The Fairness Doctrine

[The Batman]

Twenty years ago, near the end of the so-called "Reagan Revolution", the Fairness Doctrine died.

John McCain and others killed a recent effort to revive it.

The question is: Should the government demand fairness on the airwaves or should the marketplace decide what is fair and what is not?

Put simply, government regulation of speech on radio and television or not?

My feeling are mixed. 

Tony Lyndell Williams

[uppendowndadial]

The Fairness Doctrine is not govt regulation of speech.  It is simply to let opposing sides air their views on a licensee with a stewardship to serve the public.  The Fairness Doctrine often got confused with the Equal Time provision.  Equal time was for political candidates.  The Fairness Doctrine was for controversial issues. 

[jondavidvox]

The Communications Act of 1934, set in language equal to any of the great documents which define our nation, the standards and regulations of American Broadcasting.  This document set in motion the very best possible circumstances for a Broadcast Licensee; "....to operate in the public interest, as a public trustee."  Those operating demands provided the best possible balance between Artistry and Anarchy, Service and Savagery, Dependability and Degeneracy, Vigilance and Venom....to the benefit of the People. 

In 1974, like every other D.J. without a shred of R.F. understanding, I got my 3rd Class Radiotelephone License w/Broadcast Endorsement.  The regulations we had to memorize and execute, forced us to think beyond ourselves....to the benefit of our communities.

The objective of those standards and regulations was to provide society with a consistent advocate of safety, truth, and community stewardship....to the benefit of Everyone.

The Communications Act of 1934 mandated Service.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 eradicated all of it.  Now, an American Broadcasts licensee operates in the stockholder interest, as a fiduciary handmaiden of the New York Stock Exchange.  We traded FCC inspectors for SEC inspectors, Sponsors for Sales quotas, Responsibility for Renegade Profit, Broadcasters for Board-Ops....To the benefit of the transitory revenue spike.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 mandates Savagery.

The Fairness Doctrine is an invitation to any Broadcaster to listen in equal measure to speech.  Many have said it would ruin Talk Radio as we know it.  If all Talk Radio is an endless stream of narrow-mindedness, perhaps a bit of ruination is due....After all, doesn't being fair benefit us all?  Indeed, can listening to someone with "opposing viewpoints" ever hurt an honest steward of Truth?  Or has today's business-oriented Broadcasting also given Truth the rest of its career off in favor of profit over loss?

It's been eleven long years since Broadcasters traded conscience for cash.  I believe it's time to reclaim our place in society as public trustees, and let the Wall Street money men fend for themselves.  And yes, if that means we have to hear the other side of the discussion, then by all means let's make it so....

....to the benefit of the Listener.

Jon-David Wells
The Wells Report



 

[TexasTom]

The question is: Should the government demand fairness on the airwaves or should the marketplace decide what is fair and what is not?

On this particular topic, I'll refer you over to an extremely lengthy thread in the "FCC Policy Debate" forum here on radio-info.com.  Go take a look at that and you'll read more opinion on this particular topic than you probably want to read.

[TheRover]

What a "Fairness Doctrine" for MUsic Played on Radio.....

Equal Time for Deep Tracks IN ALL #$%##$ Formats ! ! ! ! !

[little1]

What a "Fairness Doctrine" for MUsic Played on Radio.....

Equal Time for Deep Tracks IN ALL #$%##$ Formats ! ! ! ! !

You just don't get that 'deep tracks' is programming suicide for any station attempting to stay as a profitable radio station. 

If you don't believe me, take a look at KZPS.  They went from their nice safe, boring classic rock station, drawing a 2.5 in the ratings, to "Lone Star", playing a lot of deep tracks, unfamilar music not widely known by the vast majority of their listeners. 

And what happened.  The went from a 2.5 to a 1.5.  They were (from what I'm hearing) a big part of CC's corporate cost cutting move (because anytime you take a station billing in the teen-millions, and drop it into the low single digits, something has to make up for that loss)...

Now as a listener, the fact that they're losing money playing deep tracks might not be important.  But for those of us whose jobs rely on those ratings, as I said, it's suicide. 

Look at any radio research.  Widen your playlist too far, start playing unfamiliar cuts, and your TSL goes down.  In other words, people punch out when they hear stuff they're not used to. Tighten up your playlist and your TSL may not go up, but your cume increases as more people hear the songs they want to hear. It's radio 101.

But I forget that many of you haven't taken Radio 101, much less any advanced courses. 

So go ahead, rant about how you want to hear deep tracks, just don't take offense when you relaize that most of us aren't  laughing with you, we're laughing at you. 

[TheRover]

^^^^^

We'll see who has the Last Laugh Little 1 . . . 

I can only refer you to this thread...

http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,91932.0.html

[little1]

^^^^^

We'll see who has the Last Laugh Little 1 . . . 

I can only refer you to this thread...

http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,91932.0.html

I'm pretty sure that I'll be the one laughing.  That format probaby is going to have a hard time making it in NYC, and will have an even harder time making it in smaller markets with smaller pie pieces up fro grabs...

[adguy]

WHAT IS EVERYONE TALKING ABOUT??  Fairness Doctrine for formats.  If any of you are serious, then you need to bow out of the business and check into a place of education.  Not higher education, just any education. 

The fairness doctrine is nothing more than equal time for opposing opinions spoken on talk radio or any radio I guess.  It's government regulation of speech and that goes against the 1st amendment.  The Washington a-holes behind it will tell you otherwise, but it is nothing more than having the government regulate speech under the cover of being responsible to a piece of paper (i.e. the station license). 

The Washington a-holes passed the 1996 FCC Dereg Act under the cover that market conditions will regulate the medium, but we all know it was really the major broadcasters' lobbyists successfully creating the conditions favoring Wall Street and ruining the medium.

The fairness doctrine and 1996 Act are not related, but it needed to be pointed out.  If stations program either liberal or conservative talk and get ratings and revenue, why force them to lose money by forcing opposing viewpoints with other shows that will certainly lose money because there's no interest?

It's a simple question, and PULEASE don't refer the the stations' responsibility to serving the community in the interest of their licenses because that's not what the 1996 Act created.  It stated that market conditions, natually created, will dictate what airs and what doesn't.

[Tom Wells]

OK, market conditions, naturally created, necessitate that only totally partisan viewpoints be aired?

What about people that still have an open mind, or are undecided?  They need only to  hear the fully polarized view of any topic?

The people who veered this topic off into "formats" are not fully engaged in the conversation.

The F.D. was devised to keep radio from becoming lapdogs of special interests, as newspapers had become.

Those who wish to promote singular views are doing marketing and promotional work for a particular ideology, not "radio".
Radio once upon a time was required to be civilized and sound like a mature, well balanced member of society.

Is it really better now that boorishness from either side of a divide is the preferred mode?

I'm sure it makes more money, if that's all we care about.  If this satisfies you, so be it. 
I expect better because we did once agree as a nation to have some ideals, and radio was better for it.