Posted on 11/09/2008 8:35:55 AM PST by dbacks
By diluting the **highly** profitable political talk format (i.e. conservative) with unpopular and unprofitable (i.e liberal) hosts, there is not the slightest doubt that other formats will become relatively more profitable than popular political talk. Thus, the Fascist...uh...'Fairness' Doctrine (as applied) will cause an enormous number of AM/FM stations to change formats within a year.
“The way Dick Morris was talking on Hannity & Colmes Friday night, Congress doesn’t have to do a thing.”
The FCC can regulate but is still under the scrutiny of the FCC. Congress can legislate but the same applies. It will ultimatelybe a Supreme Court issue.
Get off the "attack all vanities" fad, would you? Discussions like these are more important than ever right now.
If you need to see an "official" MSM title at the masthead of every thread, then pick up a copy of the NY Times and wear yourself out.
Not really. If it were that simple, it would mean that every conservative talk radio station would only have to cut its profits by half - donating time that is making $ for them to unprofitable endeavors like Err America that generates no revenue.
The old Fairness Doctrine was designed to remove ANY political speech or religious speech deemed controversial. How did it work? Every comment that was made that could be construed as conservative was met by a barrage of thousands of opponents who demanded equal time to state each and every one of their opinions and beliefs. If a station were to permit every person who wanted to comment on the conservative or religious comment made, there weren't enough hours in the day to permit all of them to speak. The solution: Remove the program making the comment that brought all the opposition and run something totally uncontroversial like sports, gardening, cooking, health, etc. Voila! Rush and all the other conservative talkers gone...Poof!
Why would this bankrupt talk radio? Talk radio exists because there is a market for it, people will buy ads to hear Limbaugh, Hannity, even Ed Schultz. The Fairness Doctrine is outdated and dumb, but it won’t modify this demand. What it could do is force stations to provide opposing views, which could be done in various ways, such as using the new HD digital channels that many stations have the technology for, but haven’t figured what to do with anyhow. Broadcasting is a completely different business than it was when the Fairness Doctrine was in force, and it can and will continue to evolve.
Moreover there’s satellite radio and internet audio which already provide “fairness” via a plethora of channels, and against which terrestrial radio stations must come up with ways to compete anyhow.
There’s a lot of overblown hype going on, in time the media will adapt and new business models will emerge, even if Congress is stupid enough to try to force the issue again.
Getting past the Supreme Court is probably not hard. First issue an executive order expanding the composition of the court to 11 members. Get two nominees through the Senate in record time; I’m sure John McCain will do whatever he can to help, in the interest of bipartisanship and collegiality.
Then pass and sign the law. It’s an automatic 6-5 decision.
To defeat this, we need to change the debate by insisting that broadcast television and cable TV be included in any legislation that seeks to institute the Fairness Doctrine.
To that end, we ridicule the idea that ‘fairness’ can be achieved by enacting the Fairness Doctrine on radio alone. Ridicule the idea that PBS is fair when they include only a token conservative viewpoint every now and again.
Ridicule MSNBC. Ridicule Olberman’s show . . . and Olberman.
Ridicule.
You are sadly misinformed.
CONSERVATIVE Talk radio exists because there is a market for it.
Liberal talk (Air America has gone bankrupt TWICE) and the few remaining are in serious financial troubles. They are kept alive by large infusions of $$ from Geo Soros and others.
Your eyes are getting very heavy. The sound of my voice will lull you to sleep.
There’s nothing to worry about. Everything is okay. He really is your friend. Congress really does care about you. They just want to have a variety of channels available so people can choose for themselves, and be free to hear whatever points of view they wish. They have no wish to control information or choices.
Your eyes are getting heavy. Soon you will be out.
Your description of the original Fairness Doctrine is factually incorrect. The origin and history is fully documented in a number of papers and websites.
Here is a good summary: http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm
The very issue - the scarcity of broadcast resources - that drove the adoption of the Fairness Doctrine in the first place, no longer exists. Sure, the Democrats can try to warp it into something else, but that’s why we have an obligation to A) understand the true history and rationale and B) to act as the loyal opposition.
If you choose to believe the EXCUSE for the “Fairness Doctrine” that’s fine by me. However, I remember HOW it was applied and what it did. A station had to put on every nitwit stutterer, raving looney, etc., who demanded to make a counter-comment and AM radio was a vast wasteland of bubblegum music, irrelevant cooking, Dr. Psycho and Dr. Hangnail programs. To say it was ghastly was the understatement of the century. The ONLY reason anyone listened to it was because their chintzy car had no FM radio and they were on a trip.
That is as pointless as getting it from ABCNNBCBS or PBS.
I beg your pardon, but I have facts to back up what I said.
Here are the top 10 “most important” talk show hosts from Talkers Magazine’s from the 2008 Heavy Hundred:
1. Rush Limbaugh
2. Sean Hannity
3. Michael Savage
4. Dr. Laura Schlessinger
5. Glenn Beck
6. Laura Ingraham
7. Don Imus
8. Ed Schultz
9. Mike Gallagher
10. Neal Boortz
Note that I specifically used Ed Schultz because he has developed a more successful business model than other left-wing talkers. That’s why I used him as an example.
Radio is a business in which programming is the platform that drives the sale of advertising. That’s why many radio station owners personally are liberals, but they make lots of money by airing predominantly right-leaning programs.
Historically the programming that has been successful has been that which caters to the views of a center-right nation that the US is. When left-liberal programming has been introduced, the market has rejected it in most cases.
If the government tries to mandate equal time or “fairness” it will not diminish the demand for center-right programming. The business model may have to change, however.
Hum. Rush is saying they will. Top ‘Rats are saying they will. We all know how much The One likes debate.
OF COURSE THEY WILL.
I don’t even think they’ll bother will the scenario Rush talked about. They’ll just do it as soon as the one takes over.
Don’t look for much coverage of this in the MSM btw.
“If the government tries to mandate equal time or “fairness” it will not diminish the demand for center-right programming. The business model may have to change, however.”
What is your point? Ed Schultz has virtually no audience compared to the top 5. One ultra left against 6-7 very successful conservative talkers.
And Dr. is Not political talk so she doesn’t count.
You haven’t ‘backed up’ anything.
and AFAIK, the ‘doctrine’ requires hour per hour, show per show, listeners per listeners, host per host equal time.
Just how could this be “administered”? It would result in an administrative nightmare that NO radio station would or could put up with. Every conservative show would be hit with dozens of lawsuits just as the ok to build a refinery in Elk Point, SD was hit with a dozen lawsuits the day it was issued.
[It would take years to just get through the lawsuits that would result.]
The first lawsuit would be against Rush Limbaugh. But the second would be for equal time for every word of George Stepenonallofus. Be careful what you wish for.
.....What will you do?....
I’m not sure.
When it was obvious in late 2000 that the media was really the enemy and that black votes were imperative to win, I decided that we needed to find a way to combat media bias and that might be something I could work on. I watched to my dismay as complacency set in and the danger ignored and forgotten.
I worked hard, spent goodly sums of both time and money and that is now to no avail. But based on my passed efforts, I’m disgusted and pretty sure the conservative movement as represented here is apathetic,lacks the will to act and will not recover.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.