Discussion and Debate of the Fairness Doctrine
Miami Herald: Talk-radio industry fears fairness law could silence them
FAIRNESS DOCTRINE
Talk-radio industry fears fairness law could silence them
Some talk radio fans fear Democrats are ready to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine, which mandates ideological balance. BY GLENN GARVIN ggarvin@MiamiHerald.com
OK, dittoheads, that's my explanation of how all these bailouts are going to lead to a government takeover of the American economy that will bankrupt us all. And now I'm going to hand my microphone over to those fine young folks from Air America for the next two hours to explain how idiotically wrong I am about all this.
Can you imagine it? The Limbaugh lying down with the lamb? The Christians-and-lions slaughterhouse of talk radio turning the other cheek, or, at least, the other ear? Conservatives can -- though in place of the word imagine, they're more likely to use fear.
They say the incoming Barack Obama administration and its Democratic allies in Congress plan to strangle talk radio with fairness: specifically, the Fairness Doctrine, a long-abandoned federal policy that requires radio and TV stations to balance conservatives with liberals and vice-versa.
At its most extreme, the Fairness Doctrine might require Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck to follow every right-to-life phone call with one from a doctor who does partial-birth abortions. Or, for that matter, pro-gun-control people calling in to lefty Randi Rhodes to be balanced by commentary from AK-47 owners.
Even a more moderate and more likely scenario -- forcing stations to carry shows from across the ideological spectrum -- would wreak havoc with talk radio, station managers and other industry figures say, since most talk stations brand themselves as either conservative or liberal.
''Why would you air something your listeners don't like?'' says Brian Maloney, a former conservative talk-show host who now writes a blog called Radio Equalizer, widely read in the industry. ``Why would you play classical music on a country station? The listeners just turn it off.''
Though a resumption of the Fairness Doctrine would affect all broadcast television and radio stations, its biggest impact would be on conservatives, who by some estimates outnumber liberals on talk radio by a margin of nine to one -- in South Florida, three of the four talk stations are conservative. It's become the place where grass-roots conservatives meet, organize and develop talking points with the help of Limbaugh and other movement mouthpieces.
DECLARING A THREAT
In a circular, chicken-and-egg fashion, the threat of the Fairness Doctrine has become one of those talking points: Conservative broadcasters use it on an almost daily basis to whip up their listeners. ''The Fairness Doctrine is coming,'' Beck exhorted his audience recently. ``They are going to do everything they can to silence our voices. . . . What the hell happened to America? Do we need an alarm clock?''
Many liberal commentators, in fact, say the prospect of a new Fairness Doctrine is purely imaginary, part paranoia and part promotional device. They note that Obama himself says he's against the policy and that his administration will be too busy trying to deliver on its promises about the economy and the war in Iraq to worry about talk radio.
''I'm not sure that many of these talk-show hosts who are hyping this believe it themselves,'' says Steve Rendall, who hosts a radio talk show syndicated by the left-wing media-monitoring group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. ``It's just fear-mongering . . . They don't have a lot to work people up now, so they rely on fairness, which is pretty thin gruel.''
But if conservative warnings about the Fairness Doctrine are just a way to build radio audiences, Democrats certainly are being helpful:
• House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, earlier this year, blocked a Republican bill that would have prevented the government from resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine. ''The interest of my caucus is the reverse,'' she told reporters.
• ''I think we should all be fair and balanced, don't you?'' Sen. Charles Schumer of New York taunted Fox News last month when asked if he supported the Fairness Doctrine. He said regulating the political content of radio and TV was no different than banning pornography from the airwaves.
• New Mexico Sen. Jeff Bingaman, appearing on his state's largest conservative talk station, flatly told his host he wanted to use the Fairness Doctrine to change the station's programming. ``I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of views, instead of always hammering away at one side of the political [spectrum].''
• Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California last year threatened to hold hearings on political imbalance in broadcasting. And last week one of the state's congresswomen, Anna Eshoo, said she'll introduce legislation to make the Fairness Doctrine law not only for broadcast stations but for cable TV and satellite radio, whose content has never been regulated by the government. ''It should, and will, affect everyone,'' she said.
A LEGAL PRECIPICE
If Eshoo succeeds, it will be the first time the Fairness Doctrine has been an actual law. Until its abolition during the Reagan administration, for six decades -- in one form or another -- it was a Federal Communications Commission rule written in radio's infancy that said broadcasters must ``give adequate coverage to public issues and this coverage must accurately reflect opposing views on the issue.''
The words seem innocuous enough. But Fairness Doctrine critics say the practice was something else. Because the FCC said the doctrine required balanced programming even when no advertising sponsors could be found for opposing viewpoints, most stations shied away from political talk shows for fear of the potential costs. One of the earliest conservative talk shows, hosted by former Notre Dame law school dean Clarence Manion, was kicked off the Mutual Radio Network in 1957 because the network feared that a program on a strike in the Midwest would trigger labor-union demands for free time to reply.
Worse yet was the threat of political blackmail. Broadcasters who angered the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon White Houses regularly were threatened with the revocation of their licenses for Fair Doctrine violations. Kennedy's FCC specifically warned stations that they had to offer free time to reply to conservative programs 'presented under the label of `Americanism,' 'anti-communism' or 'states' rights.' ''
''It convinced [conservatives] firmly, and I think probably correctly, that the Kennedy administration was using the Fairness Doctrine to suppress conservative organizing,'' says Nicole Hemmer, a research fellow at the University of Virginia's Miller Center of Public Affairs who is writing a history of conservative broadcasters. ``When conservatives worry that the Fairness Doctrine will be used against them, there's some historical basis for that.''
The 1987 abolition of the Fairness Doctrine by Ronald Reagan's FCC, coupled with technological advances -- falling prices for both satellite time and long-distance telephone service, which made national syndication of talk shows practical, and the flight of music programming from the static-filled AM band to the high-fidelity FM -- led to an explosion of talk radio. In 1980, there were fewer than 100 talk shows in all of America. Now there are more than 1,500 stations entirely devoted to the format.
Now many industry analysts believe that the Fairness Doctrine could force talk radio to retrench, just as it seems poised for another huge expansion. Facing stiff competition from iPods, advertising-free satellite radio and all manner of new media, music programming on FM radio is losing listeners. Talk radio is the logical replacement.
''Talk, especially local talk, is the one thing you can't get anyplace else but radio,'' says an executive with a national radio chain that owns both right- and left-wing talk stations. ``Talk is the format least threatened by new technologies.''
But forcing stations to mix their lineups with both conservative and liberal shows will kill the demand for talk, many radio executives say. Ken Pauli, programming chief at Fort Lauderdale talk station WFTL, says he learned his lesson when he hired local journalist Jim DeFede to do a liberal show in an otherwise conservative lineup.
''Our listeners did not like that,'' says Pauli, ruefully. ''That's no reflection on Jim's talent. But when his show came on, conservatives turned us off and liberals didn't come looking for him.'' Ratings fell, and DeFede departed. Concludes Pauli: 'I don't think `talk' is a radio format anymore. It's 'conservative talk' or 'liberal talk.' Everything is a niche now.''
Even liberal talk-show hosts who might be the beneficiaries of a new Fairness Doctrine are dubious that it will really work. Rhodes, whose nationally syndicated show originates from WJNO in West Palm Beach, is skeptical that Democrats will seriously try to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. But even if they do, she doesn't want any part of it.
''I'm not into legislating my way onto the air,'' she says. 'I would never do that, I would never want that, I would never want the negative press that would go with something like that -- `She's just on the radio because of the FCC.' I'd rather go into a board meeting and make the case for great radio. Stations should pick up my show because it's great radio, not because of the Fairness Doctrine.''
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/issues_ideas/v-fullstory/story/8202...
Talk-radio industry fears fairness law could silence them
Some talk radio fans fear Democrats are ready to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine, which mandates ideological balance. BY GLENN GARVIN ggarvin@MiamiHerald.com
OK, dittoheads, that's my explanation of how all these bailouts are going to lead to a government takeover of the American economy that will bankrupt us all. And now I'm going to hand my microphone over to those fine young folks from Air America for the next two hours to explain how idiotically wrong I am about all this.
Can you imagine it? The Limbaugh lying down with the lamb? The Christians-and-lions slaughterhouse of talk radio turning the other cheek, or, at least, the other ear? Conservatives can -- though in place of the word imagine, they're more likely to use fear.
They say the incoming Barack Obama administration and its Democratic allies in Congress plan to strangle talk radio with fairness: specifically, the Fairness Doctrine, a long-abandoned federal policy that requires radio and TV stations to balance conservatives with liberals and vice-versa.
At its most extreme, the Fairness Doctrine might require Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck to follow every right-to-life phone call with one from a doctor who does partial-birth abortions. Or, for that matter, pro-gun-control people calling in to lefty Randi Rhodes to be balanced by commentary from AK-47 owners.
Even a more moderate and more likely scenario -- forcing stations to carry shows from across the ideological spectrum -- would wreak havoc with talk radio, station managers and other industry figures say, since most talk stations brand themselves as either conservative or liberal.
''Why would you air something your listeners don't like?'' says Brian Maloney, a former conservative talk-show host who now writes a blog called Radio Equalizer, widely read in the industry. ``Why would you play classical music on a country station? The listeners just turn it off.''
Though a resumption of the Fairness Doctrine would affect all broadcast television and radio stations, its biggest impact would be on conservatives, who by some estimates outnumber liberals on talk radio by a margin of nine to one -- in South Florida, three of the four talk stations are conservative. It's become the place where grass-roots conservatives meet, organize and develop talking points with the help of Limbaugh and other movement mouthpieces.
DECLARING A THREAT
In a circular, chicken-and-egg fashion, the threat of the Fairness Doctrine has become one of those talking points: Conservative broadcasters use it on an almost daily basis to whip up their listeners. ''The Fairness Doctrine is coming,'' Beck exhorted his audience recently. ``They are going to do everything they can to silence our voices. . . . What the hell happened to America? Do we need an alarm clock?''
Many liberal commentators, in fact, say the prospect of a new Fairness Doctrine is purely imaginary, part paranoia and part promotional device. They note that Obama himself says he's against the policy and that his administration will be too busy trying to deliver on its promises about the economy and the war in Iraq to worry about talk radio.
''I'm not sure that many of these talk-show hosts who are hyping this believe it themselves,'' says Steve Rendall, who hosts a radio talk show syndicated by the left-wing media-monitoring group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. ``It's just fear-mongering . . . They don't have a lot to work people up now, so they rely on fairness, which is pretty thin gruel.''
But if conservative warnings about the Fairness Doctrine are just a way to build radio audiences, Democrats certainly are being helpful:
• House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, earlier this year, blocked a Republican bill that would have prevented the government from resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine. ''The interest of my caucus is the reverse,'' she told reporters.
• ''I think we should all be fair and balanced, don't you?'' Sen. Charles Schumer of New York taunted Fox News last month when asked if he supported the Fairness Doctrine. He said regulating the political content of radio and TV was no different than banning pornography from the airwaves.
• New Mexico Sen. Jeff Bingaman, appearing on his state's largest conservative talk station, flatly told his host he wanted to use the Fairness Doctrine to change the station's programming. ``I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of views, instead of always hammering away at one side of the political [spectrum].''
• Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California last year threatened to hold hearings on political imbalance in broadcasting. And last week one of the state's congresswomen, Anna Eshoo, said she'll introduce legislation to make the Fairness Doctrine law not only for broadcast stations but for cable TV and satellite radio, whose content has never been regulated by the government. ''It should, and will, affect everyone,'' she said.
A LEGAL PRECIPICE
If Eshoo succeeds, it will be the first time the Fairness Doctrine has been an actual law. Until its abolition during the Reagan administration, for six decades -- in one form or another -- it was a Federal Communications Commission rule written in radio's infancy that said broadcasters must ``give adequate coverage to public issues and this coverage must accurately reflect opposing views on the issue.''
The words seem innocuous enough. But Fairness Doctrine critics say the practice was something else. Because the FCC said the doctrine required balanced programming even when no advertising sponsors could be found for opposing viewpoints, most stations shied away from political talk shows for fear of the potential costs. One of the earliest conservative talk shows, hosted by former Notre Dame law school dean Clarence Manion, was kicked off the Mutual Radio Network in 1957 because the network feared that a program on a strike in the Midwest would trigger labor-union demands for free time to reply.
Worse yet was the threat of political blackmail. Broadcasters who angered the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon White Houses regularly were threatened with the revocation of their licenses for Fair Doctrine violations. Kennedy's FCC specifically warned stations that they had to offer free time to reply to conservative programs 'presented under the label of `Americanism,' 'anti-communism' or 'states' rights.' ''
''It convinced [conservatives] firmly, and I think probably correctly, that the Kennedy administration was using the Fairness Doctrine to suppress conservative organizing,'' says Nicole Hemmer, a research fellow at the University of Virginia's Miller Center of Public Affairs who is writing a history of conservative broadcasters. ``When conservatives worry that the Fairness Doctrine will be used against them, there's some historical basis for that.''
The 1987 abolition of the Fairness Doctrine by Ronald Reagan's FCC, coupled with technological advances -- falling prices for both satellite time and long-distance telephone service, which made national syndication of talk shows practical, and the flight of music programming from the static-filled AM band to the high-fidelity FM -- led to an explosion of talk radio. In 1980, there were fewer than 100 talk shows in all of America. Now there are more than 1,500 stations entirely devoted to the format.
Now many industry analysts believe that the Fairness Doctrine could force talk radio to retrench, just as it seems poised for another huge expansion. Facing stiff competition from iPods, advertising-free satellite radio and all manner of new media, music programming on FM radio is losing listeners. Talk radio is the logical replacement.
''Talk, especially local talk, is the one thing you can't get anyplace else but radio,'' says an executive with a national radio chain that owns both right- and left-wing talk stations. ``Talk is the format least threatened by new technologies.''
But forcing stations to mix their lineups with both conservative and liberal shows will kill the demand for talk, many radio executives say. Ken Pauli, programming chief at Fort Lauderdale talk station WFTL, says he learned his lesson when he hired local journalist Jim DeFede to do a liberal show in an otherwise conservative lineup.
''Our listeners did not like that,'' says Pauli, ruefully. ''That's no reflection on Jim's talent. But when his show came on, conservatives turned us off and liberals didn't come looking for him.'' Ratings fell, and DeFede departed. Concludes Pauli: 'I don't think `talk' is a radio format anymore. It's 'conservative talk' or 'liberal talk.' Everything is a niche now.''
Even liberal talk-show hosts who might be the beneficiaries of a new Fairness Doctrine are dubious that it will really work. Rhodes, whose nationally syndicated show originates from WJNO in West Palm Beach, is skeptical that Democrats will seriously try to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. But even if they do, she doesn't want any part of it.
''I'm not into legislating my way onto the air,'' she says. 'I would never do that, I would never want that, I would never want the negative press that would go with something like that -- `She's just on the radio because of the FCC.' I'd rather go into a board meeting and make the case for great radio. Stations should pick up my show because it's great radio, not because of the Fairness Doctrine.''
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/issues_ideas/v-fullstory/story/8202...
Comment
About
© 2009 Created by David Lifferth on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
You need to be a member of Fairness Doctrine to add comments!
Join this Ning Network