Goodbye Fairness Doctrine, hello Fairness Doctrine by proxy
November 26, 2008Reuters has an interesting story about powerful senators who really, really, really want to see the Fairness Doctrine come back. And yes, people, the article does state that President-elect Obama is on record as opposing a Fairness Doctrine comeback.
Several points:
He has not stated that he would veto a new Fairness Doctrine.
He might be willing to trade his opposition to the Fairness Doctrine for something else, or simply might not be opposed enough to fight to keep it from becoming law if it’s attached to another bill.
And as the article points out, there are other ways to skin a cat:
Obama has called on Henry Rivera, who was a commissioner in the 1980s when the Fairness Doctrine existed, to oversee the FCC transition process. Rivera is a supporter of bringing back the provisions. And heading Obama’s overall transition team is John Podesta, head of liberal think tank the Center for American Progress. Last year, the CAP issued a report called “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.”
While the CAP stopped short of advocating a return of the Fairness Doctrine, it did support more stringent adherence to so-called localism, which critics consider a back door to requiring that stations ditch some of their conservative hosts.
The FCC is considering the matter now, weighing such questions as whether to require stations to create “community advisory boards” made up of “local officials and other community leaders.” The boards would tell radio executives whether the content they broadcast is adequately addressing the needs of the community, subject to the board’s interpretation.
In other words, Obama isn’t going to demand that stations like WMBD1470 gut their profitable programing by requiring the station to hand over free air time to anyone who disagrees with an opinion Rush Limbaugh states.
No, what Obama and his minions on the FCC are going to require that the station — ALL stations — let volunteers from the community decide what programing to air.
In other words, fairness and equity will be mandatory.
Here’s another idea: Just demand that the FCC finally free up those low-power FM licenses that they’ve kept on hold at the behest of Big Media for years. Let these new license holders — presumably members of the local community — compete in the free marketplaces of both commerce and ideas.
Tags: Fairness Doctrine, Free Speech, Obama, Radio
November 27th, 2008 at 12:01 am
“free marketplaces”
Well, there’s your problem…
November 27th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
The media monopolies have proven to be detrimental, as well. Radio sucks and the quality of local programming (ie news) is at an all-time low.
November 27th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
20 years ago, the continued lack of competition and general bias of news organizations would be a concern. Now, we have the Internet and citizen journalism. The power of the press belongs to the people, not just those who own presses. Assume responsibility, assume power. Start a blog. Start reporting on what is happening in YOUR neighborhood. Start holding your local newspaper/TV station accountable.
November 28th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Again, Billy, you’re displaying fear where none exists.
The call for “localism” is what listeners have been demanding ever since deregulation. The call for “localism” is to try and prevent large corporate owners from taking stations that are vital to the safety of the local community and turning them into un-manned, 24 hours a day, satellite-driven, computer-operated “radio stations”, no matter what drivel they broadcast over said signals.
Critics (i.e. Neo-con fearmongers) are frankly full of shit here. The problem stems from the fact that corporate radio has led us into a position where virtually every radio station in every city of size, Peoria included, is unmanned after 7 or 8 pm at night.
Here’s what they’re talking about: A few years back, I’m driving home from Iowa in a wicked storm. On I-74, just coming out of Galesburg, at 10pm on a Sunday night, and I’m trying to get some kind of weather report on the radio. Out of the 15 or so “Peoria” stations I try, I get music on 14 of them and a syndicated talk show on ‘MBD.
Where did I finally find “severe weather reporting”? Where did I find a live person at his/her radio station trying to protect people? In Galesburg, in Monmouth, in Kewanee, and in Canton. The problem, of course, is since I knew where to look, I could find those stations and see what they had to offer. What about the average Peorian? Driving home, 10pm, caught in weather? Where are they going to go?
THAT is what locally owned radio stations do. All of the markets I mentioned are owned by people in Illinois. In every case, the owners represented own less than 20 radio stations. In every case, those stations have employees who get themselves down to the station in severe weather and interrupt what is on the air to serve the public safety. And, get this, in each case, SOME of their programming is…are you ready?…CONSERVATIVE TALK! Kewanee airs some, our stations in Monmouth air Hannity, for instance. The difference? It’s not ALL those stations do. Those stations still provide local news, local weather, high school sports, obituaries, in other words, those stations do everyday everything local newspapers USED to do everyday around here until Gatehouse started buying them all up. Are many of those stations heavy on satellite programming and automation? Sure we are, that’s how small owners try to make ends meet. But every market I just mentioned above has local news. There’s more radio news reporters in Galesburg between the two ownership groups than there are in Peoria. Only WMBD has local news broadcasters, (and thank goodness they still do, because it’s important). Hell, in Canton, I have a fulltime news guy AND a weekend news guys AND last school year we had two news interns. If my stations were owned by Clear Channel or Citadel or JMP or some other large corporate radio-wreckers (one in Peoria comes to mind right away), I’d be lucky to have a part-time news guy. Instead, I’d be asked to make an arrangement with a local TV station for news.
As a matter of fact, the very CAP report that is referenced in your post says this:
“There are many potential explanations for why this gap exists. The two most frequently cited reasons are the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 and simple consumer demand. As this report will detail, neither of these reasons adequately explains why conservative talk radio dominates the airwaves.”
Did you see that Billy? The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine doesn’t explain this problem adequately. The report goes into further analysis:
“Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management.
Ownership diversity is perhaps the single most important variable contributing to the structural imbalance based on the data. Quantitative analysis conducted by Free Press of all 10,506 licensed commercial radio stations reveals that stations owned by women, minorities, or local owners are statistically less likely to air conservative hosts or shows.
In contrast, stations controlled by group owners—those with stations in multiple markets or more than three stations in a single market—were statistically more likely to air conservative talk. Furthermore, markets that aired both conservative and progressive programming were statistically less concentrated than the markets that aired only one type of programming and were more likely to be the markets that had female- and minority-owned stations.
The disparities between conservative and progressive programming reflect the absence of localism in American radio markets. This shortfall results from the consolidation of ownership in radio stations and the corresponding dominance of syndicated programming operating in economies of scale that do not match the local needs of all communities.”
Does this group have an agenda? Of course they do. So does the Heritage Foundation, the Project For a New American Century, and the scary fuckin’ James Dobson. So what? That’s their right, right? Right.
So let’s look at their “remedies” to what they perceive to a balance problem (and they perceive correctly, btw):
“1. Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations.
2. Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.
3. Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.
Of the three, the only one I disagree with is #3. The first one is an absolute no-brainer, and I’m not saying that from a POLITICAL standpoint, either. I’m speaking from a common sense, I-love-local-radio-and-I-hate-the-way-corporate-consultants-haved-screwed-it-up kind of way.
The second one? Dang right. Too many absentee owners concern themselves only with buying and selling radio stations, information in the public interest be damned. Sound familiar? Do you hate what’s happened to print media? There ya go.
As far as number three, just like with any agenda, they go for the home run. I don’t like the “fine” going to public radio. I don’t really know if I like the fine. I’d rather see a “you’ve just lost your station, dude” rule instead of fines.
You see, the government can’t take over a newspaper to broadcast a severe weather or other disaster warning. Papers aren’t immediate. Papers provide “old news” when it comes to weather and emergencies. TV on the local level and radio are both subject to having their signals commandeered for emergency purposes. Am I, for one, am glad they can and do. And because of that, the government should be able to regulate to some extent what goes over those airwaves. I don’t like everything the FCC does, but I shudder to think where we’d be without it.
Now, I don’t like to blog about work, and blog about what I do, but this is just getting out of hand. The “Fairness Doctrine” is NOT coming back…even CAP doesn’t advocate it coming back OR blame it for the problems radio has today. Just…f’in…drop it. It’ll make you feel better.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:25 am
So, tell me, B.J. Do you look forward to when your station will have to work with a government appointed group of community leaders passing judgment on content? Are you and your station’s owner willing to surrender that freedom to do away with talk radio in favor of LOCAL content as defined by “community leaders”?
Seriously, I want your answer.
I guess that’s the difference between a liberal and a libertarian. I’m not willing to surrender my freedom in hopes it accomplishes a laudable goal. Unfortunately:
1. It never does.
2. I’m willing to accept that for me to enjoy MY freedoms, I have to live with the fact that given their druthers, other people to do and say things with which I disagree.
3. Your station hiring?
November 29th, 2008 at 5:05 am
You don’t think I have to work with “an appointed group” of community leaders right now? I CHOOSE to. If I want my stations to be relevant, I need to ask community leaders DAILY what I should be doing to do just that. I ask regular citizens, too. I want input. I want discussion. I want our AM station in Canton to be the FIRST thing people in that town and in Fulton County think of when they need something…anything. Be it weather, news, an obit, sports, lost dogs, school closings, or who’s got the best sale today.
And before I got there, believe me, there was programming content on there that had people upset, and they let ownership know it. It was local politics, and it was removed from the airwaves before I took over. THAT is how it’s supposed to be.
And regarding my “freedom”: the Bushies did more to violate and trample on my “freedom” than any kind of regulation on “localism” in radio will.
So I’m not really worried about a little regulation. We see where DE-regulation has taken the industry, don’t we? BTW, you never answered or addressed my question about how this is any different than all the bitching that’s been done about “corporate newspapers”. What you don’t like about what has happened to newspapers is exactly what you seem to be defending here…corporate bullshit.
November 29th, 2008 at 8:30 am
B.J. You will get no argument from me about how the GWB administration violated the rights of broadcasters. But since when do two wrongs make a right?
And if you get community input, it ought to be VOLUNTARY, not thrust upon everyone. What you are saying now seems to be: “Well, I don’t mind being told what to do, since I want to listen to the public anyway. So everyone ought to behave in the same way, or face the loss of their license.”
And while I loath “corporate bullshit,” I don’t deny corporations the right to behave they way they want. Again, I cannot expect MY freedom to be respected when I advocate other people’s freedom be taken away to achieve outcomes I find more pleasing to myself.
And the left and right do this all the time.
November 29th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Hey, I have an idea … lets find some of those Klan members who are reputed to still live in the hinterlands of Fulton County, and lets name THEM to the advisory board for B.J.’s radio station. Now THAT”s what I call community input.