Posted on 05/08/2009 1:05:47 AM PDT by raccoonradio
No Fairness Doctrine, says the FCC's Michael Copps.
And if the interim Chairman of the FCC says that, and candidate Barack Obama said that - maybe some of talk radio's conservative voices will lower the Fear Factor volume. But "the return of the Fairness Doctrine" has been a great straw man - Copps' phrase - for conservatives. To be sure, there are Democrats on Congress who'd like to get even with the talk radio scene of the last 20 years and level the playing field (their term). But the Fairness Doctrine would surely be called unconstitutional today and politically, it's got very little support even among progressives. Copps was instructing the re-chartered FCC Diversity Advisory Committee yesterday, and that's where he said he's interested in improving diversity. Not in telling radio what not to put on the air. But how about the FCC's pending action on "Localism"? The best guessing is still that the eventual Localism requirements will let licensees choose from a menu of recommended options. A community advisory board might be one of them. The Fairness Doctrine won't.
Read Michael Copps remarks here
http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2009/dd090507.html
Has links to Copps’ remarks in .doc, .txt, and .pdf form
Nothing to worry about...No Fairness Doctrine...Just relax...Poppies...Poppies...Poppies will put them to sleep...sleep...sleep...
A “Community advisory board” in Seattle or San Fransisco would be worse and more restrictive than any “Fairness Doctrine” the Feds could conjure up!
I’ve said that before too; usually the reason why they want to force it on talk radio is, “well, these are the public’s airwaves”. Really? How about cable TV? Well that’s
not broadcast TV that everyone can get, they say...
If it’s the public airwaves, why are licenses given to companies to run these stations? They pay money, lots of it,
to get on the air. They should have the right to broadcast what they want, provided it’s not profane (against FCC
rules), etc. Imagine going to a progressive talk station and demanding equal time for a conservative host...
It’s the free marketplace at work, and they hate this idea.
Talk radio is dominated by conservatives because it’s done well and it’s a response to the dominance by libs elsewhere. Natually, the Left wanted their piece of the pie so they brought forth Air America, etc. Big companies like Clear Channel took a chance on it; often, it bombed. In
Boston, Clear Channel switched the format to Spanish language music. It now gets ratings and makes money (though in some cases, a station need not show up in the ratings—they can still sell lots of ads, if advertisers feel they’re reaching their niche of the market.)
Recently an effort in Boston brought libtalk back on the air,
though people had to buy time (”brokered time”) to do it.
The idea was that if they sold enough ads, they could make their money back. So, why didn’t the “big companies” in
town (CBS, Greater Media, Entercom, Clear Channel) want to
put libtalk on? They found it didn’t succeed (in Boston or elsewhere) and didn’t want to take a risk, so now some
private individuals got together to buy the time from a mostly-sports station and they now have a morning host plus
Stephanie Miller, Ed Schultz, etc.
If they get ratings and listeners, fine; they did it through the free market system. If not, hey, like any business, that’s the way it goes. What they were arguing with the FD was to have to force it on. To go to the
companies I mentioned above and say, “Hey, Entercom! You have conservative Howie Carr on for four hours. We demand a liberal talk host for the same amount of time.”
Howie Carr—who was tied for #1 in his time slot (with a music station) recently—is successful because he meets a demand and does an entertaining show. People of all
political stripes tune in. Now, if the libs can do the same,
they have used the free market: meet a demand, put on a great product, and make money. If they fail, they shouldn’t go to the government to force it on —and thus BANKRUPT
the company that owns the license.
That’s right: Entercom paid money, and lots of it, for
WRKO and they are usually the top all-talk station in town.
They run Howie, and Rush, and Savage, and Ingraham because they do well. Why on Earth should the government force
libtalk on, thus resulting in plummeting ratings and
ad revenues?
“The Air America experiment is over”—the program director of Clear Channel’s WHJJ, Providence RI. After the ratings hit the toilet with Air America, they changed back to
conservative talk (Beck, Rush, Hannity, local host Helen
Glover, etc.)
And I’ve made the “apply Fairness to other media” argument too; how about putting 50 per cent conservative content into Rolling Stone?
Oh, but they’re a private company and can put in what they want—freedom of the press.
OK then. Entercom is a private company and can air what it wants. Freedom of the press.
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.