Fairness Doctrine Floats Back to the Top

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Griff

I missed the whole episode. What were you trying to amend?

It was a 45? -year-old mayor who was found to have been gay-boning an 18-year-old. We were in the midst of finding news that erased the party affiliation. The Wikipedia entry had been cleansed of party affiliation, so I found it and put it into the entry. It was immediately cleansed again, the "excuse" being that the position of mayor was non-partisan. I found a cite from his own biography and placed the affiliation in a lower section of the entry. That must have stuck because it wasn't removed.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Griff

...except that the adverts are sold by Clear Channel not the local station.

Still a free market, even if you don't like it. Go start your own radio station with a different stance or approach on the issues, hey, you could call it Air America. See how that works out for ya. Typical BS. It is about have's and have-not's. Market forces drive the industry. I know since we don't like mega corps to own the airwaves let's just let the Federal Government control it!

There have been numerous studies on the adverse impact of radio ownership consolidation as a result of the Federal Communications Act that deregulated ownership.

- far less local content and local ownership
- far less diversity of content

The top four radio station owners now have nearly half of the listeners nationwide...with packaged programming.

IMO, that is not the best use of the public airwaves.

I dont know that the return of the Fairness Doctrine is the answer.

I do believe that there should be a return to restrictions on ownership (number of stations a company can own in one market) and far greater open competition and access for licensing.

The public airwaves are not a commodity that should be controlled by a small number of mega-corps.

[Griff]

You can't start a radio station in America, it is verboten. The Feds control access to the air waves. For the most part mega-corps control the content. The Air America disaster was a Democrat attempt to follow the Limbaugh prototype. They sucked and lacked Limbaugh's timing. I don't support the fairness doctrine but I also don't support the Feds protecting corporations from competitors. We need to loosen up the license distribution for low and medium power radio if we want a freer market. Radio is a closed market enforced by the Feds. The fairness doctrine is a democrat solution for a democrat problem not an attempt at free speech protection.

Originally Posted by Griff

You can't start a radio station in America, it is verboten. The Feds control access to the air waves. For the most part mega-corps control the content. The Air America disaster was a Democrat attempt to follow the Limbaugh prototype. They sucked and lacked Limbaugh's timing. I don't support the fairness doctrine but I also don't support the Feds protecting corporations from competitors. We need to loosen up the license distribution for low and medium power radio if we want a freer market. Radio is a closed market enforced by the Feds. The fairness doctrine is a democrat solution for a democrat problem not an attempt at free speech protection.

Great minds think alike!

Radio ownership consolidation has not provide any benefits to the public...and it is the public airwaves!

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Redux

Great minds think alike!

Yeah. Careful though, I've been known to tear off a libertarian rant that'd make Radar look like a commie.

[slang]

Originally Posted by Redux

...and it is the public airwaves!

What if the shows were not broadcast through the airwaves? Then what? Any changes to the content of the shows by the Feds?

For the last few years nearly everyone that I know that listens to Rush or Glenn or whoever on radio have used the MP3s, not the airwaves.

Most corporate buildings ( That I've worked in anyway ) tend not to be places that recieve a consistent and strong signal through the airwaves. For a short period those listeners at work would listen to the streaming show through the computer. It didn't take long for that to cease via tightening the screws on the LAN.

Downloading the MP3s is a good way at listening to the shows nowdays and I've even seen employees scoot home to download or capture the shows on file and bring it back to work to distribute.

If the Feds clamp down on the airwaves it seems possible that there is a big loophole for what the Dems hope to accomplish just by using the electronic files generated of the show.

There will surely be some type of business snag here and there to get around but those big broadcasters have been preparing for this new doctrine for some time. The re-introduction of this is not some big surprise.

I'm not convinced that there will be all that big of changes that listeners think about this.

What would be the alternate method of silencing the shows after converting to MP3 only? Who knows. The only thing for sure is that yes, this is having an impact and the gov't knows it.

How they are going to stomp it, that's the only real question.

Originally Posted by slang

What if the shows were not broadcast through the airwaves? Then what? Any changes to the content of the shows by the Feds?

For the last few years nearly everyone that I know that listens to Rush or Glenn or whoever on radio have used the MP3s, not the airwaves.

Most corporate buildings ( That I've worked in anyway ) tend not to be places that recieve a consistent and strong signal through the airwaves. For a short period those listeners at work would listen to the streaming show through the computer. It didn't take long for that to cease via tightening the screws on the LAN.

Downloading the MP3s is a good way at listening to the shows nowdays and I've even seen employees scoot home to download or capture the shows on file and bring it back to work to distribute.

If the Feds clamp down on the airwaves it seems possible that there is a big loophole for what the Dems hope to accomplish just by using the electronic files generated of the show.

There will surely be some type of business snag here and there to get around but those big broadcasters have been preparing for this new doctrine for some time. The re-introduction of this is not some big surprise.

I'm not convinced that there will be all that big of changes that listeners think about this.

What would be the alternate method of silencing the shows after converting to MP3 only? Who knows. The only thing for sure is that yes, this is having an impact and the gov't knows it.

How they are going to stomp it, that's the only real question.

The issue for me is the public airwaves...because they are public, I think they should provide a greater public benefit than has been demonstrated by ownership consolidation.

I have no interest in regulating the internet for content or site ownership.

[slang]

Originally Posted by Redux

The issue for me is the public airwaves...because they are public.....I have no interest in regulating the internet for content or site ownership.

It seems quite reasonable that the only issue for you is the airwaves. There are many in the gov't that would like to see the content disappear. That's both Rs and Ds at different times.

We'll see if the content is an issue after this new doctrine passes.

My money is on...."it's the content". Especially after the lib radio falls flat again, even with the new regulations.

Originally Posted by slang

It seems quite reasonable that the only issue for you is the airwaves. There are many in the gov't that would like to see the content disappear. That's both Rs and Ds at different times.

We'll see if the content is an issue after this new doctrine passes.

My money is on...."it's the content". Especially after the lib radio falls flat again, even with the new regulations.

I dont think a new Fairness Doctrine has any chance of passage.

At best (or worst) we might see FCC regulations rolling back the number of stations that a company can own in a local market.

[Undertoad]

The bulk of the audience for AM radio, including political talk, is well into their 70s.

[Griff]

I was flipping that aspect around in my head. Is it the medium or the message? Satellite radio doesn't look healthy either.

We don't have any interesting radio options in my area. I listen to NPR News on FM, which only covers Albany news which is a couple hours away along with the canned national content. We have nationally canned classic rock and metal, nationally canned pop, and nationally canned country. The am news radio is national canned nonsense plus a local whiner show. Oh we also get canned sports radio from FOX and ESPN. I believe ESPN took over the nationally canned Air America signal.

Defending the internet is obviously job one, but does radio have to be irrelevent?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

The top four radio station owners now have nearly half of the listeners nationwide...with packaged programming.

To fucking bad. Lets just let the Feds take over and tell us what to think and hear. Great idea.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

To fucking bad. Lets just let the Feds take over and tell us what to think and hear. Great idea.

Lighten up, dude.

I said I dont think returning the Fairness Doctrine is a good idea.

I do think the deregulation in the early 90s harmed competition at the expense of local ownership and local content.

Rolling back the ownership rules and lowering the number of stations that any one company can own in a single market to provide greater competition is hardly letting the Feds take over.

Selling radio licenses to operate on the public airwaves should not be like selling cars or beer.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

To fucking bad. Lets just let the Feds take over and tell us what to think and hear. Great idea.

Sar/didn't we just do that for the last 8 years?/casm