Fairness Doctrine

[Towntalk]

Savage is a number one nut case, and really should be knocked off the air. I agree with you on that 10000%

Let me ask you, what is so wrong about a station making money?

The days of having a crew in the studio are long gone.

When my Mother was in broadcasting, you had an engineer, an announcer, and a news man at the station. For her program besides her, there was another staffer who worked with her in the studio, but after her show they both went home. Oh yea, there was also a receptionist during the day as well as a salesman and the Manager and Program Director. So today, after regular business hours a station may have just an engineer who works the board.

I can also remember when at local TV stations you had 4 people in the Control Room at least one camraman, a projectionist, a newsman, a sportsman, and someone at the transmiter. And this was during the 6:00 PM to Sign Off period.

Technology advances and we all move forward with it.

Let me ask you this:

Should we nationalize every radio and television station and network and create an American version of the BBC, that way the federal government could control content, and we all know that no one is better able to decide "fair and balanced" than the United States Congress, or a board that they appoint.

Of course that means that every man, woman and child of us would have to be taxed for the privilege of listening to our radio or watching our television as they are in England.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC

We've seen what happens when talk jocks cross the line ... they are taken off the air, and clearly Savage crossed that line and that's a fact, but do we punish everyone for his stupidity?

[irishbobcat]

Townwalk:

The solution again is what the old Fairness Doctrine provided for: Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials.

Regarding Michael Savage, as the father of 2 sons with ausim, his attack on autism last month was insulting. However, stations that ran his show could have provided contrasting shows through news segments, public affairsshows, or editorials.

The problem today is (and yesterday) there is no "money" in radio except for the owner. Put one person in the studio to watch the national talk show come down off the satellite all day is basically what radio has turned into. That's why Rush is on all over the dial. He's cheap to broadcast and make's big bucks for owners.

Dennis Spisak- write-in Green Party Candidate for Congress-6th district.

[Towntalk]

I couldn't agree with you more about PBS and NPR.

As for the equal time provision again, I have absolutely no objections ... fair and balanced should be a guiding principal of any responsable broadcaster.

What concerns me is that the effort currently afoot is not to achieve "fairness or balance" but to silence certain talk shows.

On my web site I link to Talkers magazine which gives a complete rundown of all the talk shows currently on the air both liberal and conservative, as well as all the types of talk radio shows (political, sports, etc.), and among the top ten all are conservative. How did they get there? Obviously by the number of listeners [RATINGS] and as you well know a station lives or dies by ratings.

Should station WXXX do serious harm to its ratings by putting on shows that in the best of circumstances can not hold its own on its ratings?

Lets look at the ratings book ... that is the bible of radio and televisions stations. In order to get advertisers, that station must have high ratings in order to get the best prices for those commercials. Compare WKBN's rates card with that of WGFT for example. Obviously WGFT's ratings were in the dumpster, so now they changed their format and are airing more nationally syndicated shows mostly talk shows with a conservative twist. They could have gone down the same road as Air America, for certainly according to Talkers Magazine there are a large number of nationally syndicated liberal talk shows available, but none of them are in the top tier rating wise.

I for one do not spend a lot of time listening to talk shows period whether liberal or conservative because to be perfectly honest, they bore me ... I'm a news junkey as my web site clearly demonstrates. After Dan Ryan passed away, local talk radio went down hill. As for the national shows, without exception they are broken records ... vareations on a single theme whether from a liberal or conservative perspective.

But for the radio stations that carry talk radio I fully agree with those that say ... give me a talk show that will draw the ratings and I'll air it whether it's liberal or conservative, but do not force me to carry it to my stations harm.

All of the controversy stems from the nationally syndicated shows such as Rush Limbaugh ... the highest rated talk show in the history of talk radio. The Democrats make no bone about the fact that they want him off the air period as well as Michael Savage and a few of the other top tier talkers. The whole issue would never have come up again were it not for them.

How do we achieve "fair and balanced" without resorting to draconian measures?

The local talk shows welcome all sides of an issue BUT it's up to those taking opposing views to pick up their telephones and make that call. If they aren't willing to take that simple step, they have only themselves to blame, not the stations.

[irishbobcat]

Towntalk:

Having worked in radio broadcasting for 19 years, the fairness doctrine did work. You did not have to give equal time  for opposing views, but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials.

Besides, today, the Republicans would like to cut as much public funding to PBS and NPR as possible.


Dennis Spisak= Write-in Green Party candidate for Congress-6th district

[Towntalk]

There are a number of questions raised:

1. If the Fairness Doctrine were brought back, how could a radio station possably be able to carry it out.

Example: Talk Radio. If station WXXX had 4 hours of talk shows equally divided up between liberal and conservative and one or more of the third parties filed a complaint to the FCC that they did not have equal time ... lets say The Green Party ... the station would be forced to give with empthesis on "give" them equal time to respond. Then if the Libertarian Party complained ... again station WXXX would have to give them equal time and we would now have 8 hours of talk shows four of which would be "free".  If the CPUSA were to file a complaint two more hours ... free.

How many political parties are there?

2. Because a station can not possably adhere to the Fairness Doctrine the way its advocates want, they would be forced to (a) drop all their talk shows; (b) be forced to limit them to non-controversial topics like cooking, how to and tradio programs.

3. Going beyond talk shows, those stations that carry religious programs would be forced to carry programs for all the denominations and yes even the athiests.

4. In the news department, news directors would be forced to give equal time to all sides when covering the news. That means that if lets say John McCain was in town giving a speech, the newscaster in covering that speech would also have to give equal time to all the other Presidential candidates. All this crammed into a typical five minute newscast on radio.

5. Rather than have to deal with all the paperwork involved, the station would cut all talk shows and report only non-controversial news items like Aunt Tilly's bake-off.

By forcing radio stations to advere to a pure equal time provision, our radio stations would all be forced to adopt an all music format.

Tha would please those who hate Rush Limbaugh and the like, but how would that fulfill the public interest provisions that radio stations and television stations have to adhere to?

By the way, there is NPR and PBS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

[irishbobcat]

Election 2008- The Issues-The Fairness Doctrine
August 20, 2008


I have been asked if elected to Congress, What would be my position on the Fairness Doctrine.

Answer: Having worked in commercial radio some 25 years ago, I supported the Fairness Doctrine then and would like it brought back to it's original concept.

I support the re-creation of substantial public space for non-profit use of the airwaves. Today's private broadcasters totally control what the public used to own.

The Democrats and Republicans today both support the giveaway of public airwaves to private companies.

WRITE-IN
DENNIS SPISAK FOR CONGRESS
Green Party Candidate for Ohio's 6th District
The ONLY PROGRESSIVE CANDIDATE
Running against a Conservative Democrat and Republican!

Renewable Energy Green/Blue Collars Jobs
Single-Payer Affordable Healthcare
Economic Fairness/Quality Education
Clear and Fair Elections with Paper Ballots

Campaign site: Http://votespisak.org/electspisak.tripod.com