Not a Talk Show Host

[FPB]

>"The Fairness Doctrine, an FCC regulation in force from 1949 to 1987, required broadcasters to present "both sides" of >controversial issues. During that time, liberals had a virtual monopoly on the media. Since the rule was repealed, >conservative talk radio has exploded --
>
Interesting.  So when the ground rules stipulate fairness and honesty, liberal views flourish.  When these ground rules are abandoned, allowing lies, deception, fear-mongering, hate speech and slander, conservative views prosper.

[WLYNgm]

... is a moot point. The landscape is totally different now.
There are many additional sources for information/news/opinions
that were not present in the Red Lion days. What has changed are
the audiences. The public does not want civility. They want talk
show hosts who share their point of view, and their frustrations.
The talk show hosts that are successful thrive on controversy. It is
like a car wreck on the highway - the worse the accident is, the
more one just has to take a look...  Go to a political rally or speech -
the audience there is not there to hear both sides and make up
their minds - they are there to hear someone with whom they
already agree... Again, the best of intentions, but a bad law...

[FPB]

>My point: the "Fairness Doctrine" - NOBODY WINS. It was a bad law, albeit with the best of intentions...
>The Fairness Doctrine is superfluous in this age of 24-hour news, theinternet, and a gazillion bloggers out there - >every one of whom has an opinion.  All viewpoints are out there, somewhere - no matter how crackpot
>or unpopular they may be...
>
There is a difference between an unpopular idea and a crackpot idea.  A crackpot idea never has legitamacy while an unpopular idea often does.  Without the fairness doctrine unpopular ideas are too easily dismissed as "crackpot" and crackpot ideas are given legitamacy if they suit peoples' agendas.

And, the fact that a gazillion bloggers are out there expressing their opinions without concern for fact or accuracy shouldn't give Radio a reason to follow suit.  In fact, I'm sure that if Radio kept it's original higher standard the bloggers would be more responsible with their own writing.  Nobody likes to look like a jerk.  Unfortunately when public dialog is reduced to name-calling nobody LOOKS like a jerk because everyone IS one!

[WLYNgm]

Without the Fairness Doctrine, you still have both sides of an
issue/question out there - they are just not both in the same space/time/program.
(example - Air America, Left - Fox News, Right) By definition, you already
recognize the bias of either side, and process the information available from that
side, accordingly.  Unpopular vs. crackpot -- this is semantics. Who is to say? Depends on
who you ask...  Name calling, bigotry, etc. - means nothing, if you
happen to agree with that point of view (whichever side you may be on)

[Don Juan]

By definition, you already
recognize the bias of either side, and process the information available from that
side, accordingly.

Do you think the public knows the bias of every media organization?

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to get a fair view from a broadcast outlet?

Without the Fairness Doctrine, you still have both sides of an
issue/question out there - they are just not both in the same space/time/program.

Yet who will stand up for the least of us when they are attacked unfairly?  Who will speak up against the use of words like "towelheads"? 

The Red Lion case that forced the Fairness Doctrine into existence, did so because the aggrieved (and unpopular?) person had no vehicle for recourse.

Has the world become so relative that we fear the use of the word "fair"?

Again, it's not a case of Left or Right.  (They have already staked out their positions on this issue.)

[FPB]

>What has changed are the audiences. The public does not want civility. They want talk show hosts who share their >point of view, and their frustrations.  The talk show hosts that are successful thrive on controversy. It is like a car >wreck on the highway - the worse the accident is, the more one just has to take a look...  Go to a political rally or >speech - the audience there is not there to hear both sides and make up their minds - they are there to hear someone >with whom they already agree... Again, the best of intentions, but a bad law...
>
Sounds to me like a very good law given up for the WORST intentions.  Just my opinion.

Political rallies were never designed to be a venue where people could make up their minds.  People used the media to gather up information which they could use to make up their minds.  After that, they would attend the rallies that support their viewpoint.

You, as an owner, say the public doesn't want civility.  But these days, the public is telling you they don't want radio.  Ya think there's any connection?   I do.  If you're feeding the public incivility, you're serving a very small percentage of them.

[SonicAl]

actually, one host on the left who does engage callers and guests with opposing points of view is Thom Hartmann. And the discourse is almost always civil.

[Don Juan]

actually, one host on the left who does engage callers and guests with opposing points of view is Thom Hartmann. And the discourse is almost always civil.

On the other side is Michael Medved, an avowed Conservative, but always respectful, civil and engaging with callers that disagree.

[lmf67]

Well Santos is none of these....He's Terrible, Unoriginal, Plain and Amazingly Boring on top of being one sided. He and his planted callers need to get on the same page as the rest of us Democrats. To the 4 people who listen to his show he makes the rest of us look bad.

Its no wonder why right wing radio rules in this town when the left wingers we sent up to the plate take to the air and sound like Uneducated Hacks!

[DanStrassberg]

Well Santos is none of these....He's Terrible, Unoriginal, Plain and Amazingly Boring on top of being one sided. He and his planted callers need to get on the same page as the rest of us Democrats. To the 4 people who listen to his show he makes the rest of us look bad.

Its no wonder why right wing radio rules in this town when the left wingers we sent up to the plate take to the air and sound like Uneducated Hacks!

I pretty much agree about Santos's (lack of) ability as a talk-host BUT he IS the guy who coaxed the $$$ out of the local Dems (and most likely out of Dial-Global) to lease the time on WWZN. So, no matter how bad his show is, as long has he can keep his backers and the station owners happy, we've got him and not anybody else. Pulling off this deal was hard work and Santos deserves credit for it. I'm convinced that his only motivation for working so hard was self-aggrandizement. I seriously question whether he has any real commitment to Liberal ideals. That same egotism and lack of idealism are, of course, the principal reasons I find his personality so repugnant. But I defy anyone else to pull off what he has--so far--pulled off. So, as I said here months ago, "we've gotta hunker down and take the bitter with the better."