Free Market Radio and the (Un)Fairness Doctrine
Posted by LK on 8/14/08 • Categorized as Personal, Politics, Radio
Editor’s note: Due to the current debate over The Fairness Doctrine, we’re re-posting this LK piece, which originally appeared in early July.
The Democrats are making a huge mistake entertaining ideas about going forward with their attempt to reinstate The Fairness Doctrine. The purpose of said doctrine is to try to even out the bias of the content currently heard on the political talk airwaves. Think of it as the Dems futile attempt, through legislation, to overwhelm the might of Rush, Sean, Laura, Levin, and The Salem Radio Network crew, among others. All right wing, all masters of the medium. The left’s got no one with that kind of national penetration, with maybe Randi Rhodes having the knowledge and radio chops to compete.
The criteria for getting air time and national syndication is pretty simple: attract listeners, lots of listeners. Radio’s a business. There’s nothing inherent in their material that accounts for the overwhelming advantage of the right. They’re just better at presenting their slant in entertaining and captivating ways.
I know Rush Limbaugh’s twisting the truth like a baker making pretzels, and Sean Hannity sounds way too smart to believe the lowest common denominator “you’re a great American” pablum he’s dispersing, but they, along with their compatriots, have found a groove that’s working, so there’s no reason to stop their mouth music. Their stations and syndicators care about ratings, not well reasoned and rational thinking.
The Dem’s mistake is trying to legislate talent under the guise of legislating equal time to polarized points of view. What they should be doing is taking Air America (which no one can turn around given the pool of insipid policy wonks the left offers as radio hosts) and treat it as Microsoft should treat Vista: junk it and come up with something compelling that justifies its own existence.
It’s as if the left is admitting defeat in the talk radio space and blaming it on the content rather than the presentation of the content. If the polls on the upcoming presidential election and the results of the recent special congressional elections are any indication, the Dems are on the winning side of the policy debate. And since these days more Americans get their news from talk radio than from traditional print media, the moderate-left politicos need to see the airwaves as a meritocracy they’ve got to compete in more effectively. In this case, like it or not, the messenger is as (if not more) important than the message conveyed.
I don’t usually have much in the way of fondness for Rush’s positions, but he’s a hoot to listen to. The left needs equally attractive on-air characters, not legislation that’s the air-wave equivalent of book burning.
7 Comments
Leave a Response
Additional comments powered by BackType
Here’s what’s ironic about this. For the past few years we liberals have reacted in shock that the right would seek to impose a “fairness doctrine” on programming on NPR, PBS, and other publicly funded media outlets, trying to insert conservative points of view in a venue supported by liberal audiences. So, in effect, if the “fariness doctrine” is adopted, then liberals wouldn’t have a leg to stand on re: their complaints about conservatives impinging on these liberal bastions.
Lastly – who wants the Internet policed for content and bias? Isn’t the blogosphere the democratization of opinion, journalism, and reporting? Let the traffic flow naturally to sites of true interest to audiences.
wonderful observation. the airwaves and the fiber optic lines need to be free market vehicles for a meritocracy, not central party control. if we wanted that we could move to Beijing.
Just because we hear idiot loudmouths like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity blabbering on doesn’t mean we’re forced to listen to them. This proposition implies that, no, somehow we are forced to listen to them and we should therefore be forced to listen to the other side, but everyone can see how stupid that is. It’s like the left is playing the victim — “Look how /unfair/ that is!” — and we’re all supposed to feel sorry for them.
To the left, I say suck it up and grow a pair.
we agree, although your style of description is far more colorful than mine. the fairness doctrine is like a government bailout of untalented radio hosts. next up is gov’t intervention in pro sports, say, annointing the Cubs the winners of the World Series, regardless of whether they made it in or not.
I remember, back in the day, when we Radio Station owners had to go door to door to ascertain community needs. When the FCC required an audit of 7 days of logs, measuring the balance of public service time and commercial matter.
Back then, the US had thousands of families who owned radio stations. Yes, corporations owned many – but no more than seven – total. Big markets had corporate ownership – but there were still some great family owned stations.
And this wasn’t the 30’s or 40’s. I’m talking the early 80’s.
I think about the family broadcasters I’ve known – The Hedburgs, the Paridis, the Nolan’s, and Minneapolis’ Hubbard Broadcasting – and I am nostalgic for better days.
These were broadcasters to whom the fairness doctrine wasn’t a burden – it was a part of who they were. It is why they got into broadcasting.
These were owners who did more community service than ever required of them.
Then came deregulation – two of these families sold out – mine was one of them. The FCC did away with the Fairness Doctrine, ownership limits, and just about every regulation there was regarding content and community service.
The big got bigger, buying up small town stations and marching them towards larger populations. Following the malls.
Small town retail faded away.
By 2002, there were only a handful of companies that controlled the vast majority of radio stations. Most owned huge clusters – 8 stations in a market, and 30-40 markets.
The programing got centralized – generic. Growth was through acquisition and economies of scale – not innovation and growing your staff and community.
Radio is in trouble… the total market cap of some of the biggest players in radio is less than what they paid for individual rural stations. Emmis broadcasting – with stations in New York City and L.A. now has a market cap under 25 million dollars. (Down from December 1999 high of 2.2 BILLION)
I love the idea of re-regulating radio – but fear it is just too late. The only hope is for all of radio to follow your advice – don’t rely on legislation, but start serving your communities.
Something tells me that if research were done as to the base listeners of talk radio, the results would clearly show that most are republicans or christian conservatives. Unfortunately, the modern picturesque democrat is not of the “talk show breed” (in general). That is not to say that democrats don’t listen to talk radio, it just simply shows that the audience for a left-wing radio spokesperson is not as large as the right-wing.
I hear right-wingers whine all the time, “the media is so liberal, blah, blah, blah,” If the media was so liberal then why the push to hush the right-winger on-air personalities? The answer lies in the heart of the propaganda battle from both fronts. If you can’t beat ‘em, get ‘em shut down.
I like your content LK; I’ll be adding you to my blogroll.
The trouble with the fairness doctrine is that it cannot be applied fairly. Like any ideological product of the mixed economy, it is a vague, indefinable approximation and, therefore, an instrument of pressure-group warfare.