomplish. I am not a tool for their use. I am not a servant of their needs. I am not a bandage for their wounds. I am not a sacrifice on their altars. ... I owe nothing to my brothers, nor do I gather debts from them. I ask no one to live for me, nor do I live for others. I covet no mans soul, nor is my soul theirs to covet.

Ayn Rand, Anthem.

The people cannot save local medica because they do not have the funds to go up against Rupert Murdoch. The FCC - under Michael Powell - actually alllowed these media empires in to our communities after they lifted restrictions on how many media outlets they could own within one community. It has devastated local press and radio. That is WHY we need the Fairness Doctrine.

These people only have the money to do this because we give them the money to do it. Lets say that in 5 years every newspaper in the country is owned by one or two entities. If the people do not like this and begin to refuse to purchase these papers, then the market will open because of the need for a locally owned paper. So, seeing this need for a locally owned paper a bright entrepenuer takes a loan out and sets one up. Having canceled their subscription to the corporate paper, these people will begin subscribing to the locally owned paper. Justice and truth are restored and as always, we the people did it. Not the emperial federal government that more often than not works against the interest of the people.

If we give the government the power to determine what we read, see, and hear it will be a lot more difficult to take it away from them than from a private corporation. How much more power should we allow them to take from us?

__________________
Neither am I the means to any end others may wish to accomplish. I am not a tool for their use. I am not a servant of their needs. I am not a bandage for their wounds. I am not a sacrifice on their altars. ... I owe nothing to my brothers, nor do I gather debts from them. I ask no one to live for me, nor do I live for others. I covet no mans soul, nor is my soul theirs to covet.

Ayn Rand, Anthem.

Obviously we see this quite differently. I see the Doctrine actually enabling communities to make their own decisions and have more control over their media while you see it as more intrusive and controlling.

I really do not think the Doctrine would be applied as some of the more hyperbolic critics have suggested...i.e. - for each Rush Limbaugh broadcast, you must have 1 Michael Moore broadcast. It has never been interpreted that way in the past when it was law. Yikes. Can you imagine? Being forced to listen to two blowhard morons.

I think the Doctrine might allow individual communities to decide - "Hey, Citadel - no, you cannot buy ALL of our radio stations because we have a law that protects this community by supporting a certain percetange that absolutely has to be home grown." So, we are assured that the community has at least a small percentage of local representation in their media. Which is significant and also can play a role in a local emergency. If everyone at the local Citadel ranch housing the equipment for 6 radio stations under 1 roof is actually in that control room in Boise when the hurricane flies through Texarkana...thats a problem.