Fairness Doctrine

[Towntalk]

1. Who would control the allocation of frequencies so that you do not have multipal stations overlapping each other?

2. There exists international treaties governing broadcasting and telecasting. What would happen to these treaties?

3. On the advertising angle I could agree. Get rid of all billboards, most of them are darn ugly anyway.

4.The FCC already requires stations to fulfill your point 12 every license renewal period. How many times have you personally filed objections to a station's license renewal because the station did not act in the public interest?

5. Note that the networks (NBC - CBS - ABC etc.) do not operate under the same set of rules as over-the-air stations as such since they are feeders who send their programming via satellite rather than over the air. If these stations own stations such as WCBS, WABC, KNBC etc. those individual stations are covered, but not the networks themselves.

6. From what you say, the Green Party would compel the tax payers to shell out money to support these stations in the same manner as they do in England, and other countries that have nationalized stations. How is that benefitting the public who is already burdened with too many taxes?

7. Finally who would determine what content is or isn't in the "public interest"? At present ratings determine content, and ratings are as you well know based on listenership to individual stations. If a station is not doing well in the ratings, they jolly well better change their foremat as did WGFT.

By the way, there was a news report yesterday that after the switch to digital broadcasting, and the freeing up of the AM spectrum, Google is seeking to purchase the entire AM band.

[irishbobcat]

Free speech and free press are constitutionally and politically guaranteed rights. Democracy requires a wide variety of opinions and information, which is not currently provided by corporate controlled media outlets. The Green Party calls for the establishment of citizen initiated and controlled radio and television stations. These citizen-managed media networks would be financed by requiring corporations to pay for the right to use our publicly owned air waves. Mechanisms must be established to prevent political manipulation and exploitation of this essential and valuable resource, so that all citizens are adequately informed.

The Green Party supports:


 

1. Returning ownership and control of the electromagnetic spectrum to the public. We urge the public to reclaim the public airwaves. The privatization of the broadcast airwaves - one of our most important taxpayer assets - has caused serious deformations of our politics and culture.
 

2. The problem is that private broadcasters control what the public owns. In return for free licenses to use taxpayer property, broadcasters give us a steady stream of increasingly coarse, redundant, superficial programming, and exclusively decide who says what on our public airwaves.
 

3. Market-priced leasing of any for-profit use of the electromagnetic spectrum.
 

4. Reasonable restriction on media consolidation, using a public interest standard.
 

5. Restoring of full public funding of the National Public Broadcasting System to provide in-depth coverage of issues and the widest possible range of viewpoints.
 

6. Community ownership of broadcast outlets and public oversight of licensing.
 

7. Free and equal airtime for political candidates on radio and television networks.   

8. Taxing electronic advertising sales to fund democratic media outlets.
 

9. The repeal of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
 

10. The prohibition of commercial advertising in public places such as schools, parks, and governmental buildings.
 

11. Developing community radio, particularly those rule-making petitions before the FCC that allow for a new service of small, locally-owned FM stations.
 

12. Limiting the concentration of power that has characterized the telecommunications industry. We need a wide span of programming and information, genuine citizen access, diversity of views, respect for local community interests, news, public affairs and quality children's programming. The FCC should closely monitor applications for license renewals to the public airwaves to ensure that these public interest criteria are met.
 

13. Opposing censorship in the arts, media (including the World Wide Web and Internet), and press. We encourage individual and social responsibility by artists, creative media, writers and all citizens.

[Towntalk]

Jay here are the latest Arbitron ratings for the Youngstown- Warren market.

Station    Format                       SU07   FA07   WI08   SP08 
WKBN-AM  News Talk Information   *      10.4       *      12.3
WQXK-FM  Country                         *      10.7       *      10.6
WYFM-FM  Classic Rock                  *        7.9       *        6.9
WMXY-FM  Hot Adult Contemporary *        6.1       *        5.8
WBBG-FM  Oldies                            *        6.8       *        5.6
WHOT-FM  Pop Contemporary Hit Radio * 6.5        *        5.1
WNCD-FM  Album Oriented Rock      *       3.0        *        4.2
WNIO-AM  Adult Standards/MOR      *       3.7        *        4.1
WRBP-FM  Urban Contemporary       *       4.6         *        4.1
WAKZ-FM  Pop Contemporary Hit Radio * 3.0          *       3.0
WWIZ-FM  Active Rock                   *        3.5         *       2.6
WENZ-FM  Urban Contemporary       *       1.1         *        2.1
WSOM-AM  Nostalgia                      *       1.3         *        2.1
WWGY-FM  Country                        *       2.2         *        1.9
WNIR-FM  News Talk Information    *       0.6         *        1.2
WRTK-AM  Gospel                          *         *           *        1.2
WBBW-AM  All Sports                      *      1.3          *        1.1
WMJI-FM  Classic Hits                    *       0.7          *        1.1
WFHM-FM  Contemporary Christian *       0.9         *         0.9
WHLO-AM  News Talk Information   *        *            *         0.7
WNCX-FM  Classic Rock                   *        *            *        0.7
WPIC-AM  News Talk Information     *        *            *        0.7
WTAM-AM  News Talk Information   *      1.1           *        0.7
WKDD-FM  Hot Adult Contemporary  *        *            *        0.5
WKTX-AM  Variety                           *      0.7           *        0.5
WASN-AM  Gospel                           *      0.7           *          *
WZKL-FM  Pop Contemporary Hit Radio * 0.6           *          *

* Data are not available for this station/survey. This happens primarily in two-survey-per-year markets where data are released only in Spring and Fall.

[Towntalk]

First: I met Dan Ryan when he first came to WBBW, and we became friends. It was he that inspired me to create my Newsletter that ultimately ended up as a web site which I dedicated to his memory.

That newsletter averaging 14 pages daily was faxed to a number of radio talk shows thanks to him as show prep.

Not to brag, but that web site is one of the largest all news web sites on the internet, and as anyone can see, neither liberal or conservative, but according to the email I get from shows that use my content one of the most complete, and fair since I provide links to all political perspectives.

This was thanks to Mr. Ryan's influence.

When I posed a closed circuit questionare to those talk shows that are on my list, all without exception said that the Fairness Doctrine would place a severe burden on them, Liberal talkers would be forced to give third, fourth and fifth parties equal time on their shows, and conservatives echoed that sentiment.

There simply is not enough time on any show to give equal time to four or five different parties whose numbers simply do not justify that much attention, especially when its obvious that those parties have no chance of winning.

Think about it. The average show runs three hours, minus news, commercials and station breaks. If a talker were to bring in a Republican, a Democrat, a Libertarian, a Green, a Socialist, and yes, even a Communist guest, how much time could he give them? Certainly not quality time that would allow them to take calls, and be honest, just how many calls would come in for the minor party guests?

When Dan Ryan was doing his show, each year leading up to the election he would bring in all the candidates for the more important races including third party candidates, and inevitably, it would be Dan himself that would have to pose questions to those third party candidates because most of the calls were for the major candidates.

Dan didn't need a Fairness Doctrine to control how he did his show not once in the fifty years the show was on the air.

Now as to the number of station personal, what does that have to do with the doctrine?

That area falls under the Equal Opportunities provisions of federal law.

You'll excuse me but I've just been made aware of breaking news and I'll have to update my web site.

But in closing, I don't know if you are aware of it, but it was Dan Ryan who was insturmetal in breaking the color barrier in the local radio market by bringing onto his program the first Black to go on the air on a regular basis. Mac McAllister became a household favorite with Dan's listeners.

[jay]

Of all the radio stations in our market, which percentage of the listening audience does each station usually have?

[irishbobcat]

Out of the 14 stations you mentioned, the 2 companies that own most of the broadcasting airwaves in this valley are Clear Channel and Cumulus. So we have a definiate ownership monopoly of the public airwaves.

When we did have the Fairness Doctrine, more people worked in radio. Now, you can have one board operator running 3-4 am talk stations all broadcasting Rush at the same time. So, owners have taken more profit for themselves and put more people out of work. That's a American virtue for me.

Why Air America has failed? I do not know. Maybe liberals don't listen to talk radio and listen to rock and roll instead.

Again, the Fairness Doctrine does not mean for owners to be sitting there with stop watches counting equal time....forget that concept.

The Fairness Doctrine worked until Reagan tore it apart. Somewhere Boots Bell is spinning in his grave. Along with Dan Ryan when he worked at WBBW.

Dennis Spisak

[Towntalk]

Be very careful of what you wish for. Remember this, if the talk stations are forced to comply with the Fairness Doctrine as the Democrats envision it, talk radio will go the way of radio dramas, soap operas and comedy shows then where will we be. What we'll end up with are stations spinning records 24/7.

By the way, the fairness doctrine advocates aren't content with trying to control over the air radio stations, they also want to control internet content because of the success of such people as Matt Drudge. Some at the FCC are already drafting proposals on this.

And can you please tell me why some groups seem to feel that they have to turn to the government to force their views on the public and do not want to follow the same course as those who bought air time.  As I explained, there are 14 AM and FM stations in the Youngstown market. I'm sure that at least one would make time available at a very reasonable rate.

Also could you explain why Air America has not been a smashing success? Should the government step in and tell stations that they must carry so many Air America shows to balance out Rush Limbaugh?

Again, should the stations operations managers sit down with a stop watch and clock the time given to one side and then offer free equal time to others to respond, giving them equal time to respond.

With all the political parties in America should each and every one of them be given time? How would you choose which would or wouldn't be included?

[irishbobcat]

Why The Fairness Doctrine is needed and why it was upheld by the Supreme Court:

RED LION BROADCASTING CO., INC., ET AL. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ET AL.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
395 U.S. 367
June 9, 1969, Decided




MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Federal Communications Commission has for many years imposed on radio and television broadcasters the requirement that discussion of public issues be presented on broadcast stations, and that each side of those issues must be given fair coverage. This is known as the fairness doctrine, which originated very early in the history of broadcasting and has maintained its present outlines for some time. It is an obligation whose content has been defined in a long series of FCC rulings in particular cases, and which is distinct from the statutory requirement of § 315 of the Communications Act  that equal time be allotted all qualified candidates for public office. Two aspects of the fairness doctrine, relating to personal attacks in the context of controversial public issues and to political editorializing, were codified more precisely in the form of FCC regulations in 1967. The two cases before us now, which were decided separately below, challenge the constitutional and statutory bases of the doctrine and component rules. Red Lion  involves the application of the fairness doctrine to a particular broadcast, and RTNDA arises as an action to review the FCC's 1967 promulgation of the personal attack and political editorializing regulations, which were laid down after the Red Lion litigation had begun.

I.

A.

The Red Lion Broadcasting Company is licensed to operate a Pennsylvania radio station, WGCB. On November 27, 1964, WGCB carried a 15-minute broadcast by the Reverend Billy James Hargis as part of a "Christian Crusade" series. A book by Fred J. Cook entitled "Goldwater -- Extremist on the Right" was discussed by Hargis, who said that Cook had been fired by a newspaper for making false charges against city officials; that Cook had then worked for a Communist-affiliated publication; that he had defended Alger Hiss and attacked J. Edgar Hoover and the Central Intelligence Agency; and that he had now written a "book to smear and destroy Barry Goldwater."  When Cook heard of the broadcast he concluded that he had been personally attacked and demanded free reply time, which the station refused. After an exchange of letters among Cook, Red Lion, and the FCC, the FCC declared that the Hargis broadcast constituted a personal attack on Cook; that Red Lion had failed to meet its obligation under the fairness doctrine to send a tape, transcript, or summary of the broadcast to Cook and offer him reply time; and that the station must provide reply time whether or not Cook would pay for it. On review in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,  the FCC's position was upheld as constitutional and otherwise proper.

B.

Not long after the Red Lion litigation was begun, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making with an eye to making the personal attack aspect of the fairness doctrine more precise and more readily enforceable, and to specifying its rules relating to political editorials. After considering written comments supporting and opposing the rules, the FCC adopted them substantially as proposed. As they now stand amended, the regulations read as follows:

"Personal attacks; political editorials.

"(a) When, during the presentation of views on a controversial issue of public importance, an attack is made upon the honesty, character, integrity or like personal qualities of an identified person or group, the licensee shall, within a reasonable time and in no event later than 1 week after the attack, transmit to the person or group attacked (1) notification of the date, time and identification of the broadcast; (2) a script or tape (or an accurate summary if a script or tape is not available) of the attack; and (3) an offer of a reasonable opportunity to respond over the licensee's facilities....

C.

Believing that the specific application of the fairness doctrine in Red Lion, and the promulgation of the regulations in RTNDA, are both authorized by Congress and enhance rather than abridge the freedoms of speech and press protected by the First Amendment, we hold them valid and constitutional, reversing the judgment below in RTNDA and affirming the judgment below in Red Lion.

II.

The history of the emergence of the fairness doctrine and of the related legislation shows that the Commission's action in the Red Lion case did not exceed its authority, and that in adopting the new regulations the Commission was implementing congressional policy rather than embarking on a frolic of its own....The statutory authority of the FCC to promulgate these regulations derives  from the mandate to the "Commission from time to time, as public convenience, interest, or necessity requires" to promulgate "such rules and regulations and prescribe such restrictions and conditions . . . as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter . . . ."

We cannot say that the FCC's declaratory ruling in Red Lion, or the regulations at issue in RTNDA, are beyond the scope of the congressionally conferred power to assure that stations are operated by those whose possession of a license serves "the public interest."

III.

The broadcasters challenge the fairness doctrine and its specific manifestations in the personal attack and political editorial rules on conventional First Amendment grounds, alleging that the rules abridge their freedom of speech and press. Their contention is that the First Amendment protects their desire to use their allotted frequencies continuously to broadcast whatever they choose, and to exclude whomever they choose from ever using that frequency. No man may be prevented from saying or publishing what he thinks, or from refusing in his speech or other utterances to give equal weight to the views of his opponents. This right, they say, applies equally to broadcasters.

A.

Although broadcasting is clearly a medium affected by a First Amendment interest, differences in the characteristics of new media justify differences in the First Amendment standards applied to them.  For example, the ability of new technology to produce sounds more raucous than those of the human voice justifies restrictions on the sound level, and on the hours and places of use, of sound trucks so long as the restrictions are reasonable and applied without discrimination.

Just as the Government may limit the use of sound-amplifying equipment potentially so noisy that it drowns out civilized private speech, so may the Government limit the use of broadcast equipment. The right of free speech of a broadcaster, the user of a sound truck, or any other individual does not embrace a right to snuff out the free speech of others.

When two people converse face to face, both should not speak at once if either is to be clearly understood. But the range of the human voice is so limited that there could be meaningful communications if half the people in the United States were talking and the other half listening. Just as clearly, half the people might publish and the other half read. But the reach of radio signals is incomparably greater than the range of the human voice and the problem of interference is a massive reality. The lack of know-how and equipment may keep many from the air, but only a tiny fraction of those with resources and intelligence can hope to communicate by radio at the same time if intelligible communication is to be had, even if the entire radio spectrum is utilized in the present state of commercially acceptable technology.

It was this fact, and the chaos which ensued from permitting anyone to use any frequency at whatever power level he wished, which made necessary the enactment of the Radio Act of 1927 and the Communications Act of 1934,  as the Court has noted at length before.  It was this reality which at the very least necessitated first the division of the radio spectrum into portions reserved respectively for public broadcasting and for other important radio uses such as amateur operation, aircraft, police, defense, and navigation; and then the subdivision of each portion, and assignment of specific frequencies to individual users or groups of users. Beyond this, however, because the frequencies reserved for public broadcasting were limited in number, it was essential for the Government to tell some applicants that they could not broadcast at all because there was room for only a few.

Where there are substantially more individuals who want to broadcast than there are frequencies to allocate, it is idle to posit an unabridgeable First Amendment right to broadcast comparable to the right of every individual to speak, write, or publish. If 100 persons want broadcast licenses but there are only 10 frequencies to allocate, all of them may have the same "right" to a license; but if there is to be any effective communication by radio, only a few can be licensed and the rest must be barred from the airwaves. It would be strange if the First Amendment, aimed at protecting and furthering communications, prevented the Government from making radio communication possible by requiring licenses to broadcast and by limiting the number of licenses so as not to overcrowd the spectrum.

This has been the consistent view of the Court. Congress unquestionably has the power to grant and deny licenses and to eliminate existing stations. No one has a First Amendment right to a license or to monopolize a radio frequency; to deny a station license because "the public interest" requires it "is not a denial of free speech."

By the same token, as far as the First Amendment is concerned those who are licensed stand no better than those to whom licenses are refused. A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a radio frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others and to conduct himself as a proxy or fiduciary with obligations to present those views and voices which are representative of his community and which would otherwise, by necessity, be barred from the airwaves.

This is not to say that the First Amendment is irrelevant to public broadcasting. On the contrary, it has a major role to play as the Congress itself recognized in § 326, which forbids FCC interference with "the right of free speech by means of radio communication." Because of the scarcity of radio frequencies, the Government is permitted to put restraints on licensees in favor of others whose views should be expressed on this unique medium. But the people as a whole retain their interest in free speech by radio and their collective right to have the medium function consistently with the ends and purposes of the First Amendment. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount. It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.

B.

Rather than confer frequency monopolies on a relatively small number of licensees, in a Nation of 200,000,000, the Government could surely have decreed that each frequency should be shared among all or some of those who wish to use it, each being assigned a portion of the broadcast day or the broadcast week. The ruling and regulations at issue here do not go quite so far. They assert that under specified circumstances, a licensee must offer to make available a reasonable amount of broadcast time to those who have a view different from that which has already been expressed on his station. The expression of a political endorsement, or of a personal attack while dealing with a controversial public issue, simply triggers this time sharing. As we have said, the First Amendment confers no right on licensees to prevent others from broadcasting on "their" frequencies and no right to an unconditional monopoly of a scarce resource which the Government has denied others the right to use....

Nor can we say that it is inconsistent with the First Amendment goal of producing an informed public capable of conducting its own affairs to require a broadcaster to permit answers to personal attacks occurring in the course of discussing controversial issues, or to require that the political opponents of those endorsed by the station be given a chance to communicate with the public. Otherwise, station owners and a few networks would have unfettered power to make time available only to the highest bidders, to communicate only their own views on public issues, people and candidates, and to permit on the air only those with whom they agreed. There is no sanctuary in the First Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all. "Freedom of the press from governmental interference under the First Amendment does not sanction repression of that freedom by private interests."

C.

It is strenuously argued, however, that if political editorials or personal attacks will trigger an obligation in broadcasters to afford the opportunity for expression to speakers who need not pay for time and whose views are unpalatable to the licensees, then broadcasters will be irresistibly forced to self-censorship and their coverage of controversial public issues will be eliminated or at least rendered wholly ineffective. Such a result would indeed be a serious matter, for should licensees actually eliminate their coverage of controversial issues, the purposes of the doctrine would be stifled.

At this point, however, as the Federal Communications Commission has indicated, that possibility is at best speculative. The communications industry, and in particular the networks, have taken pains to present controversial issues in the past, and even now they do not assert that they intend to abandon their efforts in this regard.  It would be better if the FCC's encouragement were never necessary to induce the broadcasters to meet their responsibility. And if experience with the administration of these doctrines indicates that they have the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing the volume and quality of coverage, there will be time enough to reconsider the constitutional implications. The fairness doctrine in the past has had no such overall effect.

That this will occur now seems unlikely, however, since if present licensees should suddenly prove timorous, the Commission is not powerless to insist that they give adequate and fair attention to public issues. It does not violate the First Amendment to treat licensees given the privilege of using scarce radio frequencies as proxies for the entire community, obligated to give suitable time and attention to matters of great public concern....

D.

The litigants embellish their First Amendment arguments with the contention that the regulations are so vague that their duties are impossible to discern. Of this point it is enough to say that, judging the validity of the regulations on their face as they are presented here, we cannot conclude that the FCC has been left a free hand to vindicate its own idiosyncratic conception of the public interest or of the requirements of free speech. Past adjudications by the FCC give added precision to the regulations; there was nothing vague about the FCC's specific ruling in Red Lion that Fred Cook should be provided an opportunity to reply. The regulations at issue in RTNDA could be employed in precisely the same way as the fairness doctrine was in Red Lion....

We need not and do not now ratify every past and future decision by the FCC with regard to programming. There is no question here of the Commission's refusal to permit the broadcaster to carry a particular program or to publish his own views; of a discriminatory refusal to require the licensee to broadcast certain views which have been denied access to the airwaves; of government censorship of a particular program contrary to § 326; or of the official government view dominating public broadcasting. Such questions would raise more serious First Amendment issues. But we do hold that the Congress and the Commission do not violate the First Amendment when they require a radio or television station to give reply time to answer personal attacks and political editorials.

In view of the scarcity of broadcast frequencies, the Government's role in allocating those frequencies, and the legitimate claims of those unable without governmental assistance to gain access to those frequencies for expression of their views, we hold the regulations and ruling at issue here are both authorized by statute and constitutional. The judgment of the Court of Appeals in Red Lion is affirmed and that in RTNDA reversed and the causes remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

[Towntalk]

Well said Elmo.

We need only look to England to see what happens when government controls the electronic media. The BBC has had more than its share of problems that have gotten its managers in hot water.

Then look at other European countries where government controls the electronic media and privately owned stations are either rare or non existent.

In this market there are 14 AM-FM stations not all of which are owned by national corporations, and there is nothing stopping groups like the Green Party from meeting with them and arranging to have programs on those stations.

WASN is an example. Sure it's a low power station, but if that station can draw listeners away from WKBN and WGFT in good enough numbers then the more powerful stations will most certainly find time for those parties that are running the shows.

Louie Free for example started out on WASN, then moved to a slightly larger station, and now he's back in this market again in an even more powerful station with the support of The Vindicator.

In broadcasting, a person must work themselves up from small stations in small markets to the larger stations. A beginner will not get air time on a major market station right out of the starting gate. This is true whether they are a DJ, a newsman or a talk show host.

[Elmo-Ytown]

By the way, the color red really bothers me, so all auto dealers need to at least start selling the same number of blue cars as red cars.

If someone could get the government on this that would be great.

[Elmo-Ytown]

Something else the government wants to control.

If you don't like the products at Sparkle, you go to IGA. You don't try to force Sparkle to carry the products you want. If there is no IGA, maybe you get determined enough to open your own store.

Same thing with radio. If you don't like listening to stations that are conservative based, then you listen to something else. If there is nothing else, maybe you start your own station or show.

This is the United States of America, we don't need this garbage, we're better than this.

This country is turning into a bunch of whiners and complainers.

This conservative station isn't playing my favorite liberal show!! IT'S NOT FAIR IT'S NOT FAIR....

Give me a break.

[ytowner]

Hell No!
Will never work!

[irishbobcat]

Towntalk:

That could be a start. I also believe the Canton Repository also has a a columnist who does the same thing as the NY Times and Wash. Post.

[Towntalk]

Perhaps stations should set aside some time each day for listener submitted "Letters To The Station" as newspapers do with their "Letters To The Editor" using the same formula.

Newspapers also have something that radio stations could adopt. They have a special person who is not answerable to the editors or publisher who represents the readers. Both the New York Times and Washington Post have such a person who writes a weekly column critical of both reporting and editorials based on reader input to them.

[irishbobcat]

There is nothing wrong with a station making money or a profit.

All I am saying is if you only have a board operator on duty 24/7 then you can not provide the opportunity to invoke the Fairness Doctrine on allowing for more employees to to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials.

I support NPR and PBs through donations. I believe the rest of America should as well.

Dennis Spisak