Skip to main content

Yes, they get White House talking points. Yes, they purposely echo other wingnuts. Yes, they play the 'victim' card. And above all: yes, yes, yes,  IOKIYAR.

WTMJ is host to the wingnut Charlie Syke's show. The ex-news director, Dan Shelley, spills the beansabout how the wingnut radio format works.

No news here - except here it is black and white, from the trenches. Reading this article made me yearn for the Fairness Doctrine.

This long article in the Milwaukee Magazine confirms what thinking people have said all along.  Here's the talk radio formula.

Rule #1:  Appeal to perceived victimization

"To begin with, talk show hosts such as Charlie Sykes – one of the best in the business – are popular and powerful because they appeal to a segment of the population that feels disenfranchised and even victimized by the media. These people believe the media are predominantly staffed by and consistently reflect the views of social liberals. This view is by now so long-held and deep-rooted, it has evolved into part of virtually every conservative’s DNA."

Rule #2: Host always wins

"There is no way to win a disagreement with Charlie Sykes. Calls from listeners who disagree with him don’t get on the air if the show’s producer, who generally does the screening, fears they might make Charlie look bad. I witnessed several occasions when Sen. Russ Feingold, former Mayor John Norquist, Mayor Tom Barrett or others would call in, but wouldn’t be allowed on the air."

My blood pressure rises.

Rule #3: Dissenters face personal attacks

"How can Charlie do that? By belittling the caller’s point of view. You can always tell, however, when the antagonist has gotten the better of Charlie. That’s when he starts attacking the caller personally."

He goes on in great detail and there's lots of juicy reading. He mentions that "the more talk show hosts squawk about something ... the more they’re worried about the issue" and cites the Swiftboating of Kerry as an example. We've always talked about wingnut cognitive dissonance here, and he lists up several examples that were gratifying.

• Perjury was a heinous crime when Clinton was accused of lying under oath about his extramarital activities. But when Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s top aide, was charged with lying under oath, it was the prosecutor who had committed an egregious act by charging Libby with perjury..

Shelley finally got out when Katrina hit, when the attacks on the residents of NOLA were too much for even him to handle. No sympathy for him - he helped feed and grow the beast. It's interesting that he's 'coming out' now, after the country is make the first signs of turning away its addiction to hate and negativity that talk radio feeds on. Maybe it was a heavy weight.

In short, it's too little too late, but it does make a handy piece of material for your "I told you so" file.

Hat tip to Romensko's weird news site Obscure Store & Reading Room and his 'day job' at Poynter Online

Rec list! I am humbled. It seems the Fairness Doctrine remark set off a spirited discussion. To all the anti-FD commenters, I appreciate your points - I'll read up more on that side of the issue. For now, it's almost 4am where I am - off to slumber land!

Originally posted to worried sick on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 09:45 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Can we bring back the Fairness Doctrine already? (379+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Dark, wozzle, Sylv, exsimo2, Mr Tek, Skeeve, Chi, catdevotee, melo, Rayne, bluecayuga, Bear, skywaker9, gogol, miasmo, rhfactor, stephdray, alisonk, Categorically Imperative, BigOkie, Coldblue Steele, LynChi, cotterperson, meg, martianchronic, ChurchofBruce, Midwest Meg, Woody, sobermom, shpilk, Matilda, exNYinTX, jancw, vrexford, Creosote, sardonyx, kissfan, RubDMC, eyeswideopen, Gustogirl, monkeybiz, bronte17, missLotus, BlackSheep1, mmacdDE, Shadan7, pondside, mint julep, groggy, eddieb061345, CoolOnion, metal prophet, RabidNation, buckeyekarl, Stumptown Dave, boilerman10, mkfarkus, buckhorn okie, Ignacio Magaloni, sgilman, itsmitch, nargel, Miss Blue, bustacap, antirove, CocoaLove, Tomtech, SneakySnu, modchick65, Eddie in ME, grannyhelen, Rico, cosette, GN1927, Penny Century, ohiolibrarian, Bluehawk, Sychotic1, betson08, snakelass, dnn, kalmoth, lcrp, walkshills, imicon, JayBat, JohnGor0, WV Democrat, Needa Bigger Pretzel, tomjones, realalaskan, Josiah Bartlett, Timroff, feebog, sawgrass727, rapala, radarlady, Tinfoil Hat, Ckntfld, jfdunphy, Elise, UncleCharlie, blueyedace2, deepfish, docangel, CTPatriot, Bodean, corvo, Alice Venturi, kamarvt, jhutson, truong son traveler, MT Spaces, ChemBob, EJP in Maine, Dobber, trinityfly, reflectionsv37, boofdah, Crazy Fingers, Pam from Calif, snootless, jimreyn, where4art, aaraujo, GTPinNJ, LABobsterofAnaheim, eaglecries, lotlizard, Little Lulu, Joy Busey, wbr, The Raven, pacotrey, sodalis, Cory Bantic, AngieV, Team Slacker, JanL, Paddy999, grada3784, Sister Havana, begone, mariva, axman, MadGeorgiaDem, Coherent Viewpoint, lilyvaldem, Shirl In Idaho, dsteele2, Icy, Do Tell, tarheelblue, myboo, sherlyle, BlueInARedState, emeraldmaiden, 4thepeople, Ellicatt, Dvalkure, darthstar, Samwoman, buhdydharma, ccmask, deha, triv33, tecampbell, StrayCat, Lashe, SadieSue, imabluemerkin, real world chick, JVolvo, armadillo, CTLiberal, bleeding heart, PJHood, myrealname, doinaheckuvanutjob, llbear, lazybum, IL clb, GalaxieGal, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, buckeye blue, va dare, Stripe, means are the ends, kurious, Bernie68, blueintheface, Aaa T Tudeattack, Batbird, pat of butter in a sea of grits, Thinking Fella, ammasdarling, lams712, Boreal Ecologist, ibonewits, dotsright, Cronesense, Cat Whisperer, dmh44, Trim Your Bush, possum, Kaity, jetskreemr, gloriana, EdSF, linkage, threegoal, 0wn, Wino, yowsta, rogrwilco, Matt Z, Jimdotz, terabytes, DWG, Tenn Wisc Dem, MonsterSound, MI Sooner, jayden, manwithnoname, jedennis, Uberbah, montanajen, thursdays child, Moderation, uciguy30, JML9999, sable, Empower Ink, bluesweatergirl, cville townie, gizmo59, rmonroe, MKinTN, GANJA, Spruce, adrianrf, KLS, KingGeorgetheTurd, mconvente, Justus, scottiex2, Mr SeeMore, NotGeorgeWill, njdaly, 1Eco, wayoutinthestix, Youffraita, Judge Moonbox, Wes Opinion, hwmnbn, TH Seed, pademocrat, Jeff Y, ankey, luckylizard, get the red out, Blogvirgin, xysea, Holly Martins, DixieDishrag, BYw, Alice AN, Nica24, dont think, immigradvocate, Van140, TennesseeGurl, GrouchoKossak, legendmn, Sadameatsit, divitius, Pris from LA, tabby, Bule Betawi, multilee, artmartin, james1108, WSComn, Rick Aucoin, two roads, normboyd40, mtundu, Discipline28, NM Ward Chair, eroded47095, Dopeman, banjolele, Carol in San Antonio, DiedInSuburbia, Ohiodem1, a girl in MI, Nailbanger, jck, SciVo, Yalin, Daily Activist, zbbrox, ye ye ye, csquared, cheftdp, johngoes, MooseHB, paintitblue, dalfireplug, RadioGirl, NH Flaming Moderate, jfromga, Sleepwalkr, Dragon5616, Enrika, Leftcandid, Colorado Billy, Larsstephens, ozarkspark, Lauren S, Amber6541, ladygreenslippers, smileycreek, My Stupid Opinion, angry liberaltarian, ldvisavis, TidBits, p gorden lippy, JamesEB, Vacationland, LaughingPlanet, MarkMarvin, japangypsy, TheWesternSun, stunzeed, El Ochito, on board 47, Big Danny, chrome327, Crabby Abbey, cgirard, Eddie L, sullivanst, pixxer, Vitam Vas, Subo, Benintn, Puddytat, Kristina40, Grumpy Young Man, aclockworkprple, Urtica dioica gracilis, farbuska, Floande, bottles, science nerd, dwayne, LRLine, sidious666, Taya Lawrence, Scruffy Looking Nerf Herder, heart of a quince, annominous, I love OCD, lostinamerica2711, vahana, imnotyou, Radiogabs, sunshineflorida, Boocat, kathryn1812, The Son of the Devil Himself, FightingRegistrar, page394, blueinmn, greatlyconcerned, molunkusmol, wideout179, Frank in Oregon

    I'm so sick of blowhards screaming over the airwaves.

    U.S. Citizen Abroad? Sustain the Momentum! Join and contribute to Democrats Abroad at:

    by worried sick on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 09:45:36 AM PST

      •  Fairness Doctrine (90+ / 0-)

        There was a diary on this subject yesterday (sorry I don't know how to link) which quoted that Obama was against a new Fairness Doctrine. More surprising was that an overwhelming majority of the comments also did not support a new Fairness Doctrine. That was good news to me as I am against the Fairness Doctrine. We are the party of free speech and should not use our power to silence our critics.

        For those of you who support a new Fairness Doctrine I would ask a question. If our side had a 90% share of talk radio, and the wingers couldn't get any traction, would you still feel as strongly about the Fairness Doctrine? If so, good for you, you have fair position. If not, you just want to silence our critics.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:01:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I Am With You 110%, I Am Against A New FD (40+ / 0-)

          As I mentioned in another comment there are ways to go after these folks, and one is that with all the national shows running on hundreds of local stations they are not providing for the "public" good, which is a term of the contracts they hold with the FCC to get access to our airwaves for free.

          I mean can you think of another industry/business where the distribution channel for their product(s) is free and owned by the public? I sure can't.

          "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an act, but a habit." - Aristotle

          by webranding on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:05:42 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

            •  I Don't Like To Restrict Free Speech In Any Way (33+ / 0-)

              I hope there is a day where liberals have the lion share of the radio market. And when that happens I don't want a host to have to have some loon on just to "present" both sides.

              "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an act, but a habit." - Aristotle

              by webranding on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:20:58 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'd agree with you except you are 100% wrong. (24+ / 0-)

                If you can demonstrate how the Fairness Doctrine abridges anyone's freedom of speech I'll send you $10 cash.

                The claim that it does so is pure, raw bullshit.  The Fairness Doctrine does one thing and one thing only, it provides public access to the public airwaves.

                Rush Limbaugh will not be required to bring liberals onto his program.  He will not be required to add balance.  However, the radio station which licenses the PUBLIC AIRWAVES will be required to provide opposing viewpoints in other programming.

                That does not enjoin anyone.  Freedom of speech is not abridged, to the contrary freedom of speech is enhanced in that one partisan viewpoint will never dominate our public airwaves.  Freedom of speech is abridged when the public is shut out from the public airwaves.  And that is happening today because of a lack of the Fairness Doctrine.

                •  The basic problem is that liberal talk radio (6+ / 0-)

                  is not profitable, or at least nobody has figured out how to make it so. Regulations like this could indirectly silence Limbaugh et al, by forcing radio stations to bleed money on liberal hosts that nobody listens too.

                  The basic problem is that if the radio stations want to host Rush they'd be required to give equal time to some liberal radio commentator that nobody would listen too.  

                  Rush would have to pick up the Liberal host's slack, or else it would be cheaper to just not have political commentary at all and Rush would be off the air.

                  •  But liberal blogs are flourishing. (4+ / 0-)

                    We don't need the airwaves to prevail with our points of view.

                    Witness the election we just had. Talk radio is not exactly causing progressives to shrivel up and die.

                    Texas: Our Permanent Lock on the Presidency. Key: 5 points in 4 years.

                    by TX Unmuzzled on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:38:28 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Which is sortof my point (6+ / 0-)

                      Liberals don't get their info from radio.  We get it from other sources.

                      So conservatives listen to the radio, liberals read blogs.  Trying to get liberals to listen to the radio when they'd rather just read it in print or watch youtube is unnatural and may be futile.

                      If any liberal radio stations pop up, i wouldn't listen to them, for sure, because I never listen to the radio, period.

                      Making the radio stations host liberals would give them the very difficult task of convincing liberals to listen through a different medium than they usually do or else bleed money.

                      •  But large segments of Americans don't (4+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        meg, Matt Z, sethyeah, keepright86

                        use computers; the poor, those with less education, older folks, etc...
                        They are the demographics that are getting indoctrinated by hate radio. Thus they become conservatives.
                        People aren't born "conservative" or "liberal", nor do they inevitably stay that way forever; they can be persuaded to change their minds, but only if they are given information that makes them reconsider their views.

                        If all a person ever hears is RW radio, of course they'll become consevatives. But if they hear other views, then they can actually make up their own minds. This encourages Critical Thinking - a skill that Americans lack.

                        This is why The Fairness Doctrine is so important. It exposes people to a wider diversity of opinions.

                        Of course it hurts - you're getting screwed by an elephant.

                        by sean oliver on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 01:09:33 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  People vote against their own interests, (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          sean oliver, Matt Z

                          which is the worst part of right wing radio propaganda.  That's not right. They don't really have a choice. If progressive radio were funny, like Keith Olberman's "WPITW" segment, or "Ask Doctor Maddow", people would be entertained and would probably be relieved that they didn't have to listen to the relentless hate, anger and umbrage projected by Limbaugh and his ilk.

                          after the farce comes the tragedy.

                          by slouching on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 01:30:20 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, Americans need to be exposed to (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            bustacap, Matt Z

                            the notion of public discourse.
                            That's what the FD is; a simple method - a principle rather than a "law" - a way for people to get an idea of the opposing views in greater depth than on the nightly news, where stories only last a few minutes.
                            If, for every hour of Limbaugh that someone in Oklahoma listens to, they heard an hour of Rachel too, I'll betcha most of the listeners would be far better off intellectually, and some might even change their minds. It's always good for us to hear other views.
                            Enforcing the FD would not become some draconian problem. Most broadcasters would comply more-or-less, just like they did for about 60 years w/o any major problems.
                            Eliminating it was one of the worst things Clinton did. And he did alot of shitty things.

                            Of course it hurts - you're getting screwed by an elephant.

                            by sean oliver on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 02:16:12 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Not Clinton (0+ / 0-)

                            Reagan eliminated the FD. Clinton loosened the ownership restrictions, which was pretty much the only avenue to help counter the loss of the FD. That was s****y, too, but Reagan's the one who killed the fairness doctrine.

                          •  Ironically (0+ / 0-)

                            Maddow was a radio host on Air America's morning drive...

                      •  Overgeneralizing... (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        bustacap, IreGyre, keepright86

                        ...but right-wing talk radio is listened to in kitchens, in delivery trucks, on construction sites, etc. It's the province of people who don't necessarily work at desks or in office environments, with all the class distinctions that suggests.

                        Listening to talk radio is a lot more passive of an experience than reading a blog, doesn't take any effort. It's a one-way conversation.

                      •  Why don't you see that this is not a partisan (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        issue?  This is public policy.  Our public airwaves are virtually monopolized by one political party, with coordination at the highest levels of the party.  I don't want the fucking Democrats to have that power either.  This is one area where we definitely need to get government off our back.  The GOP runs the government and simultaneously the public airwaves.  This makes you happy?

                    •  Witness the election we just had (4+ / 0-)

                      48% of the country voted for McCain.  20% of the country actually likes Bush.  The policies that McCain actually supports are, in most cases, virtually identical to those of Bush.

                      If the economy weren't in the process of melting, and/or if he hadn't picked someone as easy to laugh at as Palin, it is entirely possible that McCain would have gotten elected.

                      The 28% of the country that hates Bush and loves McCain apparently doesn't read liberal blogs, but I bet a lot of it listens to talk radio.  And these are the people we need to convince to vote for us in the next election, because sure as hell some of our 52% is going to jump ship when Obama doesn't heal all the world's problems with a touch.


                      •  If you think the Fairness Doctrine... (4+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        TX Unmuzzled, dragon695, ipsos, tnproud2b

                        Is going to eliminate Republicanism, you haven't met many Republicans.  The right-wingers I've met don't listen to reason, whether it comes from a friend, a television presenter, or a new government-mandated voice on the radio.

                        Not only is it futile and pointless, it is dangerous to us as progressives.  It will cause a backlash, not only among the conservative faithful (who love to play the victim, as this diary says), but among others who listen to their spin on FD.

                        It has no discernible benefit, it is not necessary, and it could cause our movement a great deal of harm.

                        Two thumbs adamantly down.

                        In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.
                        -Yogi Berra

                        by joehoevah on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:01:52 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Yes, exactly (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          ipsos, joehoevah

                          This is all about getting revenge and nothing about fairness. I think it is important to ask what people would think if the tables were turned, somehow I do not think they would be so quick to demand the FD. If there is one thing I hate more than the anti-first amendment right, it is the fair weather pro-first amendment left.

                          •  Not only that... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            worried sick, joehoevah

                            but the return of the FD, if by some miracle it were to happen in the face of President-elect Obama's stated opposition to it and a lack of high-level Congressional support, still wouldn't accomplish what many here seem to think it would. Nor would most of the other earnest and well-meant proposals for deregulation being expressed here.

                            The problem lies in the complex web of changes that deregulation wrought over the last two decades or so.

                            Say you want more local radio, for instance. The FD by itself won't accomplish that. Indeed, given the really disastrous economic state that radio is in right now, it's not clear anything could accomplish that. We're seeing even the biggest stations in the biggest markets cutting local programming to the bone - and it's not just talk. Ryan Seacrest's national show has displaced local DJs everywhere from New York City and Boston to Seattle and Tucson, for instance.

                            OK, you say - that's big corporate owners cutting costs at Wall Street's behest. Well, yeah (though the private companies are doing it, too) - so what if we roll back the number of stations any given company can own? Right now, it's unlimited on a national level, and limited to eight in any given market.

                            So you roll ownership levels back - say, to four or five stations in a market, and 50 or 60 nationally. All better now?

                            Not so much, because a series of deregulatory moves in the eighties and nineties (google "Docket 80-90" for the gory details) dramatically increased the number of stations on the air in each market.

                            Even if radio didn't face all the zillions of other forms of media competing for ears and eyeballs, you've gone from a radio environment in the seventies and eighties, with 6 or 7 stations competing for listeners in a typical medium-sized market, to one with 20 or 30 or 40 stations fighting for attention in a market that size.

                            Guess what? There's pretty much no way an owner - especially a small owner struggling with debt service on a newly-purchased station - can afford to do the kind of "local" programming we'd all like to hear. Enter automation, satellite-delivered programming, and all the other things we in the business (and presumably those of you paying attention from outside the business) love to hate.

                            And this all assumes there's anyone left with the skills and interests to produce all that programming for the meager levels of pay a small-time owner can scare up.

                            Radio news as we knew it, at least in the commercial realm, is all but dead, and its last purveyors are being cut so deeply that it's not even bone left, just some dust on the floor. (You're damn right I'm bitter that the prominent all-news station where I once worked laid off a bunch of my colleagues not long ago.)

                            And radio talk as we know it now is following closely behind. The demographics tell the tale: there's virtually nobody under 50, and not many under 60, listening to "mainstream" RW talk radio on AM these days.

                            A few AM stations that see the writing on the wall are moving their formats to FM. Ironically, Bonneville, the broadcasting arm of the LDS Church, is in the forefront here - they've moved their AM news and talk stations to FM in Seattle, Phoenix, Salt Lake and DC. But the rest of them? Their ratings are falling almost as fast as their stock prices. (Check the 12-month history of CDL, the parent company of the biggest stations in the Limbaugh/Hannity/Levin axis, for a prime example.)

                            Let the AM talk blowhards rant and rave. Their time has passed. The future is here, and it's orange.

                            (And yeah, I probably will turn this into a diary at some point.)

                        •  Dude, are you sure you're not Sean Hannity? (0+ / 0-)

                          Because I heard exactly this argument on his radio program on the way home from work today.

                          I don't want Republicans abusing their licenses and refusing to act in the public interest, for which they were issued licenses, by serving their party, and not the public.  This isn't a partisan issue.

                        •  Comment (0+ / 0-)

                          75% of the country now dislikes Bush.  They listened to something.  In any case, that's a hideously offensive way to characterize 48% of our country.

                          As for your 'dangerous' remark, they already believe that the media is hopelessly liberally biased.  No matter what we do, they will continue to believe this until they hear media that is actually liberally biased.  They are constantly playing the victim on this one.

                          But honestly, I think you're right.  I think it would have no discernible benefit, because any implementation of it that we did would be so watered down that it would have as much effect as our efforts against media consolidation are going to have.

                          I have given up on the traditional media, because there are no Democrats out there who can get elected who have the balls to actually do anything about it.  And my guess is the Supreme Court overturns any common carriage laws we pass regarding the internet (Justice Kennedy looks like a weak reed indeed to bend those around) and we see the same things happening on the internet within ten to fifteen years.


                  •  Rush failed on TV (5+ / 0-)

                    and again on Monday Night Football.

                    But radio is cheaper and syndicated talk radio cheaper yet.

                    If Rush went away the radio might have to (gasp) play music!!

                    One America does the work, another America reaps the reward. One pays the taxes, another gets the tax breaks." John Edwards

                    by BlackSheep1 on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:55:06 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Perhaps liberal talk radio... (9+ / 0-)

                    ....would be profitable if they didn't keep getting yanked off the air whenever the shows started getting some momentum.

                  •  that's a limbaugh talking point (5+ / 0-)

                    liberal talkers compete well with the wingnuts on an even playing field and there are many blue parts of the country with no liberal shows.

                    ignoring the talk radio monopoly continues to be the biggest political blunder in decades

                    by certainot on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 12:10:50 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Left-Wing WCPT seems (6+ / 0-)

             be doing fine in the Chicago area ("Chicago's Progressive Talk").  After having just a wimpy, daytime-only AM station (820), they have now expanded to THREE FM stations for the North, West, and South regions (I listen to 92.5, the "West" station, out of DeKalb).

                      Some call it "Socialism" - I call it "Civilization".

                      by NormAl1792 on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 12:20:53 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You can thank a small broadcaster for that (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        WCPT and its new sister stations are owned by a guy named Fred Eychaner, who made a big pile of money when he sold his Chicago TV station a few years back.

                        He runs the radio stations as a hobby, more or less. Nothing wrong with that, in this case, because he's using them to help his - and our - cause.

                        Whether it ends up having any political impact is yet to be seen.

                  •  The basic problem is that (12+ / 0-)

                    liberals like to discuss things and authoritarians like being told what to do. That's why talk radio is a good medium for authoritarians and blogs are a good medium for liberals.

                    Remember: we are the ones we have been waiting for. Now do something: donate, organize, GOTV, investigate or spread the word

                    by Calouste on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 12:22:13 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Are you arguing against FD? (0+ / 0-)

                    Rush would have to pick up the Liberal host's slack, or else it would be cheaper to just not have political commentary at all and Rush would be off the air.

                    Sounds like a win to me.

                    We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
                    -6.63, -6.97

                    by amRadioHed on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 12:32:39 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Certainly from a liberal partisan perspective, (8+ / 0-)

                      its a win, but in terms of liberal ideals, its a violation of fairness.  We shouldn't be violating our ideals to push our viewpoints and the Fairness Doctrine is fundamentally illiberal.

                      •  I think that talk radio shoutfests (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        worried sick

                        like Rush Limbaugh are toxic to our democracy. I don't like liberal talk radio either, there is room for neither of them in my ideals.

                        Sure Limbaugh going off the air would be beneficial for liberals. It turns out getting people to vote tends to benefit liberals also. Does that mean getting people to vote is a partisan goal, or is pro-liberalism just a nice side effect of a healthy democracy?

                        We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
                        -6.63, -6.97

                        by amRadioHed on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 12:53:26 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Nonsense! (3+ / 0-)

                        Do you know what is exactly meant by "Fairness Doctrine"?

                        It means that a broadcaster/station which is using FCC frequencies has to provide an equal amount of time for opposing opinion programming. If the station broadcasts an hour of RW talk, they have to also broadcast an hour of "liberal" talk in approximately the same time slot. This is far from illiberal - in fact it very liberal: It is exposing people to the widest possible array of viewpoints so they can make up their minds after getting adequate information.

                        Obviously, there is alot of subjective interpertetion here, but there is nothing "illiberal" about using public airwaves responsibly as a means of exposing people to a wide variety of opinion.

                        Of course it hurts - you're getting screwed by an elephant.

                        by sean oliver on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 01:22:20 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  the fairness doctrine does not require equal time (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Val, worried sick, bustacap, joehoevah

                    everyone PLEASE memorize that sentence so we can stop going around in circles about this!

                    Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
                    We inaugurate President Barack Obama in 68 days!

                    by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 02:07:05 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  So if I get (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      the FD straight it requires that the opposing viewpoint of a controversial issue be simply presented and not have an equal time? I mean this in all seriousness, how would this effect a sports talk radio show if for some reason the host said something somewhat political? I don't know if I like the FD yet, but it seems I've been uninformed on it so I could easily be swayed. I always thought it had to be equal time.

                      If I had a shotgun you know what I'd do? I'd point it straight up at the sky and shoot heaven on down for you.

                      by DeLLBerto on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 08:22:07 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  i used to be confused about that too (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        the station as a whole, not individual hosts on a station, has to provide some time for contrary or opposing viewpoints throughout the day.  not equal time, just some time.

                        that's because the station as a whole, not individual hosts on a station, is the one with the license to use the public airwaves and the obligation to represent the public interest "fairly" (as opposed to 24 hour propaganda as some stations are doing now).

                        so it would have no effect on the sports talk show you mention.

                        WTKK in Boston has conservatives on all day every day except for a three hour show with one liberal and one moderate.  Therefore because of that one show with the different view WTKK would already be in compliance with the Fairness Doctrine if it were reinstated, and the wingnut talk shows could continue to broadcast exactly as they do now.

                        But the liberal/moderate show is the only one that tells the truth about the requirements of the (old) Fairness Doctrine!  The CON hosts on WTKK are still spouting the "Obama plans to take us off the air" talking point when some of them are smart enough to know better.  It's ridiculous.

                        Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
                        We inaugurate President Barack Obama in 67 days!

                        by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:09:42 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                •  it just doesn't work. (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  VClib, joehoevah, sethyeah, QuestionThat

                  People listen to conservative radio stations for the same reason people listen to liberal radio stations.

                  If Air America had to have conservative shows, it would go out of business immediately. The conservative stations would struggle too, if they had to have liberal hosts as well.

                   Fairness doctrine seems like a good idea on the face, but I think it would have unintended consequences. Better to bust up the media monopolies before we start dictating their programming.

                  Reality has a well-documented liberal bias - Colbert

                  by MikeDub on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 12:16:58 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You do not understand the Fairness Doctrine (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    meg, sean oliver, bustacap, pacotrey

                    if you think that AA would have to have conservative shows.

                    They would not, but the Radio Stations that host AA would have to set aside equal time for Limpballs, Insanity, O'Lielly, et al....and the stations that host their shows currently would have to host liberal shows in equal time proportions.


                  •  You don't understand the Fairness Doctrine. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    If Air America had to have conservative shows, it would go out of business immediately. The conservative stations would struggle too, if they had to have liberal hosts as well.

                    1st - This is not how the FD works.

                    2nd - What makes you reach that conclusion anyway?

                    Of course it hurts - you're getting screwed by an elephant.

                    by sean oliver on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 01:26:01 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  There aren't a lot of bipartisan radio stations (0+ / 0-)

                      trust me. People tune into Talk1320 or whatever because they can be confident that it will be angled towards their viewpoint.

                      I don't know about you, but i don't spend a lot of time listening to stations that play limbaugh.

                      And I doubt that wingers spend much time listening to NPR.

                      The FD might work, but it needs to be applied to the conglomerates, not the individual radio stations.

                      I would love it if Murdoch had to run a whole liberal network to keep his conservative network, but to make a small tv or radio station change their programming and alienating their demographic and current audienceis a bad idea.

                      If you're telling me that the FD won't apply to individual stations, then I might be persuaded.

                      Reality has a well-documented liberal bias - Colbert

                      by MikeDub on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 03:00:43 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Free speech... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bustacap, snakelass, BYw

       limited by big corporations who control the airwaves. Even though a majority of people are on the left or in the center in the US, the majority of voices on the radio are right-wing. How does this reflect free speech? I support reasonable regulation of markets. Plus, the Fairness Doctrine does not have prior restraints on what any talkers say on the air. That would be an unacceptable restriction on free speech. I think the Fairness Doctrine is about fairness, first and foremost. We can't concede the airwaves to the right, but we don't have the choice, with these right-wing corporations in control.

                •  It reflects the views of those who listen to talk (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  joehoevah, Go Kid Hugo

                  radio.  Liberals and moderates don't tend to consume talk radio.  I know that I wouldn't.  It also reflects an oligopoly in terms of broadcast ownership.  The way to ensure that there is fair competition is to break up conglomerates, not force speech upon those who disagree with it.

                  The problem lies in both the nature of the consumer and the current structure of the market.  Restricting free speech will not solve these problems and is fundamentally illiberal.  I personally don't want the FCC determining what is fair or not.  The market can do that if the barriers to entry are low and there is a wide array of competitors.  Government action should be focused on providing that, not on monitoring the speech of citizens and determining whether it is a "fair balance".

                  •  I'm a big fan of talk radio (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    I know several other lefties who are, as well. I love Thom Hartman, Mike Malloy, Randi Rhodes, and Ed Schultz. The reaction of most people are "hey, I didn't even know that existed!" Liberal talk radio has never been given a chance to succeed in the free market. That's why we need a Fairness Doctrine, or at the least, massive trust busting in the media industry.

                  •  You don't understand how propaganda (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    TrueBlueMajority, bustacap, Uberbah

                    People will change or develop their opinions based upon the information they are exposed to.
                    You say "conservatives listen to talk radio" but that is only half true. Plenty of people who might not have strong opinions (like someone who is young) will become conservative because they only listen to talk radio all the time; there aren't any other voices on his/her local radio station, and so they are indoctrinated by RW propaganda.

                    If they are not exposed to any other opinions, obviously they will become more and more conservative.

                    This is why the FD is so important: it exposes people to alternative views they would not have heard otherwise.

                    We've had the FD since what, the 1930's or so, and nobody complained about it until the Right began doing it in the 90's.
                    Clinton abolished it to appease the RW and the corporatists.

                    This is a real no-brainer, people.
                    The FD was a simple, effective way to give Americans at least some diversity of opinion, so they could start thinking for themselves.
                    Without it, whole swaths of the US don't know anything about anything except what they hear on RW radio.

                    Of course it hurts - you're getting screwed by an elephant.

                    by sean oliver on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 01:40:23 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  The problem is they don't.... (0+ / 0-)

                tell both sides of the story. I listen to satelite talk radio and it makes me literally sick. John Gibson's daily rants and screaming at his callers goes way beyond telling both sides. Gibson regularly calls Pres-Elect Obama "Barack O-Blow Me" which I find utterly appalling.

                Bill O the clown and Hannity's talk radio programs are also just as vile. Something has to be done about these people maliciously slandering our new Pres. Did they do that to Bush? Hell no they didn't!

                Hannity is always mocking Obama on his tv show about about the Fairness Doctrine. Maybe Hannity should be scared. I scan the FOX talk radio programs just to see what added vile is on their agenda for the day and it's enough to create an uprising....maybe that's what they're looking for!

                FOX News talk radio and television should be monitored closely by the FCC. There should be a law in place for intentionally defaming a United States President on the air.

                •  I'm surprised by the amount of illiberal (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  VClib, tnproud2b, sethyeah, DoubleT

                  sentiment in these comments.  Certainly there is a problem with our media, but that problem comes from the structure of the market, not from the fact that people are allowed to speak freely.  Instituting the fairness doctrine does not fix the structure of the market, but it does restrict free speech, which is a fundamental value that I am unwilling to give up, even if that means that people I strongly disagree with end up getting more access to the microphone on a particular medium.

                  Do you think a fairness doctrine on the Internet would be a good idea?  Should the government regulate what DailyKos says?  I would emphatically say "NO!"

                  What our government should be doing is breaking up media conglomerates, not regulating speech, something that should be illegal under the first amendment to our constitution.

                  •  How on earth does it (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    bustacap, Uberbah

                    "restrict free speech"???
                    The whole idea of the FD is allow more free speech.
                    NOT having the fairness doctrine censors free speech!!!
                    This is utterly crazy.

                    Of course it hurts - you're getting screwed by an elephant.

                    by sean oliver on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 01:44:06 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It forces private entities to air views that they (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      might not otherwise.  I think it is the prerogative of the individual or organization running a station to choose which views to be aired.  That is what free speech is.  The Fairness Doctrine is regulated speech, which yes, restricts the rights of the broadcasters to air whatever view they want, which is what I believe free speech is.

                      Regulated speech may seem more fair to you, particularly if you don't like the type of opinions that get the most airtime, but that stems from the nature of the ownership and the audience of AM radio stations.

                      If you think that regulating the airing of views by a media outlet is compatible with the notion of free speech, I would like to know your definition of free speech, because it doesn't sound anything like the definition used when referring to the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

                    •  It judges and politically evaluates (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      speech on the air, which only results in insipid broadcasting being allowed. It is predicated on the notion that there are really only two views: one for, and one against. This is a false dichotomy, to begin with. Just because I don't agree with what I hear, doesn't mean that my opposing view is the only opposing view.

                      There are not enough channels on the dial and hours in the day to give air to all possible opposing views. Therefore, you have to let the market decide which views are worthy of being aired.

                      I agree that the only solution is to break the conglomeration of ownership, and have a limitation on how many outlets one owner can have in a certain market. This is the only fair way to approach the situation.

                      •  But that structure, too, has been broken (0+ / 0-)

                        One of the less-noticed aspects of the Telecom Act of 1996 and its deregulatory predecessors was the way in which the broadcast radio spectrum was shuffled.

                        Radio stations used to be truly scarce things - not only because the technical standards in place until the eighties severely limited the number of stations in any one city, but because there was an understanding that a glut of stations would limit the ability of any one owner to draw the ratings and revenue needed to provide the kind of public service (local news, in particular) that the FCC used to mandate.

                        Today, the FCC will gladly license a 100,000-watt FM radio station to a town of 200 people in rural Montana - and then allow it to be programmed from a city 100 miles away. Whether that station could ever provide useful local service is not taken into consideration.

                        Unringing that bell will be nearly impossible - which may be exactly what the deregulators had in mind.

                        •  Unringing the bell... (0+ / 0-)

                          Maybe radio and eventually tv will just go the way of the dodo... frankly it wouldn't bother me at all. Maybe the fate of radio and tv is that it will become more like the internet. That would really be a sign that democracy has come to america.

                          It isn't our representatives in congress who deceive and mislead us nearly so much as it is the monopoly press.

                •  free speech (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  dragon695, tnproud2b

                  Bill O the clown and Hannity's talk radio programs are also just as vile. Something has to be done about these people maliciously slandering our new Pres. Did they do that to Bush? Hell no they didn't!

                  They didn't, of course, but liberal hosts have said plenty of nasty and irresponsible things too.  It's been a few years since I've listened to any radio at all, or I'd have given you a list of examples.  Requiring equal time wouldn't do anything to reduce the nastiness level.

                  I don't know what the solution is, but I think we need to tread very carefully when we're talking about what we should be allowed to say about our elected officials.  I'm a big fan of free speech.

                •  It was called the Alien and Sedition Act (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  and it created one of the darkest periods in American history.

                  (-2.38, -3.28) Independent thinker

                  by TrueBlueDem on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:08:40 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Free speech has been restricted on the radio (4+ / 0-)

                for the last eight + years.  With dominantly right wing republican ownership of talk radio, the programs are almost exclusively hosted by right wing republicans who spend hours bashing Democrats and liberals.  These stations at one time had at least a few liberal talk show hosts as well as the right wingers, but not anymore.  There is no nationwide liberally-based program with an opposing point of view. I know Air America is out there, but we don't get it in our area.  But we have no shortage of radio stations that give Limbaugh a platform to spew his hate day after day.

                Liberals are definitely not allowed to speak freely on these programs.  Only half of America has been allowed freedom of speech on the radio over the last eight years. The other half have had their freedom of speech muted. As things stand now, only the right wing republicans have the soapbox, and they aren't about to share it voluntarily.

                •  They are private programs. (4+ / 0-)

                  Conservatives don't have the ability to speak freely here.  They get shouted down or rated out pretty quickly.  I don't think that the government should regulate that.

                  If ownership is the problem, then that's what the government should tackle.  Addressing a symptom as if its the problem and violating fundamental principles as the means of addressing it is not permissible in my book.

                  Now, I suspect that talk radio will tend to have a conservative/authoritarian bent even with conglomerates broken up.  And that is for a similar reason that the Internet will have a liberal bent:  both mediums cater to different audiences.  The people who use the Internet to voice their views and find others of similar views are more likely to be liberal or libertarian.  Those who listen to talk radio are more likely to be conservative or authoritarian.  This is not universal, but as a generalization, I think it's pretty accurate.

                  •  The airwaves are NOT privately owned! (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    meg, bustacap, Uberbah, pstoller78

                    The airwaves belong to the PUBLIC.

                    They are "owned" by the FCC, not the company that is licensed to use them.
                    The wingnuts can do whatever they want on their shows, but the station that broadcasts them has to provide an equivalent number of "opposing" on-air hours. The station is the entity which has the responsibility to provide balanced commentary because the station does not own the airwaves - the US People do.

                    That is what the FD is.

                    The idiotic and false idea that the airwaves are "private businesses" is yet another bogus Right Wing Myth like "corporate personhood" that has been used by the Republicans and the Right to
                    -eliminate free speech
                    -destroy ethical business regulations
                    -allow bogus accounting practices
                    -employ blatantly false advertising
                    -scare/lie the US into war
                    -destroy the environment
                    -eliminate Unions and keep wages low

                    Of course it hurts - you're getting screwed by an elephant.

                    by sean oliver on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 01:58:47 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You're right in principle... (0+ / 0-)

                      but there's a fairly persuasive line of argument that things changed when Congress mandated that radio spectrum be auctioned (a part of the 1996 Telecom Act.)

                      It used to be that when you applied for a new radio station, you got the license for free after the FCC had determined that you were the best steward of those public airwaves.

                      Not so anymore. Now it's handled through spectrum auctions, which can run up into the multiple millions of dollars for an FM signal in even a medium-sized market.

                      A station owner who's shelled out that kind of coin for the airwaves on which he broadcasts probably has a decent case in court (especially today's Federal courts) if the government then turns around and tells him what he can and can't say on those airwaves.

                      (Not saying I agree with the argument, mind you.)

              •  If liberals ever have the lion share (0+ / 0-)

                it will only be because the Republican Party has ceased to exist.

                I've always been somewhat conflicted on this issue, and this is the main reason why, but I mostly agree that the fairness doctrine is not fair; even if the lack of one isn't either.

                Democrats -- Progress for the Working Class

                by rogun on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 09:42:18 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Here's mine: (27+ / 0-)

              The right-wing stranglehold on talk radio is not a factor of ratings. It's a factor of consolidation of ownership. Obama already promised to break up the big media companies, and that should be enough.

              The Fairness Doctrine wasn't very good.

              "I set up a stage, put up a few banners, stuck a podium up there, and started shouting 'Yes we can.' Next thing you know there's 150,000 people here." -Joe

              by Geiiga on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:33:11 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Here's mine (12+ / 0-)

                I don't want the FCC wasting its time trying to regulate the content of every media outlet.

                They've got far better things to do in fighting the consolidation of media empires.

                It's our turn now.

                by cultjake on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:44:57 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  The walk and chew gum argument, really? (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  meg, BlackSheep1, bustacap, pacotrey

                  Is that a real limitation against doing the right thing...or just a convenient excuse?

                  •  Actually, with Bush's FCC the results would (4+ / 0-)

                    not have yielded anything different from what we've already seen in the Alan Colmes era.

                    It is too subjective who is a "fair" rival and as we've seen the "judges" can be very partial.

                    The focus should be on bringing back the old ownership rules.

                    Locally owned affiliates in broadcast television for instance have dramatically decreased over the past twelve years.  ABC, FOX, CBS, NBC were not allowed to own more than a certain percentage of their local affiliates.  

                    I can't remember how many Rupert owns right now, but there was a bill passed especially for him to allow him to greatly increase his share.  That means that his imperatives have greater reach than they once did when the stations were locally owned affiliates who could at one time tell him to piss off when they didn't want to do something he wanted.  They were his customers and now he is their boss.

                    The key is bringing back diversity of opinions - not abitrarily picking two sides of a multi-faceted issue and throwing them up for the sake of fairness.  That isn't actually fair in the end.  The only way you can achieve that diversity imo is by breaking up the monopoly that a limited number of media holding companies currently have on our airwaves and in print.

                    •  I am fine with that as a (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      inclusiveheart, LostInTexas, pacotrey


                      But I think we can do more than one thing at a time. Including focussing on more than one thing. There are after all 535 or so Congressmen and an entire government agency involved here!

                      Which is the easier option to "sell?" A return to the FD, or breaking up media cartels? WHILE the media (and we certainly know how much they shape the national discussion and views) fight tooth and nail against it?

                      I think th FD is a much easier first step. As imperfect as it is.

                      •  I don't know. (5+ / 0-)

                        In this economic environment where the question of opportunity has come to the front of the public debate, I don't think that selling the idea of breaking up monopolies is going to be such a hard sell at all.

                        I think people are looking at Detriot's "Big Three" right now and secretly wishing they were smaller and more numerous like the "Big Fifteen" or something.  The notion of "Too Big to Fail" is starting to loom large as these giants wobble over us threatening to crush us all when they fall.  I'm thinking small and medium will be back in vogue in not time, if they already aren't "in".

                        And as I noted in my previous post, I don't think that government "watchers" given the power to decide what is "fair" are going to help what is already a really bad situation.  They'll just make it worse imo.

                        •  If we are really to that point (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          inclusiveheart, joehoevah

                          where breaking up monopolies is possible or even popular, then we are better off than I dare to hope!

                          I am all for Going Big, if we can 'get away' with it!

                          •  Well, it is worth noting that the wingers (4+ / 0-)

                            have been working on demonizing the Fairness Doctrine concept for some years now.  They didn't really focus on breaking up monopolies because they thought they were sufficiently protected from that trend.  But the world has changed around them and with this economic collapse there are going to be a lot more people who are open to ideas that really start to level the playing field again.  At least that is my take on the general trends we are witnessing.

                        •  Skeptical (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          buhdydharma, Go Kid Hugo

                          In this economic environment where the question of opportunity has come to the front of the public debate, I don't think that selling the idea of breaking up monopolies is going to be such a hard sell at all.

                          And my guess is, barring actual armed revolution, the best we can hope for is to stop further media consolidation.  We broke up AT&T, and now it's been deregulated and put right back together.  Do you honestly think that we're in a situation now where we could break it up again?  Obama has talked about media consolidation as bad, but I have never even heard an inkling from him, or from any of our actual congressional power brokers, about breaking things up.  All I've heard is 'we must stop it from spreading further.'  Which is great for the media... when Democrats are in power, they stop growing.  When Republicans are in power, they grow some more.  Repeat ad nauseam.

                          I think the country is still in a place where 2/3 of the people in it think that the bigger a company is, the better.  They're not saying "I wish the Big Three were the Big Fifteen", they're saying "Why aren't any of the Big Three the #1 producer of cars in the world any more?"


                    •  hmmm, I should add (0+ / 0-)

                      as opposed to just the RW and their agents in the govt. fighting tooth and nail

                      •  I work in media. (6+ / 0-)

                        So maybe I'm a good or bad source depending on how you interpret my bias, but I wouldn't want pretty much anyone of the 535 members of Congress messing with my content.  I've seen what they do when there is some silly controversy about music lyrics - the wingers do their thing and the lefties run for the hills looking for cover.

                        What we don't have on the public airwaves anymore is diversity.  Local radio stations with local people saying what they thing about something just don't exist anymore.  That's because clearchannel bought them all up and the ones they didn't buy are owned by some other giant holding company producing syndicated media that comes from a very narrow "talent" base.  Media has to be able to be free to say what it thinks and not be subjected to the political whims of an adminstration or individual members of Congress.  That's my feeling :)

                        •  Ah, fear of change! (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          bustacap, inclusiveheart

                          (no offense!)

                          I think we are gonna run into a LOT of that, since ALL of the changes in the past eight years have been disastrous, we are used to thinking of changes that affect us as potential disasters. I think we need to overcome that a bit.

                          Easy for me to say of course, my ass isn't on the line!

                          •  I don't really think I am as a rule (6+ / 0-)

                            at all afraid of change, I don't especially like bad changes though and the past eight years has been full of that.

                            But one of the main things that I've taken away from witnessing the past eight years is an even harder line on my already hardline view of limitations on government power.  

                            More than ever, I do not trust politicians to make moral or qualitative decisions on individual cases.  They seem incapable of staying in the realm of the big picture.  Many have a personal political agenda and those who don't are incapable of extrapolating the effects of their judgements across all of the people in this country each of whom has a unique story.  Terri Schaivo is a good example of their inability to cope beyond their own tiny worlds and beyond the very sad particulars of her individual set of circumstances.  How in the world could I trust them to deal with the Fairness Doctrine fairly and in consideration of the big picture?

                            Another example is Sarah Palin's latest "offer" to help the media restore its reputation.  Nice of her to offer to help out, but "thanks but no thanks" as someone of note recently said.  I just think the mechanism of the Fairness Doctrine will prove to be ineffective or even worse than what we are dealing with now because it will provide some cover for those people who manage to bastardize it.

                          •  As I have been saying a lot lately (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            bustacap, inclusiveheart

                            Narrative is all. The narrative that changes are thought off in will produce the agendas that shape the change. It is one of the more interesting intellectual wanks of the current day!

                          •  BTW I don't work in "the" media. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            buhdydharma, joehoevah

                            Not much anyway.  But I produce media and that is why I am somewhat protective of the right to produce unfettered by Congress or the FCC.

                        •  We had the FD for decades! (0+ / 0-)

                          What harm did it cause?
                          What good did it do?

                          I'll venture to say it did far more good than harm.

                          Of course it hurts - you're getting screwed by an elephant.

                          by sean oliver on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 02:02:09 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

              •  This false equivalency crap is about (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                worried sick, bustacap, bablhous, dwayne

                the media trying to do thier own 'fairness doctrine' because the right attack has them on the defensive about thier bias. The MSM bias is about the ratings and earnings. Else why would they keep  on about Palin? Sometimes I think they are hoping she would win eventually just because it would provide a lot of controversy and that would inflame viewers. And wow a candidate who licks her lips and isn't bad to look at. They couldn't have invented her any better. Thats why Rush pushed for her... he knew the media would eat her up.

                •  Uh... were we watching the same election? (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  sean oliver, joehoevah, keepright86

                  Did we see the same polls? She wasn't exactly made into a shining candidate by a compliant media. The media focused on her because she was weird and unknown, and then she became a full on trainwreck.

                  A better example would be the media in 2000 relative to Al Gore vs. George W. Bush. That was pre-blog days and the trad media had a much easier time driving the media narratives.

                  Texas: Our Permanent Lock on the Presidency. Key: 5 points in 4 years.

                  by TX Unmuzzled on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:41:12 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You are right but it is delicious for MSM (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    TX Unmuzzled

                    that is why they keep flogging her.  Polls don't mean crap to MSM. They don't care whether people love her or hate her. In fact, they love the controversary she has inflamed. What matters is viewership and ratings. If Palin is the good guy or the bad guy or the clown - it doesn't matter to them because she gets viewers from both the left and the right.
                    Personally I think ignoring her is the way for the left to go with maybe a few strong stomached among us to report back on what she is up to.

                    The MSM isn't really about News anymore. They have devolved into entertainment. I haven't got news from them for nearly a decade.

                •  palin brought in the talk radio base, that's why (0+ / 0-)

                  rush and that wing pushed her and still do. she doesn't have to read, she listens to talk radio and can channel it.

                  ignoring the talk radio monopoly continues to be the biggest political blunder in decades

                  by certainot on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 12:14:27 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Of course it's a factor in ratings (7+ / 0-)

                And the rise of Maddow is a direct result of Olbermann's ratings.

                Let the market decide. There are plenty of alternative outlets (like the web) for different kinds of speech.

                The government does NOT need to be refereeing speech.

                •  they've been subsidized, monopolized, anddefended (0+ / 0-)

                  they sell war, deregulation, and global warming denial and the monopoly will continue to subsidize and protect the monopoly that got us into this disaster and lose billions to make trillions.

                  ignoring the talk radio monopoly continues to be the biggest political blunder in decades

                  by certainot on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 12:23:01 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And yet they lost this election (5+ / 0-)

                    why? In large part because of the rise of new media outlets that allow the opposite message to be heard.

                    You supporters of the fairness doctrine are stuck back in 1980, apparently unawares that the world has kind of evolved since then.

                    •  and would have lost to gore and kerry (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      bustacap, buhdydharma

                      if the monopoly hadn't given rove the ability to take lee atwater's tactics national. kerry's swiftboating couldn't have happened without talk radio. a new FD may not be the answer but ignoring talk radio is like ignoring a wound because it's ugly. or ignoring the other guy's gun because you have one too. print (paper or internet) and TV can't propagandize like talk radio. and a lot of us out here have slow connections.

                      ignoring the talk radio monopoly continues to be the biggest political blunder in decades

                      by certainot on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 12:52:26 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Refereeing speech? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bustacap, Nightprowlkitty

                  Or regulating the public airwaves that speech travels over?

                  That seems to be the two different ways of looking at it.

              •  deconsolidation will take too long to help obama- (0+ / 0-)

                he's already being redefined.

                ignoring the talk radio monopoly continues to be the biggest political blunder in decades

                by certainot on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 12:16:58 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Explain why it wasn't please: (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                The Fairness Doctrine wasn't very good.

                Why was it not very good?

                Of course it hurts - you're getting screwed by an elephant.

                by sean oliver on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 02:00:04 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  It didn't really do much. (0+ / 0-)

                  As I understand it, it didn't say "Well, we've got three hours of Limbaugh, we need to put Rachel Maddow's show in to balance that." It just said that if Limbaugh's going to talk shit on someone, then he has to give them time on his show to rebut that.

                  Which is fine and dandy, I suppose, but it doesn't get Limbaugh off the air and it doesn't get more progressive voices up either.

                  Tighter rules on station ownership, however, will. Certain liberal talkers are doing quite well in those places where they can actually get some airtime. Thom Hartmann beats Rush Limbaugh in a number of cities. Ed Schultz beats Hannity in a few places as well. But they can't get on in a place like Kansas City, where all the stations are owned by three big companies.

                  "I set up a stage, put up a few banners, stuck a podium up there, and started shouting 'Yes we can.' Next thing you know there's 150,000 people here." -Joe

                  by Geiiga on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:56:42 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  My argument against the fairness doctrine... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dragon695, TexasTwister, joehoevah

              ... is that it only allows for two basic points of view, the left and the right. What about other points of view? How could you possibly be fair to everyone who has their own take on an issue?


              Hyperbole will be the death of us all!

              by MrHinkyDink on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:48:20 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  EXACTLY (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MrHinkyDink, dragon695

                I'd love to see the reactions here when Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Cynthia McKinney supporters start demanding air time on every radio station. Third parties will POUNCE on the Fairness Doctrine.

                It will be giant clusterfuck that nobody listens to. Stations will go out of business, will sue to overturn the Doctrine, and easily win that case.

                (-2.38, -3.28) Independent thinker

                by TrueBlueDem on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:15:27 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Another point is that the fairness doctrine (0+ / 0-)

            as an FCC rule rather than a law wouldn't necessarily apply to talk radio anyway because those shows are considered news/entertainment or "infotainment" and are not editorials.

            Talk radio does, mostly, provide opportunity for rebuttal and offers open discussion of the topic which was the basis for the rule.

            Trying to interject controls on how much air time those dissenting views must be afforded would result in something chaotic and probably adverse to the public good.

        •  Hmmm. Interesting. (10+ / 0-)

          I'll look up the diary. To me the FD seems like a no-brainer.

          And to answer your question, yes, I would.

          U.S. Citizen Abroad? Sustain the Momentum! Join and contribute to Democrats Abroad at:

          by worried sick on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:07:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  In answer to your question, (13+ / 0-)

          YES, I would still support a fairness doctrine.  All I've ever wanted is a level playing field.  I trust our message.  What we have now is censorship based on corporatist right leaning publishers of information, whether it's print, radio or TV.

          Kick apart the structures.

          by ceebee7 on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:14:17 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  So how is a legislative mandate an answer? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dragon695, last starfighter, dwayne

            Sounds like we need a market-based solution to this, not heavy-handed government regulation that only acts to cement the idea that there is a 'liburhl meejah' lying to all of us.

            In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.
            -Yogi Berra

            by joehoevah on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:26:06 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Fairness Docterine (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            It's not about a level playing field.  It's about the ability for the Public to use their airwaves they own and telling corporations to shove it if they don't use the airwaves as they see fit.  They are not business airwaves, they are public airwaves, don't forget that.  If the corporations want control, they can go fly a kite, or a satellite for that matter.

            •  (Late comment) OK... but the "Public" (0+ / 0-)

              needs the resources (power) to tell the corporations that... what is the mechanism to do that?  Congress?  Haven't done it yet!  Consumer actions, like boycott?  There is Fox Boycott website, has not been effective in affecting Fox's message.  Congress is the only entity that has the power to tell the corporations to shove it.  Hence, my favoring the equal time doctrine.  We have seen that corporations, including media corporatins, will do as they damn well please, absent government regulation.  That's how we got in this mess in the first place.

              Kick apart the structures.

              by ceebee7 on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:46:46 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  We need FD (8+ / 0-)

          I do support a Fairness Doctrine. The right-wing nonsense about "the market has decided on republican talk radio" is total B.S. There is very little competition for talk radio, it is more of a monopoly than a market.

          •  The market hasn't decided, which is the point. (13+ / 0-)

            Where liberal talk radio is available, it is competitive with the righties. The problem is the stranglehold of ownership among the wingers.

            "I set up a stage, put up a few banners, stuck a podium up there, and started shouting 'Yes we can.' Next thing you know there's 150,000 people here." -Joe

            by Geiiga on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:35:41 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  But GOP talk radio does have competition. (8+ / 0-)

            You're reading it right now. Bloggers and other Internet resources.

            When nothing but broadcast radio & TV existed, the FD served a useful purpose, to ration out the existing limited bandwidth. That's not a problem now.

            Also, you have to own a radio or TV station to have access to broadcast media. OTOH, the opportunity cost for a blog is practically nothing, once you own a computer and have Internet access.

            This blows me away that this country is this stupid to put this evil man [Obama] into office. -- From a post at

            by Kimball Cross on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:52:45 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  How many people own and use radios? (9+ / 0-)

              How many people own and use computers?

              No equivalency there. At all.

              Do what you can with what you have where you are - Guild of Maintainers

              by bablhous on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:14:37 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ha ha (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dragon695, ipsos, miscanthus

                How many hundreds of millions of dollars did McCain raise over the radio? How many did Obama raise over the internet?

                Not only is there equivalency in audience sizes, but ours is has a greater direct impact on the system.

                •  No. That is a false equivalency. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bablhous, Go Kid Hugo

                  The people who are on the Internet and the people using old media are different populations.

                  Do you really mean to abandon the old*, the poor, and the rural?  Because those are the folks who have limited access to broadband or even dial-up. If you can't afford a car, or food, you probably can't afford the Internet. Not everywhere is wired.

                  These are the people who need to hear/see/read more than just Rush et al.

                  *And by "old" I mean many people as young as 40 or so.

                  No more nonsense, please.

                  by ohiolibrarian on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 12:24:40 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  right. huge parts of the country- the red states (4+ / 0-)

                    the radio is the only thing for news etc driving or working.

                    ignoring the talk radio monopoly continues to be the biggest political blunder in decades

                    by certainot on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 12:29:41 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I think it is you (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    who is out of touch with today's media world.

                    There are alternate media outlets that have nothing to do with the internet -- ethnic media, cell phones, alternate newspapers, and so on.

                    The notion that government should mandate equality of viewpoints on every medium, without regard to our diverse modern media landscape, is myopic and rooted in the past. We've evolved past 1980.

                    •  Yes, of course there are. But, who do you think (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      meg, bustacap, bablhous, Go Kid Hugo

                      are using them?

                      Not my 70+ in-laws who have a computer (but have never been able to figure out how to use it) and who have a cell phone (that they only turn on when they want to make a call). And, they vote.

                      Not my old boss (now retired), who ever since we got our 4.77 MHz IBM PC in 1985 at work has always meant to really learn how to use the computer, but never did. And, she votes.

                      Or my mother (now 91), who has the hardest time figuring out how to use the cell phone I got her. And she votes, too. (For Obama after steady applications of Olbermann)

                      If you look at this Digital Trends report, you will see a lot of support for your position. But you will also see that there is also a lot of support for mine. Many, many people in this country do not use new media and we ignore their information needs at our peril.

                      I am not saying that the Fairness Doctrine of old is the answer, but I also say that abandoning the old media to the right wing is foolish.

                      No more nonsense, please.

                      by ohiolibrarian on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 01:33:42 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  you're still talking apples and oranges (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Sagebrush Bob

                      the internet is still relatively unregulated and that is why it better reflects the real political leanings of the country. it also is read and watched (if you have a quick connection) and then you move on. and alternatives abound.

                      the monopoly has a huge, sometimes practically captive audience. and it can be  subject to centralized, coordinated, repetition with little chance for correction, and used at crucial times to mobilize national "consensus" that media and politicians often use to enable their own agenda or are threatened and intimidated by.

                      by it's nature it is a different kind of medium, one especially well suited to propagandize and short circuit the normal feedback mechanisms democracy requires.

                      ignoring the talk radio monopoly continues to be the biggest political blunder in decades

                      by certainot on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 02:00:47 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  straw man (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      meg, bustacap

                      is anyone suggesting that government mandate equality of viewpoints on every medium?

                      Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
                      We inaugurate President Barack Obama in 68 days!

                      by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 02:31:50 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  print, internet, TV different also cause (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        print (paper or internet) doesn't usually get read over and over and over.  TV isn't usually on at work or in the car. repeated over and over an over.

                        ignoring the talk radio monopoly continues to be the biggest political blunder in decades

                        by certainot on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:57:04 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

            •  there are enormous areas of the country (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bustacap, certainot, Uberbah, soundchaser

              where you can near nothing but liberal bashing radio 24 hours a day.

              mechanics can't blog while they are working on cars and short order cooks can't blog while working in a diner and barbers can't blog while they are cutting hair and cashiers can't blog in between ringing up purchases.

              those people have nothing but broadcast radio, and propaganda is piped in to them all day every day.

              the local newspaper gets the same talking points, if they read newspapers.  they watch Fox "News" if they watch TV news at all.  I mean, Wheel of Fortune comes on at the same time.

              they are never exposed to any other viewpoints.

              the public airwaves belong to you and me and those airwaves are being used to tell lies about you and me.

              as far as I'm concerned, the public airwaves are being used for propaganda and that is more appropriate to Big Brother's dictatorship than a democracy.

              Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
              We inaugurate President Barack Obama in 68 days!

              by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 02:29:36 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I can listen to DailyKos (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jabney, Uberbah

              ... for free on the public airwaves while driving in my car?

              Tell me more.


              i am jack's complete lack of surprise -- fight club

              by bustacap on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:08:42 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Regarding: (11+ / 0-)

          For those of you who support a new Fairness Doctrine I would ask a question. If our side had a 90% share of talk radio, and the wingers couldn't get any traction, would you still feel as strongly about the Fairness Doctrine?

          Absolutely. I don't believe that requiring equal access restricts free speech - far from it, as it allows opposing viewpoints to be debated, rather than having toxic, poisonous echo chambers reinforcing one side or the other.

          Wouldn't you like to be a droogie too?

          by Moody Loner on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:31:05 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Fairness Doctrine never operated the way people (5+ / 0-)

          seem to remember it operating.

          •  Yes, you are right (17+ / 0-)

            As someone who was actually in broadcast media during the old Fairness Doctrine let me tell you how it actually worked. The station GM would go on air once a week for 60 seconds with an editorial like we need to have more firemen. The opposition, some no tax winger, would come on for 60 seconds and say taxes are too high.  We were a network affiliate so we carried a few network political shows like Meet the Press, but other than that there was a strict rule that disussing politics, in any way that might suggest a point of view, was prohibited. All stations lived in fear of the FD and it had the effect of stopping political speach. It was the same for an overwhelming majority of radio and TV stations. The question is who decides what's on the air, the speach police or the market? People vote with their dial. We are the party of free speach and I oppose a new FD.  

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:22:39 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Good description (8+ / 0-)

              The FD reinforced the false myth that there are two and only two positions on every issue. It was not fair to people or voters or issues - it was "fair'ish" to the two major parties.

              The FD will not eliminate Rush or Hannity. It will restrict News to not be allowed to stick to the facts but filter their context through establishment party lenses.

              Rather than fair, we'd get the Rove-Rush information highway expanded with a lane for Democratic Party messaging.  

              •  I rec VCLib and kck (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bustacap, snakelass, kck

                because you guys make me think about this in a new way. Not convinced yet. And again - it's not about shutting anyone up. It's about letting others get heard.

                U.S. Citizen Abroad? Sustain the Momentum! Join and contribute to Democrats Abroad at:

                by worried sick on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:32:56 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I think we need to learn the details... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  ...of current proposed legislation as compared to the FD of old.

                  I am open to some new ideas, but not to bring back what we had before.

                •  Does that mean Nader would get to speak, too? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  dragon695, ipsos

                  And Bob Barr, and Ron Paul, since it would ensure so-called "equal access" for different points of view?

                  Or would it just be restricted to voices representing the two major parties, or one conservative vs one liberal? How exactly would the fairness doctrine be applied?

                  I mean, you get a very false equivalence if you get a situation where the two voices are Sean Hannity and someone like Lanny Davis. Conversely, could a liberal leaning radio station owner get away with calling viewpoints from a Lincoln Chaffee and a Mike Molloy fair?

                  I see all sorts of lines being drawn, potentially, under a new FD, and I wonder if it's really tenable, or if it will be a few short years before all the shortcuts to get around it are discovered.

                •  FD opponents may not know talk radio (0+ / 0-)

                  is the most intimidating censor in the country. from dan rather, and politicians, and even high school teachers, the pompous demagogues that dominate talk radio threaten from their tall soapboxes to as many people as voted for obama.

                  it dominates large areas of the country (with a disproportionate number of senators) and the major talkers are screened from any real challenges. maybe once a a blue moon do rush and sean get a real caller sneaking through to call them on a lie. it willl be talk radio, the heart of the GOP and the reason palin was chosen, that will manage to keep the GOP filibusters together and enable numerous limbaugh (blue dog) dems.

                  maybe many FD detractors don't realize how important the coordinated uncontested repetition has been for getting us to this disastrous point in history, obama not withstanding. the talk radio monopoly makes calls for bipartisanship rediculous. as long as the monopoly stands real democracy is a joke.

                  ignoring the talk radio monopoly continues to be the biggest political blunder in decades

                  by certainot on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 06:29:33 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  say that again: the FD will NOT eliminate Rushbo (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                or Hannity or Bill-o or Savage.

                anyone who says it will is repeating a rightwing talking point!

                Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
                We inaugurate President Barack Obama in 68 days!

                by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 02:33:26 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, I want the Fairness Doctrine (13+ / 0-)

          BECAUSE the airwaves belong to the public, and should serve the entire public, not just a single corporate interest or a single ideology.

          BECAUSE the consolidation of media actually reduced the number of voices we heard every day on OUR airwaves; the Fairness Doctrine was yanked because radio was supposedly very diverse, but it got worse not better.

          BECAUSE more than one side of an issue deserves to be heard, regardless of which party is in office.

          BECAUSE Radio Rwanda gave proof to the power of radio to encourage immoral and unethical behavior when used by one ideology alone.

          If you want to change the ownership rules on media to encourage greater diversity and reduce the threat of political instability in this country, I'll take it -- but if you can't do that, then bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

          See Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York on the Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act that she submitted under the 109th Congress; the work was done already, and the surveys from the public actually showed a majority of Americans supporting the Fairness Doctrine.

          I expect to be troll-rated, let the hammering begin.

          •  How is this new proposal different... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            ...from the FD we had previously?

            •  It's not much different (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Sorry, I don't have ready access to the bill as submitted by Slaughter; I think there were modifications that made it more reflective of current media technology, if memory serves.

              I don't think it has to be a lot different.  If you remember what it was like, you remember that it worked.

              And if you listened to Rush Limbaugh on the day before the election, you know that we need it.  We need media on airwaves we own to meet the needs of the public at large, and not those who choose to propel the hate that Limbaugh pushes.

          •  why would you be troll rated? (0+ / 0-)

            I might not rec you, and I might disagree with you (haven't been convinced one way or the otehr yet), but I don't see anything in that post equivalent to a virtual "kick me" sign...

            Were you trying to push buttons in there?

            If yes, my apologies, but mine seem to be located elsewhere....

          •  So which side is getting shut out of the debate? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Really, who is getting shut out? Because I bet you that somewhere, that viewpoint is being heard, whether on a different station or on a different medium.

            There are more ways to have your voice heard in today's media-saturated world than there ever was in the old Fairness Doctrine days. The market has provided outlets for different viewpoints. Why mess with that?

            It's patently ridiculous.

            •  It's not merely about shut out (0+ / 0-)

              We on the left have gotten a firm grasp on the internet -- but you are going to have to try very hard, Kos, to convince me that the stranglehold that Clearchannel and the rest of the remaining Big 10 have had on so many stations has not acted to shut out progressive voices.  How much has ownership -- and the makeup of the content they carry -- changed since Mark Crispin Miller wrote his piece on media consolidation in 2002?  Very little by percentage, I'll bet; if anything, it's increased in concentration due to the driver of economies of scale.

              The concentration has centralized production, and remove the ability for stations to be as responsive as they should be to local constituents.  Wasn't there an incident during the last 6 years resulting at least one death after a chemical leak in a remote part of the U.S.?  Notification about the leak couldn't be broadcast because there was no local presence, only the centralized producer several states away.  How does a radio station in Florida or pick some other locale adequately represent the immediate needs of consumers and constituents in a particular market?  It can't -- meaning local voices, as much as progressive voices are shut out.

              What about the news content that's heard across markets, if only a centralized producer provides news across multiple markets?  News of local interest won't pay the bills; only news of a highly generalized interest gets carried, and then it can be manipulated.  There have been many anecdotes of reporters whose work has been spiked or have been relieved of their jobs because they didn't report news that the central producer (either their editors and/or owners) wanted.  This results in not only a lack of diversity, but a lack of representation of key issues.

              It's ultimately about OUR ownership of the airwaves.  These licensees are supposed to act in our best interests, not merely in favor of their own profits, and not merely in the promotion of their editors'/owners' point of view.  This is a commons, and as such, must be shared.  If we do not protect the commons by demanding reasonable accommodation for our needs, then we allow squatters to take adverse possession.

              I wonder, Kos, whether your age has something to do with your perspective.  You're younger than I am by more than a handful of years; I remember clearly what media was like during the Fairness Doctrine, and I know that it simply worked.  Ask anybody older than 50 what media used to be like; it was golden. Perhaps there's correlation between the media's failure to do its job as the Fourth Estate, and the fact that they have not been held accountable by government in anyway for the spew that it has produced in our commons.

              Okay, except for wardrobe failures among famous African American singers wearing nipple piercings...

            •  And one more thing (0+ / 0-)

              If you believe that the internet is an adequate replacement to provide diversity, you're mistaken.

              There's still a digital divide, based on economics and location.

              Until one or all of:
              -- WiFi is pervasive and can reach all parts of the country;
              -- satellite radio is as accessible (without cost) to users everywhere;
              -- Internet radio devices are inexpensive and can obtain signal for the same cost as AM/FM broadcast;
              -- Net neutrality assures that any and all content can be heard everywhere if any one of the previous three conditions exist,

              there exist barriers that do not make internet radio equivalent to traditional broadcast radio.

              The right-wing has already killed pervasive, cheap WiFi; just look into the relationship between Republican operative and lobbyist Barbara Comstock and Northpoint Technology Ltd., and you'll see what I mean.  The stranglehold on diversity of media has not only abused our broadcast commons, but thwarted our competitiveness in technology globally.

              I find it patently ridiculous that you'd be so naive about their corporatist ends and the extent to which they will use your naivete against us.

        •  I'm against the Fairness Doctrine also (5+ / 0-)

          but I have absolutely no problem in the world with harsh restrictions on media ownership to prevent monopolies or near monopolies.  The likes of a Clear Channel should never happen.

          I also wish there was some kind of incentive program for airing diverse programming/viewpoints.  I specifically heard free market advocates swear up and down the market would allow liberal voices equal footing with conservative voices and we now know for a fact that was a load of crap.

        •  The wingers are loseing what I think would be.... (0+ / 0-)

          their biggest demographic, the baby boomers.  They aren't getting any younger.  Also, there are not as many people in the comeing generations.

          One entire group that rarely gets on the air are the elderly callers – unless they have something extraordinary to say. Sadly, that doesn’t happen often. The theory is that old-sounding callers help produce old-skewing audiences. The target demo is 25 to 54, not 65 and older.

          If this is the case across the board, they are alienateing an decreaseing demographic which I'd think are a large and loyal block of listeners.

          I'm not an expert but what I have read in diaries on the matter here show that Faux is not picking-up younger viewers, that their rateings are dropping.  I'd bet their prospects of getting the 18-34 year-olds as regular vieweres about now don't look very good either.  

          I'm also thinking that the wing nut hosts will be surprised at how the shit they fling won't stick to an Obama administration.  Hopefully their current noise over Obama's election is their death rattle.

          I know Presidents can't meet the expectations built up over the course of a campaign. Still, I'm thinking that the Obama administration is going to impress the hell out of people.

          Just what I'm thinking.

          Grandma used to call me "That One" but she had twenty-something grand-kids and Alzheimers. Now, that "That one" is President!

          by duckhunter on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 12:02:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  If Right Wingers (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bustacap, Go Kid Hugo

          had to stream conservative radio on their computers like I have to stream liberal radio, they'd be on their rooftops screaming for the Fairness Doctrine to be reinstated.

          I have a choice here in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, between music, religious broadcasting, and right wing screetchers.  I sit by my computer and listen to streaming internet radio.

          If the shoe was on the other foot, listeners of Charlie Sykes, Bill O'Liar, and Rush Lintball would have a fit.  

          I can see the end of Sarah Palin's political career from my house. Sue, West Allis, Wisconsin

          by Puddytat on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 01:07:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Amen (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dragon695, sethyeah

          I loathe everything conservative talk radio represents, but I will staunchly oppose any form of the Fairness Doctrine. It would be an abomination to free speech.

          •  Which shows that what you 'think' you know (0+ / 0-)

            ... about the Fairness Doctrine is incorrect.  

            Perhaps the right's propaganda has infected you, but it wasn't what you think it was.

            Please.  Look it up.

            i am jack's complete lack of surprise -- fight club

            by bustacap on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 02:51:08 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  If our side had all that share of talk radio (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          we'd be letting in other viewpoints. We're not the authoritarians. Also, we wouldn't agree to be easy propagandists for any administration.

        •  Except that it doesn't (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TrueBlueMajority, bustacap

          ...silence the critics, it just adds another viewpoint to it. I'm old enough to remember when we had the Fairness Doctrine and media seemed much more reasonable and non-hyperbolic. The entire political discussion in the country was more wide-ranging and there was less shutting down of entire points of view. For example, I found it extraordinary that, in the run up to the Iraq war, we in the 30% minority who opposed this catastrophe were utterly and completely silenced. This would not be possible with the Fairness Doctrine in place.

          Another approach might be to outlaw lying on the public's airways.

          "The survival value of intelligence is that it allows us to extinct a bad idea, before the idea extincts us." -- Karl Popper

          by eyeswideopen on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 01:53:47 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  There are SOOOO many misperceptions (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Uberbah, North Country Dem

          ... about the Fairness Doctrine even on our side of the political aisle that it makes me want to scream.  The Fairness Doctrine silenced no one, it simply required that opposing viewpoints be given the opportunity to be heard on the public airwaves.

          It didn't mandate equal time had to be given to those viewpoints, it didn't mandate taking anyone off the air at all.

          i am jack's complete lack of surprise -- fight club

          by bustacap on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 02:43:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  irony! many opponents repeat RW talking points (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            and many probably would look a bit farther if they knew we wouldn't be in this disaster if they didn't have that monopoly, the biggest soapbox in the country, spewing coordinated uncontested repetition 24/7/365.

            ignoring the talk radio monopoly continues to be the biggest political blunder in decades

            by certainot on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 06:54:25 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, I would. Otherwise, I'd be a wingnut. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Uberbah, AdManAnt

          The Fairness Doctrine applies only to broadcasting.  Not newspapers, blogs, or cable.  It was created because the airwaves are a public trust licensed to individual stations.  Stations do not- I repeat, radio and television stations DO NOT OWN THEIR FREQUENCIES.  You and I own them.  As does that crazy right winger in the cube 3 down from you.  

          The doctrine assures that everyone gets access to their public airwaves with equal treatment.  It doesn't say you get free time, it says you get the same amount of time at the same rate as the other guys.  For instance, a local station has to sell time to a candidate at it's lowest charged rate for that time slot.  If it's at 8PM, it costs more than at 2AM.  If his opponent wants to buy time, he has the righnt to the same access.  but if he can't afford 8PM, only 2AM, that's all the station has to sell him.  

          This prevents stations owned by companies like Sinclair from selling time to a right wing crazy while refusing to sell it to a progressive.  It also creates an expectation of equal treatment by the stations, which can be used to support (or challenge) license renewals.  If you're older than 30 you probably remember the occasional guy in a really bad suit mumbling a "guest opinion" on your local station's news (the inspiration for Johnny Carson's classic Floyd R. Turbo).  They had to provide him with the ability to respond to a station-sponsored editorial.

          The fairness doctrine was a last line in the sand that protected us from the broadcast oligarchies seen in Russia, and growing in Italy.  The fairness doctrine has nothing - nothing at all to do with popular right wing programming. Hannity, Limbaugh, et al are all about selling ads.  Why else does Murdoch allow nearly every Fox show savage his public persona?  Remember that in the beginning Limbaugh had to give away - and may have even paid for time on local stations until he created a critical mass that mushroomed into the Big Giant Head Horror Radio Show.

          The fairness Doctrine is a necessary protection from the tyranny of both the majority and the better funded.  It is because it provides access to those who disagree with you that it is so important to you.

        •  They had a good portion (0+ / 0-)

          of talk radio when we had the fairness doctrine. The takeover of the "clear channel stations was a determined effort to CONTROL THE NEWS. This is quite obviously not fair and should just as obviously not exist.
          The right has NEVER been about fair anything, not communications, not law, and especially not  voting.

          Do you hear the people sing? Singing a song of angry men? It is the music of a people Who will not be slaves again!

          by axman on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 08:15:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Lots of people on this site (23+ / 0-)

        seem to hate the fairness doctrine.  I will get flamed for this, but I wrote to my congressman suggesting he support it two days after his re-election last week.

        I don't care whether the media conglomorates are broken up in some kind of anti-trust ruling, or if we bring back the fairness doctrine.  Something has to happen though to ensure that the public airwaves serve the public.  The syndicated hate is not only unhealthy for and unfair to the people, but it has destroyed local programming which served a very real community purpose.  

        I remember the AM Talk local programming when I was a child, so much local flavor, it was great!  And we had a local flooding disaster when I was 14 and they thought the dam nearby would break and destroy our town, it didn't, but the local radio played a big role in keeping everyone safe and informed.  The same local radio folks we heard every day told us when it was safe to go home.

        Fox news: Even better than meth!

        by get the red out on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:09:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yep If You have Charlie you have to have Rachel (6+ / 0-)

      seems fair to me.

      The GOP has resorted to Cannibalism. Please send Condiments to GOP HQ

      by JML9999 on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 09:53:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't want it (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dragon695, joehoevah, dwayne

      Let them spread their bile frankly, its a free country...

      "Polls are like crack, political activists know they're bad for them but they read them anyways."-Unknown

      by skywaker9 on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:03:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I would like a return of the Fairness Doctrine (9+ / 0-)

      with regards to radio stations since the spectrum of the public airwaves is limited. I don't want any one company to monopolize the radio frequencies of a market.  In the DC market the only way to hear the left point of view is via AM 1260 radio.  Reception sucks.  The FM markets are dominated by RUSH and rightwing blowhards.  There is not much variety or differing points of view.

      Reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine

      by ScienceMom on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:25:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Fairness doctrine is not the way to (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      drumwolf, boofdah, dwayne, sethyeah

      combat the bloviators. We need to support better left talk about the issues which would highlight just how non-liberal and corporatist the MSM is and how full of nonsense, hate, and distortions the Rush Clones are.

      But to try to control the media is wrong. I don't want to go down that road. To me it is the CONSTITUTION that absolutely is the heart of our democracy and should be protected even if it feels inconvenient or painful to do so.

    •  No. More Blowhards Instead (7+ / 0-)

      The solution to speech you don't like is more speech, against it. Forcing an outlet speaking the way you don't like to limit its preferred speech to 50% of its capacity, and promote some arbitrarily defined "opposition", is a travesty that is easily gamed. Is HANNITY & (colmes) "fair"? Who decides whether it's "balanced", whether there's 2, 3, or any number of "opposites"? When we had the Fairness Doctrine in law (or regulation), how much viewpoint was omitted entirely, because it didn't fit into the "2 sides" definition run by that outlet?

      We live in an Internet Age, with unlimited "channels". With rock-bottom costs for publishing viewpoints and commentary, in various effective media like text, pictures, video, audio. We can quote, link and monitor other commentary we're commenting on.

      What we need is simply more availability of smoother, simpler tools for publishing. When every mobile "phone" can be a TV studio, and the Web has forums for finding, contextualizing and promoting submissions from anyone that can be consumed by anyone, even in realtime, we will have a lot more robust discussion with manageable noise.

      We have to force open the boxes public debate has come in, not force predefined factions into the boxes.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:41:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And when will you begin the shipment of equipment (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        North Country Dem

        to the bulk of the country who do not use computers so that they may 'quote, link and monitor' the discussions?

        Otherwise, you're talking to a very small group when compared to the radio audience.

        Do what you can with what you have where you are - Guild of Maintainers

        by bablhous on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:23:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Already Underway (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dragon695, ipsos, Lady Libertine

          "The bulk" of the country already does use computers. As of Summer 2008, 55% of Americans already use broadband at home; about 12% have dialup at home; so 67% have home Internet. Many more have Internet at work. Some others have Internet phones, even if not at work or at home. That's the bulk of Americans already with Internet access. Since broadband has grown from 47% to 55% in about the year up to this one; the next few years will see that 70%+ grow past 80%. Americans' car ownership rate is "only" 89%, even with the longer growth period, higher actual necessity, and more common financing offers.

          We don't need the bulk of the country to "quote, link and monitor" the discussion for the networked society to function well, even though the bulk has the equipment already. We need only a small percentage, but the bulk with access to consume it. Like I said, mobile phones are finally becoming the access point - they are literally radios, and will raise the Internet access numbers faster than they've risen since the 1990s boom. And as I said, they're usable to produce "Web" info as well as to consume it, though desktop broadband is necessary for all but the most talented/skilled people who will quote, link and monitor the content for their consumers.

          And then there's the ripple effects. TV news media is already led by Web commentary and story breaking (from DKos to Drudge). It's only a matter of time before AM/FM radio is influenced by Internet media, especially as the Republican Party and Murdoch empire lose influence, funding and organization generally.

          But indeed shipping some equipment to the most underserved places, to jumpstart their benefits from the Internet, is necessary. That's why we already have projects like "One Laptop Per Child", and all kinds of "digital divide" programmes to get everyone onto the Internet. Internet phones are just starting to become affordable and usable. In the few years it will take to get the kind of simple software I mentioned up and running, about as many Americans will be able to use them as the number who use the cars that have defined our society for generations.

          That's what we should shoot for. Not some government restrictions on speech easily gamed to lock down "debate" into the same old stakeholders, covered with the fakery that "both sides are fairly balanced".

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:48:47 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Don't forget (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DocGonzo, dragon695, ipsos

            cell phone penetration.

            •  I Didn't (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dragon695, ipsos

              Like I said, mobile phones are finally becoming the access point - they are literally radios, and will raise the Internet access numbers faster than they've risen since the 1990s boom. And as I said, they're usable to produce "Web" info as well as to consume it

              The U.S. currently has one of the lowest rates of mobile phone penetrations in the industrialised world at 85%.

              (as of probably 2007)

              50% Market Penetration For Camera Phones In The U.S.

              (as of April 2007)

              Something like 45%+ American "phones" are already cameraphones. By 2012, odds are any given American will have an Internet phone.

              What's necessary is SW on the mobiles that make it trivial for people to make and post videos with captions and blog publishing systems for finding, commenting and linking together these images with narrative, even if not all originated by the same person. We are very close, and Americans are going to love it.

              "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

              by DocGonzo on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 12:37:30 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Do you think so? (0+ / 0-)

                I don't know of any plans to make internet phones cheaper anytime soon.  And I think by 2012 a lot more people will be living within their means.  Or they won't be living.


                •  Huh? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  dragon695, ipsos

                  All phonemakers' plans, like any PC or other consumer electronics maker's plans, are to make all phones, especially the most high cost ones, cheaper. ASAP. That's how the industry works, even in "normal" times. During economic downturn, those plans are even more aggressive.

                  Between now and 2012 a lot of people will be upgrading from an Internet PC to an Internet phone, because it's cheaper, and finally more functional for what they do. And lots of people who never owned an Internet PC will start with an Internet phone for the same reason.

                  So yes, I certainly do think so.

                  "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                  by DocGonzo on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 02:18:25 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Well, sure, for the phones (0+ / 0-)

                    But the phone plans aren't getting any cheaper that I can see.  In fact, quite the opposite: AT&T, for example, raises the price every time they raise the speed, and occasionally even when they don't.  And the plans are 90% of the cost.

                    I had an internet phone for $30/month (plus the voice plan) for a while.  Now my work is paying $45.  The cost for the voice plan hasn't come down any either.  The whole kit and caboodle costs $75/month for 'unlimited' internet and enough voice minutes, plus another $5 for text messages.

                    Broadband has come down to an extent, but it's gone back up again... ten years ago I had it for $40/month, then it went down to $25/month, now it's back up to $35.  And that's for literally the exact same speed: 1.5/256  From the cable company it's even more expensive (though supposedly faster too.)

                    I don't know, I think market penetration is going to be slowed a lot by the fact that these services don't seem to actually be dropping in price, and a lot of people are going to be dropping in income.  I know if I were laid off, first thing I'd get rid of is the cell phone internet plan.  Second thing would be the broadband; I have an internet cafe nearby, I could live with that.


                    •  Plans Will Drop (0+ / 0-)

                      Telcos have been doing whatever the hell they want in their last remaining monopoly: their own wireless networks. I own a small telco that interconnects their long distance networks, and they've been squeezing every penny they can from anyone with any money to pay. Even breaking the law to screw telcos like mine, because they've got the regulatory protection to ignore actions from us.

                      But mobile Internet is their future. Mobile Internet, even for voice, is cheaper for them to run than mobile voice. So they've been maxxing the profits on that service as long as they could. When sales drop off because people have to cut down, they will lower pricesAnd crop the service to a limited amount of traffic (even though that doesn't save them money), so they can charge a premium for the heaviest users. But the cost of a phone + Internet will be cheaper than PC + wired broadband. The users will grow. Because Internet "dialtone" will be as necessary, especially for people just trying to survive at the bottom, as a voice phone has been.

                      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                      by DocGonzo on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:48:22 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

    •  God no (5+ / 0-)

      The Fairness Doctrine is an idea long past its time. In today's media-saturated world, there's no need for it.

      •  But something is unfair or broken and how to fix? (0+ / 0-)

        FD is old medicine for old times... not for now... but something else is needed, maybe busting ownership monopolies, maybe some other way for parties directly affected by biased or patently untrue material to petition have direct access to the same audience under certain circumstances. In other words more reasonable choices besides nothing or libel suits. Maybe this is  kind of a wish for a chance to democratically re-educate the talk radio indoctrinated even just a little. Anything to help ease the conservative monopoly on programming their mindsets.

        There are truth in advertising regulations... Newspapers publish retractions and corrections. So do broadcast media but not often or in useful ways.

        Or we just wait it out and let technology and old age change the balance of how we share and spread information. I hate waiting though...

        Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie

        by IreGyre on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:27:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Combatting media consolidation is the answer. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bustacap, boofdah, IreGyre, sethyeah

      A much better answer than the fairness doctrine.  Especially since it can be a slippery slope.  A new fairness doctrine would certainly apply to Air America.  One could even expand it which would chill discussion across the board.  And how would it apply to someone who makes political asides such as say Howard Stern which are across the board rather than reflecting a certain ideology.

      A better answer is to not allow companies like Clear Channel to own half or more of the spectrum in every single market so more voices are able to break through.  That greatly increases the odds more and varied voices can break through.

    •  Bring back the Fairness Doctrine??? (0+ / 0-)

      Only if your a Rethug.
      And only then if you have arsenic running through your veins.
      And only only then if you're being victimized by Orangey Bloggers with evil intent on their minds.
      And only only only then will the Fairness Doctrine be restored.
      And only only only only for Rethuglicans being oppressed by...
      Well, you get it.

      Yes We Can...Yes We Will...Hell Yes We Did!!

      by WSComn on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 01:44:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sorry (0+ / 0-)

      Apologies for butting in line, but I don't know what "IOKIYAR" means?  I realize I'm out of it, but there probably are others just as clueless, so please clarify.  Still, a good diary highlighting lessons that still need to be learned to fight these rampant, repugnant tactics!!!

      "If we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom" Samuel Adams

      by cRedd on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 02:07:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Kos is the best fairness doctrine ! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      There is no way private stations can have talk shows from all sides in this marketing era, but the push back from blogs can raise the heat and get the idiot comments and phony talking points and nasty stuff high enough on the visibilty pole that the good shows and even TV like Rachel and Olbermann can roast the phoney's, frauds and ones on the pay of the Scaife's and Pickens and their ilk.

    •  No, no, no (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The doctrine is left over from a time when bandwidth was like a little back lot packed with AM-FM radio and three TV networks fighting for airtime. The idea is nonsense now. Let them have their stupid radio shows. WE have THIS--not to mention Rachel and Keith and a zillion other things.

      Hannity talks about this every day now. He is hoping to sweet Jesus someone turns him into a martyr. They aren't worth it. I mean, unless you feel like giving them equal space in here.

  •  Way overdue (27+ / 0-)

    But do remember that the Fairness Doctrine doesn't exactly mandate "equal time," but simply room for opposing viewpoint. So the wingnuts could scream for 23.5 hours and we'd get 30 min. to rebut.

    This is now very necessary, as there are parts of the country where wingnut media is the only media, and their residents get a warped view of the world.

    Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

    by The Raven on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 09:49:06 AM PST

  •  I Have Another Issue Here (17+ / 0-)

    the reason radio stations and broadcast televisions stations get free access to our airwaves is cause they are supposed to provide "some public" good with their programming.

    KMOX in St. Louis used to be known as one of the best radio stations in the nation. News, talk, sports. Now they have gone to running national shows like Rush, which does nothing to provide for the public good.

    The local Clear Channel station only runs one local shows from 6 AM to midnight. All the rest national syndicated FOX Noise programs.

    These stations get access to the airwaves for free and are doing nothing for the local public.

    That IMHO is one way to go after them.

    "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an act, but a habit." - Aristotle

    by webranding on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 09:50:59 AM PST

    •  They don't all get free access (6+ / 0-)

      The so-called "noncommercial educational stations" (which sadly includes the hundreds of bible-banger stations with which the country is infested) are exempt from paying most FCC fees, in return for which they have to keep to a set of guidelines--such as no commercial advertising, "educational" programming content, serving the community, etc.  

      Commercial stations do have to pay annual regulatory fees, which vary with the type of station and its market, as well as other ad hoc fees for filing various types of applications as needed.  

      HOWEVER, fees or no fees, it's certainly true that the airwaves were originally considered part of the commons and were to be used to serve the public by providing useful information, among other things. Unfortunately, the airwaves have been increasingly viewed purely as a cash cow and the public service stuff is out the window. Deregulation and the deterioration of ownership rules have also contributed to our current dire situation.

      "I believe they talked of me, for they laughed consumedly."--George Farquhar

      by slapshoe on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:14:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hate radio (23+ / 0-)

    is what I call it.   And I give it a substantial role in the disgraceful times that have overtaken our nation.  

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 09:51:28 AM PST

  •  Shelley can get in line (11+ / 0-)

    David Kuo
    Scott McClellan
    Colin Powell
    John Snow

    and a soon to be really long list.

    Your conclusion is spot on.
    Apparently there's another vacancy in the rat's quarters on the good ship Neocon.
    thanks for your belated epiphany, Mr Shelley. Now, what are you going to do to make it right? Hawk a book?

    On Election Day, we danced in the streets all over the world

    by kamarvt on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 09:51:51 AM PST

  •  That's an introductory course. (11+ / 0-)

    It's much worse than that article reveals.

    2008, the Year the Republican Party dissolved into a little pond of goo

    by shpilk on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 09:52:19 AM PST

  •  Actually, most of these folks are (4+ / 0-)

    not conspicuously bright and it is fairly easy to embarrass them, Andew Wilkow and that fellow Mike Stark being a prime example.  ( I thought Mr. Stark took some unfair shots at Laura Ingraham, who had the stones to go to Iraq after a mastectomy to visit the troops.  She's something of a buffoon, but she has heart.)

  •  no FD, but a serious media inquiry to Talk Radio (0+ / 0-)
  •  Hate Radio Must be Shut Down. (12+ / 0-)

    If it takes the Fairness Doctrine and a complete overhaul of the Telecommunications Act. Whatever. America will not progress until her citizenry is freed from this evil. This is my second favorite harping point, right after dealing with teen pregnancy. Hate Radio must go.

    Don't take it as a matter of course, but as a remarkable fact, that pictures...occupy our minds. LW/PI/524

    by LRLine on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:25:19 AM PST

  •  if we tag Talk Radio directly connected to Bush (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    they're history.

    •  Agreed! (5+ / 0-)

      U.S. Citizen Abroad? Sustain the Momentum! Join and contribute to Democrats Abroad at:

      by worried sick on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:27:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't know if it's a well known show... (0+ / 0-)

      and I assume there are so many that are 'under the radar' (the well known Rush et al), but there's a show on at midnight called the Midnight Radio Network, out if Texas I think. Used to be the Midnight Trucking Radio Network, and as suggested, it's aimed at truck drivers. Same generic, talking over callers that disagree format, hosted by Eric Harley and Gary McNamara. I stopped listening long ago, but checked in last night just to see what was up.

      Annoyed the hell out of me right off the bat, once again.

      But it's got a pretty large captive audience, unfortunately.

      "And when justice is gone, there's always force."

      by soundchaser on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 07:37:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Problem Is Access vs Monopoly, Not Speech (13+ / 0-)

    The 1st Amendment in this kind of economy prevents the people from having speech and press reaching the mainstream. That's completely crazy. There's no way the framers would have written the Amendment if the East India Tea Company owned 95% of the village greens, meeting halls, newspapers and book publishers in early America. Write a muzzled electorate into the Constitution? Never.

    But that's what happened with the march of time and we never seeing that circumstances need an updated approach to communication.

    We got lucky this election with some new so-far more democratic media being invented that gave the people some back-channel voice at long last. But the entire reason we have such a desperate need for a change in governance is that the people had no voice for the 30 years all this destruction was being perpetrated.

    Somehow we have to address the access and monopolization issues. The world could not afford us to overheat the planet and launch regional wars while we played mind games for the past 1/3 century trying to outfox our antiquated frontier-era communication rights.

    Principle is slamming up against survival here.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:28:19 AM PST

  •  If one wished to make the case, (9+ / 0-)

    all talk-show hosts peddling opinion should be required to state what their sources are.  None of this "I'm told..." or "Some say...".  It would be "I'm told (by the Republican National Committee)..." or "Some (in the Bush administration) say...".  

    And it would also be required that they say whether they are paid to do so, by whom, and in what amounts.  And even if they're not paid, who is writing their copy and what that relationship is to their employer.

    When "stupidity" suffices, why search for any other reason?

    by wozzle on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:28:56 AM PST

  •  A Conspiracy So Vast (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    viscerality, dwayne, Go Kid Hugo

    No, this must all be imaginary confessions. Because to keep such a conspiracy running, no one of the many idiots involved must leak a schematic like this. And it wasn't leaked for the past 8-10-20 years, so it must not have existed.

    You're a conspiracy theorist. Those diaries are banned from DKos.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:36:17 AM PST

  •  Unfair and Unbalanced (6+ / 0-)

    That's the liberals, according to one of our local "talkers".

    "Fairness isn't going to hurt anybody. I just can't imagine these people who want to fight against fairness," said Ms. Slaughter to Bill Moyers back in 2004. But this is "media fairness" in the same way that Mr. Obama promises to spread "economic justice." Mr. Obama's long-used term is code for "spread the wealth" just as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an Orwellian name for shutting up the opposition......The Fairness Doctrine is going to make a comeback and the only thing that might stop it is the American people. They must realize that if the new liberal majority takes away the right of talk hosts to comment – it is also taking away their right to listen.

  •  Totally opposed to the Fairness Doctrine. (8+ / 0-)

    We don't need the government to give us a fair chance to get out our ideas; we need to work harder to put out better ideas.

    The blogosphere is proof of that.  

    Hope you enjoyed it, Sarah, 'cause we just kicked your silly winking folksy lipsticked ass back to Alaska. For good. Also.

    by Kaili Joy Gray on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:42:01 AM PST

    •  we already have good ideas (11+ / 0-)

      The airwaves are controlled by those who don't want the public to hear them.

      The "blogosphere" is not public airwaves.

      •  Yes, but... (7+ / 0-)

        The blogosphere does not have a fairness doctrine.  And yet I think it is easy to argue that the left side totally dominates.  Why?  Because our side is better.  Our interfaces are better; our writers are better; our ideas are better.

        Hope you enjoyed it, Sarah, 'cause we just kicked your silly winking folksy lipsticked ass back to Alaska. For good. Also.

        by Kaili Joy Gray on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:50:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  all the truth you can afford (4+ / 0-)

          here I go again, jumping in when I dont really know what Im talking about, but... AM radio is the MOST accessible and free($wise) of all the options. vs. local TV, Cable TV, then internet. The blogosphere is available for "you" if "you" can (a) use it (i.e. tech savvy) and (b) can afford a computer and monthly SP bill. Oh and that modum thingie and maybe the linksys frisbee thingie (necessary if you have >1 computer, which, if you have a kid...). anyway...

          So, yes, the left dominates the internet...  we are more highly educated and more, well, uhm, elite (heh). No I mean, we can basically afford it. AND we are more bettah. ha!

          Whatever you do, or dream, begin it now.. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now. ~Goethe

          by Lady Libertine on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:03:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Angry Mouse you do make some good points (0+ / 0-)

          However, for now, anyway, the blogosphere also does not have concentrated ownership of media outlets. Get in cost is so much lower.

          Our side is better. One way we're better is that we actually listen to each other and work for the best solution. I'm willing to be convinced that the FD isn't the right way - but something has to be done to break thru the uni-voice and total dominance of the public airwaves that the right has.

          Maybe the fact that people rejected the conservative worldview even after all their bleating - maybe the MSM will recognize that there's profit in a more thoughtful approach.

          U.S. Citizen Abroad? Sustain the Momentum! Join and contribute to Democrats Abroad at:

          by worried sick on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:04:58 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  plus a few other things (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          worried sick, Angry Mouse

          We're not beholden to corporations; we don't have to frame what we say in a way that pleases an ad department; the old "clock on the wall," fierce enemy to DJ's everywhere since the 1930s, is not a factor; the issue of getting rejected by the local newspaper editor or TV general manager because what I say might be too inflammatory, is a non-existent issue.  We don't have to go over the top for entertainment value; hell I don't give a rat's ass if I entertain anyone, I just get a chance to get it off my chest.  Unlike even Rush Limbaugh, we can make our arguments without any of those restrictions.

          And progressives simply make better, fact-based arguments backed up by links, references, etc.  Let's see Hannity do that.

  •  My favorite is the nitpicking questions (4+ / 0-)

    ...they barrage the caller with, that no one could answer, then they dump on the caller because the caller can respond with the exact date, time, timezone, latitude, longitude, genetic profile, and other data about the individual being discussed.

    Will the last one out of democracy please turn out the lights?

    by Apphouse50 on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:44:21 AM PST

    •  Rather, caller CANNOT respond with the data (nt) (5+ / 0-)

      Will the last one out of democracy please turn out the lights?

      by Apphouse50 on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:45:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yup... (0+ / 0-)

        heard that this morning - "liberal" guy called in debating the "tax the rich" thing, and the hosts brought out their "40% of working Americans pay no taxes" TP. He said he had a hard time believing that, and then they started screaming that it was "directly from the IRS" info, and of course the "debate" was shut down. Interestingly, when it's a caller that agrees with them, which are the majority, even when that caller gets the facts wrong it's either glossed over, or the hosts get all helpful all of a sudden.

        "And when justice is gone, there's always force."

        by soundchaser on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 07:44:12 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Radio spectrum is commonly owned, it should (9+ / 0-)

    be operated in the public interest first and foremost.

    Sorry about your rights, we hope to have them restored shortly.

    by qi motuoche on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:45:11 AM PST

  •  Jay Severin is another master of all of this... (8+ / 0-)

    ...and he sucks up to his idolozing audience, whom he nicknames "The Best and the Brightest."

    And in reality, they're dunces.

    Will the last one out of democracy please turn out the lights?

    by Apphouse50 on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:46:48 AM PST

    •  I call in to his show... (4+ / 0-)

      ...very occasionally. He's really bad, but perhaps not quite as bad as Michael Graham. He's at his worst when talking about Democrats, and (IMO) generally at his best when talking shop about political/campaign process.

      His callers are mainly idiots, though. You're absolutely right that he convinces the audience that he is educating them and waking them up to politics, and I can see how someone who is totally clueless might think that, but in reality there is very little intellectual heft to his program for the most part (though he is certainly capable of it if he chooses it).

    •  Severin .. (5+ / 0-)

      Severin's shtick is like that of most right-wing radio hacks.  Create an very false and extreme version of the topic-du-jour and debate that for the day.

      For example - last week, Jay didn't debate whether the idea of offering money for college in return for community service has any merit.  No - Jay told his listeners that Obama is going to force people to offer their children into left-wing indoctrination camps or they will be refused entry to college (not making that up).  Jay does this everyday. It always ends with the evil liberal boogeyman taking all your stuff. Sometimes it's so silly I laugh out loud.

      The GOP will never figure out how to win any national policy debate if they refuse to engage in the actual substance of the debate.  But, they decided long ago it is better to create false, cartoon characterizations for the few people who still listen to them.

      Besides - it's not about winning elections.  It's about winning ratings.

      Fine by me.  I'll take the elections.

      Rosa sat - so MLK could walk
      MLK walked - so Obama could run
      Obama ran - so our children could fly

      by Shawshank on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 12:43:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's been an education of sorts for me... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sparhawk, TrueBlueMajority see how unconcerned this guy is about having his predictions turn out to be correct -- many, many of them don't, going right back to the 2000 election.

        He seems to have calculated that his audience is nitwitty enough not to notice or to dismiss his bogus predictions as someone else's fault.

        But I do love the way he ass-kisses Mitt Romney at every conceivable opportunity because he is so fond of telling how he was invited to Romney's house and got to schmooze with Mittster and Tagg. He grovels when it comes to Romney, the big rich local guy.

        Will the last one out of democracy please turn out the lights?

        by Apphouse50 on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 12:52:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  My favorite prediction screwup of his... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sparhawk, TrueBlueMajority

          ...was predicting mass civil unrest among the civil liberties types (read: African-Americans) whether Obama won or lost.

          And no one questions him on it. I'd call in myself to ask why he was so wrong if I had that much time to hang on the phone but I don't.

          Will the last one out of democracy please turn out the lights?

          by Apphouse50 on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 12:53:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  When you call... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sethyeah, soundchaser

   need to be very specific, do not change the subject or allow him to do so, and have a few self-evident facts available to support your position. I've managed to do quite well with him on more than one occasion with this strategy.

            You get in trouble when you allow him to dictate the topic of conversation or when you get off track. One of the problems with that program is that the liberals who call are generally as stupid as the conservatives who call. Jay is not stupid, so he eats these callers alive. You have to keep your wits about you.

            •  Just a hunch, but I'd imagine a quick... (0+ / 0-)

              change of topic is to the advantage of the host simply because they'd have quick and easy access to data (and/or talking points) sitting in the studio as opposed to the caller who is tied to the phone. Not to mention that the host already knows where he may go when running around the debate, and of course the caller would tend to be unprepared to provide specifics and/or the requisite minutia. Naturally then the host can scream that the librul doesn't know the subject well enough.

              "And when justice is gone, there's always force."

              by soundchaser on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 07:49:18 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  He predicted Kerry would win ... (0+ / 0-)

            Right up until election day.

            For whatever that is worth.  Again, much more a ratings thing I would guess.

            Rosa sat - so MLK could walk
            MLK walked - so Obama could run
            Obama ran - so our children could fly

            by Shawshank on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 01:25:22 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  And Hillary would win the primary and the general (0+ / 0-)

              He is a Buchanan Republican and hence hates the war. Other than that, screw him.

              He's now whining about how the entire 48% who voted against Obama are now being painted as racists. Uh, by whom? I certainly haven't heard Barack Obama do that. I think Severin would agree that some of it was racially-based. But who is it that is levelling this charge against 48% of the voters?

              He never says.

              He is followed at night by another lunatic, Michell McPhee, who I think ought to be tarred and feathered.

              Will the last one out of democracy please turn out the lights?

              by Apphouse50 on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:36:00 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  I don't think the fiarness doctrine (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    will be any more beneficial than the patient's bill of rights might have been.

    What I would like to see is revocation of the licenses of these broadcasters for failing in their roll as our free press for presenting only the party line and deliberately keeping information citizens need OFF the airwaves (like never challenging the fake tales of WMD in the run-up to the attack on Iraq). the elites...actually believe that society can be destroyed by anyone except those who lead them? - John Ralston Saul -

    by Silverbird on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:48:00 AM PST

  •  Goose-stepping to Disco (4+ / 0-)

    Wingnut "talk radio" is bound to slowly fade into obscurity, if it isn't already highly overrated as an influencer of public opinion.

    What's the average age of the loyal wingnut listener? I'm guessing somewhere around 58.

    The toobs are far more important. But we knew that already.

  •  I just had lunch with someone who has a friend (7+ / 0-)

    who had spoken to Limbaugh.  Limbaugh apparently told the friend that he would say whatever corporate America told him to say.

    The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

    by lysias on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:58:35 AM PST

  •  Screw the Fairness Doctrine (4+ / 0-)

    All that ensures is that the media has to counter reasonable journalism with pure distilled bullshit. Just kick these liars and hate-mongers off the air, period.  If you can't make that case against the vile dishonest piss these guys spew for a career, wow.  This crowd picks and chooses what parts of the Constitution we should follow anyways, so for them to hide behind the First Amendment is kind of laughable.

  •  Yes, restore the Fairness Doctrine the moment (6+ / 0-)

    Obama takes office!  Even sooner is better, IMHO.  Hate Radio has done enough damage to this country of ours (not to mention who knows how many countries around the world) and it will only serve to annoy, at the least, or destroy, at the worst our new leadership in D.C.

    There is nothing unfair about the Fairness Doctrine.  It simply flies in the face of non-stop hate radio monopolising the discourse 24/7.

    Up with the Fairness Doctrine and down with Hate Radio.  At least, restore equal time to actual, factual NEWS.

    Peace and LONG LIVE BARACK OBAMA, our 44th President of the USA!!!

  •  Please forgive my ignorance (3+ / 0-)

    What does IOKIYAR mean?

    I think dkos should have a glossary somewhere on the site so old fogies like me can stay up-to-date.

  •  Freep the talk radios (6+ / 0-)
    I wonder if it would be a useful campaign for a bunch of us to call in, pretend to be sympathetic callers, then wind up the hosts so they show their true colors over and over again.

    Why helloooooo President Barack Hussein Badass!

    by Isara on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:04:13 AM PST

  •  In practice the fairness doctrine mererly made (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sui Juris, skrekk, sethyeah

    for more pre-dawn and sunday morning public affairs programming content. Any alternative viewpoint programming was alloted to low-listenership time blocks.

    Sorry about your rights, we hope to have them restored shortly.

    by qi motuoche on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:13:36 AM PST

  •  FD is bunk (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Equal-time rules are enough. Let AM Radio bitch and moan as much as they want to. They're on their way out with the internet, satellite radio, etc.

    Improve the ownership rules and you produce better results while still supporting free speech.

    Personally this push against the FD is a simple matter of Rush, etc. playing the victimization card as outlined in point one up top.

  •  A "Truthfulness Doctrine" would be better (10+ / 0-)

    When the broadcast media were the only outlet for opinions, perhaps a fairness doctrine made sense.  Today, with a decreasing share of people's information coming from terrestrial broadcast (i.e. publicly licensed) airwaves, trying to implement the doctrine would cause more trouble than it would be worth.

    I would, however, like to see some increased clamping down on intentional misstatements or outright known lies being purveyed as fact.  The First Amendment gives everyone a general right to have an express an opinion; it is not a license to lie.  I am regularly astonished (and then astonished at my astonishment) by how often blowhards, er, broadcasters spew clear, known lies and tell their less-informed audience that these are facts on which they can rely.  It's as if the ridiculous e-mails we all got during the campaign were given national radio shows of their own.  Let's get some FCC backbone about professional responsibility in broadcasting, and hold broadcasters liable for lies the way we do for their use of "dirty words."  In short, let's make "Fox News Is Reporting The Following Story" into the new 7 Words You Can't Say on the Air.  {ProfJonathan}

    "The perfect is the enemy of the good." -- Voltaire

    by ProfJonathan on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:20:02 AM PST

    •  I would be infinitely grateful if someone would (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      meg, bustacap

      write a diary... sigh... that would summarize... simplify.

      My leaning at this point is... there needs to be some new thinking... thrown at all this.

      Whatever you do, or dream, begin it now.. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now. ~Goethe

      by Lady Libertine on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:41:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Good theory, but... (4+ / 0-)

      It is very easy to dramatically skew a story without telling a single lie.  You simply omit relevant facts or you even avoid a story entirely.  Hard to call either one a lie, but no doubt there can be dramatic consequences to the tactic.

      Take the mortgage meltdown example.  It is amazing to me how little accountability was placed on Frank and Dodd and how they were allowed to construct the bailout package.  I think that would be the foxes watching the henhouse.  The American people need to know these things.

      Where's my tax cut and why are we still in Iraq?

      by tmaker on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:47:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Understood, but... (0+ / 0-)

        Allocating responsibility for the subprime mortgage crisis is an opinion.  Saying "Barack Obama is a terrorist" is a stated "fact," and in fact is probably defamation per se, since it accuses him of having committed a crime.  Not, "I think Barack Obama is a terrorist," which would be a statement of (reprehensible) opinion.

        I would like to see some level of enforcement against any employee of a publicly licensed broadcast station who knowingly or with willful disregard for the truth makes a false statement purported to be fact.  (Can you tell I'm a law professor?  grin)  Even if the standards are set high (the lies have to be significant and/or defamatory), a rule like that would make the statement that a microphone is not a license to lie.  {ProfJonathan}

        "The perfect is the enemy of the good." -- Voltaire

        by ProfJonathan on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 12:48:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  But it's easy to skirt around that by adding (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sethyeah, soundchaser

          uncertainty to an allegation or making it indirect.  "Barack Obama may be a terrorist." or "There have been a lot of people that say that Barack Obama is a terrorist."  The message still gets out and it should skirt any objective regulation.

          Furthermore, selective enforcement would be a major issue if a truthfulness doctrine were implemented.

    •  prohibit call screening and require transcripts (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bustacap, soundchaser

      right now screeners make sure most (not all)  wingnuts don't get called on their lies.

      ignoring the talk radio monopoly continues to be the biggest political blunder in decades

      by certainot on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 01:40:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  thanks for this synopsis, it helps us to organize (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    worried sick
  •  I don't think the rightwing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    worried sick

    hate radio viewership is increasing. I think they are mostly dying out, literally. I think a lot of their viewers are old school racist and easily manipulated.

  •  money where your mouth is (5+ / 0-)

    A Fairness Doctrine should simply be about being able to back up WITH FACT what you say over the airwaves. It should neither curtail free speech nor support gross untruths ( aka LIES). How much of what Limpbaugh says is true??? Very little

    •  In some form, mass propaganda must be (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bustacap, Jail the BFEE

      disrupted so that reasonable levels of information reach all types of mass audiences. Market segmentation of basic information is dangerous to a democratic political process.

      And lists of the proliferation of news sources does little to interfere with the delivery of propaganda to targeted audiences--especially of "low-information" voters on their drive home.

      We would have to modify the application and structure of the old Fairness Doctrine, but reasonable attempts to balance-out the propagandists must be attempted to keep our civic discourse healthy.

      Habeas Corpus:See Hamilton quoting Blackstone in The Federalist Papers, number 84.

      by Ignacio Magaloni on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 12:47:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  talk radio could die (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Loose Fur

    and I wouldn't care, in fact I'd like to see it happen.

  •  what an interesting feedback loop... (6+ / 0-)

    The first comment on that Milwaukee magazine article is from another news director who confirms everything that is said here. In addition, he adds:

    "great American" Sean Hannity acknowledges that his main concern is audience research... finding out what his listeners want him to say, and then saying it. He's spent thousands of dollars out of his own pocket in focus groups and surveys. He regularly scans the ratings reports, looking at the topics that draw the high ratings so that he can hammer them home again and again. That's why is show is so much of a broken record... he'll repeat the exact same point day after day until the ratings or calls start to lag, then he'll move on.

    This isn't free speech by any measure. He's like a blind person asking his audience to help him cross the street.

    In a democracy, everyone is a politician. ~ Ehren Watada

    by Lefty Mama on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:37:54 AM PST

    •  I think what they did to Gore and Kerry weighed (0+ / 0-)

      heavily on some of them, and after Katrina they felt some responsibility that weighed TOO MUCH for them to handle.

      Seems to me some of them COULDN'T sleep at night - after so many hundreds of thousands of

  •  Another day smoking crack (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tnproud2b, sethyeah

    I'm sure it will cost me another userid, but I do not like hypocracy:

    1.  For the talk radio formula, what's so different between the tactics listed vs the ones used on this site (or MSNBC or The View or The Daily Show)?  Only the ideology.
    1.  Fairness Doctrine - Dumb, dumb, dumb.  In order for it to be "fair" you have to apply it to at least the major TV networks, maybe all TV and print as well.  Now there's a slippery slope.  This is a strategy to silence critics.  Nothing very American about that and it seems to me it would infringe on free speech rights.  If you argue about "public airwaves", then we're back to applying it to public airwaves for television as well.

    Where's my tax cut and why are we still in Iraq?

    by tmaker on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:38:24 AM PST

    •  There is a difference... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bustacap, Go Kid Hugo

      Fox hosts like Hannity, O'Rielly, Hume and others such Limbaugh, Savage, Malkin etc., brutally attack guests of the show, threaten callers, publish their addresses and phone numbers, send their own people and encourage others to go to their homes and do "something" about anyone they don't like.    

      I do not want the FD to come back.  I agree with those who've said we need to break up the media giants.  That would be much more fair than put quota's on programming.

    •  You don't know anything about the FD. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TrueBlueMajority, bustacap, AdManAnt

      Your comment clearly reveals that you have at best only a vague idea about it. So why do you think that you could possibly have anything useful to say about it?

      Try looking up what it is before you start cluttering up the thread with worthless bloviage.

    •  Response (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      1.  MSNBC - includes "Morning Joe" Scarborough, a GOP Representative.  Includes Tom Brokaw.  Includes a diverse range of ideas and opinions.  Even Rachel Maddow invites people like David Frum and Nancy Pfotenhauer on her show.  I actually found Maddow to be a thoughtful journalist, and she frequently speaks out in disagreement with both Democrats and Republicans.  I think her concern is the Constitution of the United States and a free flow of ideas.  Olbermann has spent a lot of time attacking Bush, but that's in large part b/c Bush has been one of the most atrocious presidents in our history when it comes to civil rights, Constitution, spending, transparency, foreign relations, etc.  Olbermann would also point to the fact that he attacked Hillary Clinton's hypocrisy during the primaries, and there are other examples.  NEXT?
      1.  The View - Um, it's obvious, but Elizabeth Hasselbeck is on the show and unleashes a daily dose of Hannity-esque crap.  She is given a right to speak, and she takes full advantage of it.  Yes, Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg argue with her, but there is open dialogue.  We can't help it if right-wing ideology can't stand up to the test of open dialogue....
      1.  Daily Show - Wow.  I cannot believe that you would say the Daily Show is not balanced.  I think the main point of the Daily Show is satire of those in positions of power and prestige.  They poke fun at the self-importance of the news media, as much as they poke fun at the self-importance of politicians of both parties.  Case in point:

      Obama the socialist?

      Justice, mercy, tolerance, hope, love, grace, and redemption are all Judeo-Christian values.

      by Benintn on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 12:23:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I actually found Maddow to be a thoughtful journalist, and she frequently speaks out in disagreement with both Democrats and Republicans.  I think her concern is the Constitution of the United States and a free flow of ideas.  Olbermann has spent a lot of time attacking Bush, but that's in large part b/c Bush has been one of the most atrocious presidents in our history when it comes to civil rights, Constitution, spending, transparency, foreign relations, etc.  Olbermann would also point to the fact that he attacked Hillary Clinton's hypocrisy during the primaries, and there are other examples.

        They may be thoughful, but there is no denying their liberal bend.  Now, if you accept liberalism as an ideology and set it as your "center", sure they're balanced.  But in relation to the American populace, you're dreaming if you think they are.  The problem with defining balance is it's fundamentally subjective, and regulating speech on subjective grounds is asking for trouble.

        Daily Show - Wow.  I cannot believe that you would say the Daily Show is not balanced.  I think the main point of the Daily Show is satire of those in positions of power and prestige.  They poke fun at the self-importance of the news media, as much as they poke fun at the self-importance of politicians of both parties.  Case in point:

        I can't believe that you think it is balanced.  I love the Daily Show, but it clearly leans to the left.

      •  And Keith has invited RW types onto his show, but (0+ / 0-)

        they never come on there.

        John McCain's Campaign: "Look at how apolitical I am! This is why you should vote for me!"

        by William S on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 03:38:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  No FD (8+ / 0-)

    I listen to an excellent public radio station. It has the requisite NPR programs of course, ATC & ME, because they're very popular and keep the station on the air, but they also do quite a lot of local programing and the director of the station
    is an unappologetic liberal.
    They frequently interviewed Scott Ritter and other anti-war voices both before the war began and up to the pesent. They air many liberal programs like "alternative radio" etc. I don't want their message diluted by a new FD.
    The problem with the hate talk radio is the stauration it achieves because of the dismantling of ownership rules which prevented the creation of behemoths like Clear Channel, or Sinclair broadcasting. They can afford to keep Rush and Hannity and their ilk on in markets where they don't do well because they have hundreds of other stations to pick up the financial slack.
    What I want to see is the ownership rules changed to steer us back towards more local ownership, breaking up the conglomerates. If Rush's show was just an offering by a network and local stations determined to buy it or not depending on their local market, I guarantee his market share would plummet.
    What we have now is a media that is almost wholey owned by a very small handfull of large corporate interests, and we get saturated with the large corporate view as a result.
    If we go back to local ownership and break up the big media corps., hate radio will become a small nitch market operation.

  •  We should start a call-in campaign, (0+ / 0-)

    this is a good idea.

    We'll light up their switchboards. We'll pop their bubble.

    Our goal is not to destroy them, but ruin their little fantasy they've got going on.

    •  Funny idea... f#%$ with their heads... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean

      I've often thought that the best thing to do with these clowns is to parody them to their faces, posing as callers in order to praise them shamelessly and then up the ante with some over the top idiocy, some logical extension of their own rotten ideology.

      But then I think, there's really nothing you can say that will sound over the top to their insider believer listeners... they're immune to parody. No selfawareness at all...

  •  Fairness Doctrine isn't solution - your diary is. (0+ / 0-)

    Justice, mercy, tolerance, hope, love, grace, and redemption are all Judeo-Christian values.

    by Benintn on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 12:14:12 PM PST

  •  Jay Severin in Boston does that too (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TrueBlueMajority, bustacap, aaraujo

    I once heard a guy call in and he took issue with Severin attacking someone for calling Bush an idiot.  The caller pointed out that Severin had called Bush an idiot himself.  Severin objected, saying he had never said that and challenged the caller to prove his claim.  The caller admitted that Severin had perhaps used a different word, but that the meaning was the same (I had also heard Severin say things about Bush's less-than-stellar intellect so the caller's point was accurate).

    When the caller tried to make that point (or move on to another point...which I think he was attempting to do), Severin repeatedly called the man "a little girl."  He must've called him "a little girl" at least a dozen times, interrupting him every time he tried to speak.  Then, of course, they went to commercial.

    I had to wonder if the audience, which Severin ironically calls "the best and brightest", would see through the host's wimpy way of avoiding the caller's point.  But from what I can tell from most of his callers, they probably enjoyed it and thought it a perfectly legitimate form of debate.

    Severin is an absolutely despicable person.  Though he has never served his country he often questions the patriotism of those who hold more liberal views.  "Questions" is too weak a description.  He comes right out and says that they're traitorous.  
    Showing a complete understanding of both history and economics, Severin will call anyone who supports a slightly higher top marginal tax rate a "socialist."

    He refers to the rising minority population as "the bastard factory."  He calls Barack Obama "a token black president."

    Now I support his First Amendment right to say these awful things.  But I have no respect for the owners of WTKK who make money selling his filth to the weak-minded people who lap it up.   Severin should be able to say these things, but he should be doing it on his own blog or from atop a soap-box, not on the air of a major radio station.

  •  Lets mobilize our faith groups against these (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:


    It would put pressure on the conservative faith groups to disown them.

  •  The airwaves are a public trust - require truth (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bustacap, revsue, AdManAnt

    be the standard. If the hosts on shows say things that are factually inaccurate or very misleading then take away their license as a violation of the public trust. We don't need soft standards.

    This is just to say Forgive us victory tastes delicious so sweet and so cold

    by Dave the Wave on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 12:30:15 PM PST

  •  Key Reason Such Talk Shows Succeed (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bustacap, Go Kid Hugo

    from the horse's mouth:

    because its hosts can exploit the fears and perceived victimization of a large swath of conservative-leaning listeners. And they feel victimized because many liberals and moderates have ignored or trivialized their concerns and have stereotyped these Americans as uncaring curmudgeons.

    While I agree with the key reason; I disagree with the rationalization that it's because they have been ignored or trivialized by liberals.

    Let's be honest here.  Liberals make it clear what our agenda is.  It doesn't in any way coincide with fear, bigotry, and willful ignorance that is the chosen path of the "conservative-leaning listeners" of right-wing talk radio.  We have not stereotyped them, they have merely lived up to their stereotypes.

    Look at the map of the red vs. blue voters in the last election.  Is the author of the radio article claiming that the only curmudgeons in America live in the rural Appalachian chain and Dixie?  Take the blinders off, fella.  That's the home of the fearful, bigoted, and willfully ignorant.

    They burn our children in their wars and grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

    by Limelite on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 12:31:01 PM PST

  •  Soloution to Hate Radio is equal time and access (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ignacio Magaloni, bustacap

    If you ever have driven through north Texas, Oklahoma and rural Kansas you'll find your choices on AM radio are few. You get the preachers and right wing radio.

    No wonder states like Oklahoma are red. All they here is right wing talk radio. If a public radio carries Michael Savage and Limbaugh I think they must balance that time with a left wing program.

    Rural areas don't spend any time reading daily Kos or the Washington Post online.

    So, some form of balanced AM programming is what is needed. If they cannot balance it then they need to drop the right wing spewers.

  •  If Charlie Sykes is actually like the way he's (0+ / 0-)

    described, why is he one of the best in the business?  Sounds like he's a jerk.  I wouldn't know for sure, because I've never heard him.  But it also sounds that he'll do anything for money.  Which also makes him a jerk.

    •  um, there's nothing remarkable about being a jerk (0+ / 0-)

      if everyone else in your business is a jerk too. I actually think in order to be "one of the best" in right-wing talk radio is to be the biggest, lyingest jerk on the block.

      "Conservatism is everyone you never wanted to grow up to be." -Paul Waldman

      by Kaity on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 01:25:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  what about (0+ / 0-)

    --requiring the shows to take unscreened calls? most of the big blowhards coudn't take real criticism.
    --requiring them to post daily transcripts

    ignoring the talk radio monopoly continues to be the biggest political blunder in decades

    by certainot on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 12:57:10 PM PST

  •  KA: KEWL ACRONYM!!! no text follows (0+ / 0-)
  •  Fairness Doctrine has nothing to do (0+ / 0-)

    with free speech.  Free speech is an individual right.  Somehow during our history this has been subverted to extend our basic individual rights through to the corporations and political blocs that are made up of these individuals.  

    If the rules are changed to require media ownership be split up equitably, an individual can still go on any station and spew their views, they can still go hop up on a soapbox at their local park and yell at people that go by.  They can shout "fire" in a crowded theater....oops, well maybe all speech isn't free.  

    Anyway, when groups of individuals band together their numbers and financial wherewithal for power and influence, there must be some limitations on how intimidating they can get.  It isn't a free speech issue to prevent an absolute polarization of our country into the haves and the have nots.  Media gives each voice that uses it more volume, more exposure, and more potential for damage than any single voice has.  Certainly our founders never imagined the power of transmission and amplification and would never have stood for a single voice amplified by money and power being able to drown out all others.

    "There are no atheists in foxholes" isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes. - James Morrow

    by artmartin on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 01:08:44 PM PST

    •  Hate speech. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bustacap, artmartin

      A lot of right wing talk radio is hate speech. Don't forget that several acts of violence occurred this year which were perpetrated by men who had been deeply influenced by right wing radio hate jocks.

      after the farce comes the tragedy.

      by slouching on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 01:45:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You mean there isn't anything in the constitution (0+ / 0-)

      that specifically says that Limbaugh has to have 3 hours a day on every station within 25 miles of a population center of 10,000 people or more?

      Are you sure? I sort of think I remember that there is, from my 8th grade civics class.

  •  I'll swap (0+ / 0-)

    no "Fairness Doctrine" for a requirement that networks give free airtime for debates at the local level.

    Something like a free half-hour for a mayoral race, a free hour for a Congressional or state lege race, and whatever is appropriate for higher-ticket contests.

  •  the reagan rev was really the limbaugh revolution (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bustacap, Nimbus

    it really has become the Party of LImbaugh.

    20 years of regression didn't come from reagan. they came from giving the right the biggest soapbox in the country so guys like rove could take atwater's methods to a national level.

    as long as that soapbox exists as is and guys like limbaugh and hannity don't have to take real calls the GOP will continue to have it both ways, calling for bipartisanship from one end and making it impossible on the other. as long as that soapbox remains uncontested real democracy is about impossible and obama and his admin will have to work twice as hard to anything done.

    ignoring the talk radio monopoly continues to be the biggest political blunder in decades

    by certainot on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 01:34:51 PM PST

  •  I can't stand that turd, he is an embarassment (0+ / 0-)

    to this city.

    And the fact that he is supposed to somehow represent Milwaukee?  I don't know what freakin part of this city he hangs out it, but obviously he doesn't see the social injustices here that I do.  This city remains one of the most segregated in the US, and he's the one who's bitching and moaning?

    What a joke.

    Mr. Puddles? Mr. Puddles, where are you? Has anyone seen my dog? Mr. Puddles? I have snausages.

    by krwlngwthyou on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 01:42:32 PM PST

  •  liberal ignorance of the problem is biggest prob (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    if liberals would listen once in a while, call, complain, boycott and picket the LOCAL stations and their sponsors once in a while when they lie repeatedly about their candidates and causes we might not be in this bush disaster, fairness doctrine or not.

    ignoring the talk radio monopoly continues to be the biggest political blunder in decades

    by certainot on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 01:43:44 PM PST

  •  They call it talk radio (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bustacap, DeLLBerto

    Because it sure as hell ain't think radio.

    Hatred is murder (1 John 3:15)
    Read FAR Future, a serial peak-oil novel, at my blog.

    by dirtroad on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 01:46:43 PM PST

  •  What is (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:


    Canada - where a pack of smokes is ten bucks and a heart transplant is free.

    by dpc on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 01:49:20 PM PST

  •  Good debaters? Argue logically and convincingly? (0+ / 0-)

    I've never laughed so hard at anything in my life. Shelley is the epitome of the uninformed or stupid (or both) dupe that the talk show hosts he's apparently railing against hold enthralled in their audiences.

    Talk show hosts don't argue logically or convincingly about anything. Not only do they cherry-pick facts, they just flat out make stuff up.

    There are exactly two remarkable things about this article:

    1. That somebody from within the "biz" actually publicly stated what anybody with a brain already could tell simply by listening to the talk show hosts and paying attention to reality;
    1. That Shelley is so incredibly stupid and self-deluded that he actually falls for the notion that these show hosts "argue" anything successfully and is unashamed about just how deplorably ignorant and wrong he is.
  •  Imagine Alan Colmes as "fairness" counterbalance. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wonmug, DeLLBerto, Nimbus

    on all those right-wing radio stations.  They will play a Potempkin progressive sort of game with their "fairness" requirements, by putting on purportedly "progressive" voices and programming that is to the required "fairness" balance what the Washington Generals are to the Harlem Globetrotters.  Useful, but sufficiently mediocre foils who they know they can safely assume can be effectively defeated and contained.  You're not going to get conservative radio stations adding Ed Schultz for "fairness" balance any more than the Globetrotters are about to add the Detroit Pistons to their regular touring exhibition schedule.

  •  Anyone know how to research who's in the union? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    standupguy, soundchaser

    I'd love to know which talk show hosts are members of AFTRA (American Federation of Television and Radio Artists).

    Right-wing talk show hosts are always anti-union, and anti-universal health care, but I'm pretty sure all of them are getting good union benefits.  Anyone know how to research something like that?

    I emailed Dan Shelley with the same question.

    In TX-32, track the voting record of Pete Sessions at SessionsWatch.

    by CoolOnion on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 02:57:08 PM PST

  •  Fairness Doctrine?? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DeLLBerto, vets74

    We just kicked Hate Talk Radio's ass! We don't need no stinkin' FD. Only the wingnut faithful still swallow what Hate Talk Radio dishes out. And, they so don't matter. Vannity et. al. have been relegated to the fringe of AM Radio, where they sell trash to trash.
    They are harmless now. And, fun to listen to! No FD required.

    Second Life NetRoots Nation

    by winkk on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 02:57:25 PM PST

  •  we need more exposes, peeks behind the curtains (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jfdunphy, Jail the BFEE

    I'd like to see some investigative reporting in major newspapers on rightwing radio--where do the talking points originate? Who funds this crap? What role have certain industries and corporations played in bankrolling Rush Limbaugh? Is it just a coincidence that these guys all seem to try to undermine the science on global warming, or do they and their producers get some compensation from Big Oil? I've just always been curious about the real forces behind rightwing radio--and the contemporary GOP who benefits so from it.

    Talk radio fans are being played and propagandized, not informed. While that's obvious to those of us who aren't talk fans, the lies that spread like weeds through the country are seeded from these rightwing talkers. This year they didn't work. But sometimes, they do.

    People who listen to rightwingnut talkers need to be confronted with some realities. And then they need to have their freakin' heads examined.

  •  No Fairness Doctrine, please. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nimbus, immigradvocate

    It will just fan the flames. It would give the radio wingnuts something to focus their perceived victimization on. I feel that the intertubes have pretty much neutralized talk radio.  

    Joe Lieberman,Independent~ Independently owned and operated by the Republican party.

    by tennesseeliberal on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 04:06:04 PM PST

  •  Can the FD be amended or is it written in cement (0+ / 0-)

    as it is? The discussion seems to fall on the FD as it was originally passed--positions are all or nothing. E.g. If I understand the ownership monopoly issue as posted, can an FD amendment be incorporated into the original document? Coming from a basic low level knowledge area, can the FD be revised or amended--bringing FD up to speed to reflect what really needs to happen across the board.

  •  Right wing hate radio should be shutdown (0+ / 0-)

    These people are swill.  They are merchants of hate.

  •  Does anyone here really believe that... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    the brain-dead human garbage who listen to and believe Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly would be amenable to rational argument?  Do you really think that the Fairness Doctrine allowing you access to Clear Channels is going to create a groundswell of new progressives?  If this is what you believe, I suggest you go over to or and commune with these cretins.  See how long you last there.  

    As long as you insist on feeling offended, I'll be glad to comply.

    by George Gould on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:16:48 PM PST

  •  I'm against made up BS in their hate speech (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave925, armadillo

    Radio.  They frame a made up lie which gets into their listeners psyche.  It is easily debunked hours later, but the original frame sticks in the listeners mind as true.

  •  Compromise to get Fairness Doctrine (0+ / 0-)

    I think it will be difficult to pass such a thing, there would be such a din of opposition from--well, people who have successfully monopolized the air waves.

    But here's a thought:  To get RW support, to sugarcoat the pill, I would give that churches can be in politics to their hearts' content.  

    It would be a boon to the right for their best organizers to operate unfettered.  Think that might provide a basis for getting a new fairness doctrine enacted?

  •  If you look at the record of RightWing radio (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chadlupkes, Dave925, certainot, Leftcandid

    purchases, you'll see the creation of a very effective, deliberately constructed propaganda network.

    They bough almost every station in the country!!

    So just saying "free speech" doesn't quite do it, unless you're supporting total RW brainwashing.

    I'm not sure what the solution is, maybe a Fairness Doctrine, maybe something new.  But the nation didn't suffer prior to the FD's repeal under Reagan.  Free speech did just fine, in just came along with a bit of opposition.

  •  FD or otherwise, we need a solution (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave925, DeLLBerto, North Country Dem

    Lamebaugh's career began shortly after Reagan vetoed FD legislation.

    FOX News was basically birthed by the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996.

    The whole concept of RWHR is not free speech but a corporate-funded monopoly on speech.  They are utterly opposed to competition: otherwise, why would they lose money to run the same shows on multiple stations?  The ONLY reason to own more than one station and run shows against themselves is to shut out opposing views.  I've got no problem with these jerks having their jerky say; my problem is with those who buy out competitor stations and turn them into Bible broadcasters because they cannot stand free speech for liberals.

    It may be a better idea to re-regulate the media ownership rules than reinstitute a FD, but the FD must be considered for single-station rural markets.  What is to be done in that situation?  People rely on radio in many parts of the nation.  They don't stream Internet programming in their trucks or their harvesters.  

    Maybe wi-fi Internet Radio is coming soon to provide a techfix for rural America.  I'm not holding my breath.  For now, the most disgusting and deplorable hate and lies are swirling around much of the nation with no antidote in the format.  It's still a threat.

    Our Moment is... (ding!) Now.

    by Leftcandid on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:00:09 PM PST

  •  There is a segment of our population who does (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    feel "victimized". I hate to generalize but they are white men who feel like minorities and women are "taking jobs from them that they don't deserve". They feel like no one represents their interests.

    I agree that some of it is racial. I also think, though, that the civil rights movement made a fatal mistake in the late 1960s when it sought out purely race-based remedies to inequality. Had poor white people been part of Affirmative Action and other programs to remedy inequality I'm not sure if Nixon and Reagan would have been as successful as they were.

  •  Buy them out (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave925, japangypsy

    Has anyone seen the share price of Citadel lately?  $0.19 per share.  Their market capitalization is only $51.29 Million.  Barack Obama got more votes than there are dollars in this major radio company.  If each of them shelled out 19 cents, we would own ourselves a radio company.

    Any takers?

    If Democrats have a pre-911 view of the world, Republicans have a pre-July 4th view of the world.

    by chadlupkes on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:44:43 PM PST

  •  I find this whole conversation fascinating (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ZAP210, firendezyre4change

    It's as if it were 1939 and a bunch of generals were passionately debating the best way to deploy horse cavalry when they have as bunch of tanks sitting in storage.

    Guys, the medium that will decide the next election ... and the next one ... and the next one ... is literally right in front of your face. And right now we're the masters of if: the wingnuts are playing catch up.

    I'm much more concerned with maintaining that lead than I am with a last-century technology with an aging, shrinking audience.

    •  Nailed it. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      40 million mute, aging, information illiterates sit in a dark room: talk radio. There echo the voices of Goldwater, John Wayne and James Bond, explaining how things are done in the real world through the shouting voices of Rush, Dennis, and Sean.

      Radio is a waste of bandwidth that the FCC should consider shrinking. But regulate content?

      Censoring the bozos will give their message credibility. Rather spin memes that make sense in a medium that matters, and enjoy the blowhards as comic relief and inspiration to act.

      "God bless all you flag-burnin' patriots out there exercising your rights as Americans." Calvin Johnson

      by ZAP210 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 02:29:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Fascinating article... (0+ / 0-)

    ...too bad Dan Shelley is such an atrocious writer.  The grammatical errors, passive voice overuse, and just plain lazy writing in the article set my hair on end.

    "There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall -- think of it, ALWAYS." - Gandhi

    by hopesprings on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 08:38:34 PM PST

  •  This garbage about not having a Fairness Doctrine (3+ / 0-)

    is downright tripe by those conned by the noise of censorship. That is the kinnard from the right, their talking dumassess!!!

    Lets get this straight, the rightwing has taken over RADIO, TV, infested NPR and has to have their say in all things and nothing from the opposition.

    They can say anything insulting, LIE, DISTRORT, CHEAT, MISINFORM and Their is no accountablity!!!!
    Excuse me while I let them beat my positions to death and make shit up and never have honesty from them to check themselves.

    Lets see, Hannity, Limbaugh, Malkin, Fox Noise, Clear Channel, Ingraham, Bortz, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Miller, Drudge, Glenn Beck, Bill Cunningham, Micheal Medved, Dennis Prager, Micheal Savage, Armstrong Williams, Bill Oreilly and the list goes on and THAT ENOUGH FAIRNESS for you???

    "These guys are biggest bunch of lying crooks I have ever seen" John Kerry

    by alnc on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 08:44:51 PM PST

  •  The Fairness Doctrine had one purpose: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Purple Priestess

    To remove political media advantage. The wingnut radio people have no such advantage. They're nearly powerless, politically.

    If you want people to stop saying things that upset you... well shit. That happens on Daily Kos!

    It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

    by Fishgrease on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:22:59 PM PST

  •  I'm surprised (0+ / 0-)

    that only wingnut radio is targeted here. Those rules are also standard for sports talk radio.

  •  haven't read the comments but (0+ / 0-)

    saw in the update that there are some posting against the fairness doctrine? either you're too young to remember or your paycheck depends on its non-existence.

    ...where will it tickle you?

    by GANJA on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:55:19 AM PST

  •  People are forgetting (0+ / 0-)

    the other side of this sword. What happens to sites like Dkos or Huffpo? Will they be forced to let the likes of Limbaugh or Hannity come here to espouse their point of view? This works both ways, folks. We've made it to this point and got this man elected without the help of the fairness doctrine. Talk radio is a dying breed. Let it die. The only people who listen are the believers and spies, like me. I find it rather handy to be able to dial over there and learn their talking points so I will know what battles are to be fought. I really don't think everyone is looking at both sides of this.

Deep Dark, chase, Louise, wozzle, Superskepticalman, buffalo soldier, Terri, nofundy, keirdubois, RF, Cowalker, KTinTX, copymark, Gg, bluecayuga, kenboy, Trendar, skywaker9, gogol, rhfactor, moon in the house of moe, tikkun, lrhoke, Pen, stephdray, Nina Katarina, alisonk, Dvd Avins, Dave the Wave, madmsf, BigOkie, janinsanfran, TocqueDeville, Bob Love, lazbumm, JTML, bosdcla14, Sprinkles, Emerson, sara seattle, Stoy, donna in evanston, rogun, Hesiod, tacet, JamesC, meg, ssteuer, bellatrys, BobCarp, martianchronic, Midwest Meg, westsyde, John Campanelli, xynz, Raven Brooks, PhillyGal, HootieMcBoob, DemDachshund, figdish, pbsloop, Woody, Mumon, ZAPatty, Carnacki, object16, Joe B, exNYinTX, vrexford, Arthur Dent, hubcap, zeitshabba, GreekGirl, Creosote, TheOtherWashington, PBCliberal, kissfan, RubDMC, eyeswideopen, Czarvoter, concernedamerican, bronte17, TracieLynn, indybend, cskendrick, Karen Wehrstein, BlackSheep1, Shadan7, groggy, SecondComing, susakinovember, Gundar Schwartz, sharman, CoolOnion, KMc, boadicea, buckeyekarl, Scoopster, mkfarkus, buckhorn okie, roses, Frederick Clarkson, ivote2004, Ignacio Magaloni, sgilman, cubensis, itsmitch, nargel, jbeach, redux, Swordsmith, Spindizzy, Nate Roberts, fumie, bustacap, DoctorScience, jted, lirtydies, antirove, Alna Dem, CocoaLove, nitetalker, dksbook, kosophile, Ludi, mayan, menodoc, psnyder, danthrax, sockpuppet, marko, oldjohnbrown, NYC Sophia, xoRfl, f furney, KevinEarlLynch, MA Liberal, grannyhelen, Red State Refugee, PaulVA, Patricia, Penny Century, wulfhere, On The Bus, defluxion10, nika7k, Catte Nappe, betson08, snakelass, dnn, AbsurdEyes, Greg in TN, papercut, beachmom, Timbuk3, lcrp, Anna Luc, 313to212, Democratic Hawk, Hail Ripley, Chun Yang, bwintx, AllisonInSeattle, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, SanDiegoDem, ScienceMom, TexasLefty, bablhous, rickeagle, vacantlook, faithfull, feebog, Shapeshifter, mm201, Frank Vyan Walton, sawgrass727, Gowrie Gal, sxwarren, davidkc, Big Tex, nailbender, leolabeth, Dirk McQuigley, madaprn, molsen, Slgalt, chumley, bloomer 101, Bluesee, radarlady, Kewalo, IamtheReason, TexasTom, Ckntfld, jfdunphy, freakofsociety, el dorado gal, blueyedace2, Five of Diamonds, baccaruda, CTPatriot, LisaZ, subtropolis, saralee, sc kitty, PBen, Alice Venturi, truong son traveler, basquebob, ChemBob, Mahler3, juliesie, dynamicstand, TigerMom, YucatanMan, EJP in Maine, Dobber, trinityfly, Simpletonian, Katal, kldave, reflectionsv37, boofdah, NeuvoLiberal, eru, Mz Kleen, lennysfo, owlbear1, GUGA, Crazy Fingers, cfk, Viceroy, LNK, Pam from Calif, truebeliever, snootless, jimreyn, thered1, where4art, aaraujo, Overseas, lotlizard, Little Lulu, Skid, SheriffBart, Yamara, Cyber Kat, newtonsthird, collapse, Ginny in CO, Zergle, Gottayo, Silence is Complicity, bunsk, Cory Bantic, Rogneid, empathy, timba, viscerality, kathny, Sister Havana, fhcec, bently, xaxnar, jiml, begone, lgmcp, mariva, CCSDem, salvador dalai llama, alrdouglas, Mother Mags, elliott, Coherent Viewpoint, lilyvaldem, Shirl In Idaho, juliewolf, Icy, tarheelblue, PatsBard, myboo, keeplaughing, sherlyle, Black Knight, Clytemnestra, Opakapaka, BlueInARedState, emeraldmaiden, Kimball Cross, Ellicatt, liberalconservative, seefleur, mooshter, Dvalkure, Samwoman, buhdydharma, dougymi, rsquire, deha, Shakludanto, XStryker, Im with Rosey, Texas Blue Dot, poichick, Albatross, arlene, jwhitmill, sullynyc, RockNAwe, triv33, tecampbell, birdbrain64, global citizen, StrayCat, Tanya, Lashe, nonnie9999, gooderservice, gatorcog, goodlittlesquid, SadieSue, imabluemerkin, justalittlebitcrazy, thiebes, real world chick, njheathen, JVolvo, armadillo, CTLiberal, bleeding heart, Preston S, MarciaJ720, myrealname, Dinclusin, doinaheckuvanutjob, Phthalo, llbear, wargolem, lazybum, Persiflage, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, buckeye blue, va dare, The Lighthouse Keeper, Stripe, WI Dem, means are the ends, cherryXXX69, FrankieB, kurious, Bernie68, bstotts, Temmoku, Land of Lincoln Dem, blueintheface, markthshark, Aaa T Tudeattack, ammasdarling, fiver, out of left field, ibonewits, asilomar, Cronesense, peagreen, Cat Whisperer, blue armadillo, possum, MikeTheLiberal, jetskreemr, gailwax, gloriana, vets74, EdSF, moosely2006, threegoal, jds1978, Outrider, la urracca, yowsta, rogrwilco, Jimdotz, terabytes, ezdidit, DWG, dww44, londubh, Uncle Moji, entlord1, bnasley, RosyFinch, malharden, Kyle the Mainer, MI Sooner, jayden, GMFORD, jedennis, Heyroot, vbdietz, montanajen, thursdays child, beemerr, jnhobbs, Moderation, jhop7, uciguy30, JML9999, Zydekos, TexasTwister, homerun, lorac18nc, seabrook, sable, Casey in TN, Empower Ink, Send Rahm a Cheesecake, sand805, JDWolverton, rogerdaddy, Shane Hensinger, gundyj, Justus, condorcet, LightningMan, Mr SeeMore, RickMassimo, NotGeorgeWill, Boisepoet, wayoutinthestix, ScottyUrb, Cordwainer, last starfighter, Fast Bike, angel65, billvb, Rick Winrod, Archangel, Deep Harm, Lujane, tofumagoo, hwmnbn, Missys Brother, MsWings, Jeff Y, rubine, catly, Thought Crime, Nautilator, Bigyaknut, Spekkio, Taget, Horsefeathers, bubbalie 517, dpryan, luckylizard, xysea, DixieDishrag, BYw, eddienutzak, punkdavid, psilocynic, dont think, Nona D Above, SpiffPeters, shortgirl, Fight or Die, TennesseeGurl, Johnny Venom, GrouchoKossak, mos1133, legendmn, BvueDem, brein, Pris from LA, multilee, artmartin, Nicki6772, Mr Tentacle, denisegreenbay, Texanomaly, james1108, Rick Aucoin, two roads, emboyo, normboyd40, deMemedeMedia, Discipline28, An Affirming Flame, Shhs, Dopeman, CanyonWren, Don Enrique, Inky99, red states blues, Nebraskablue, Jdories, Norm in Chicago, theworksanddays, Partisan Progressive, SciVo, Ned Rifle, Yalin, Daily Activist, dcprof, Buck Power, bluestatemeant, bfitzinAR, soms, MooseHB, jazzence, kw7777777, sanglug, paintitblue, deutschluz, kl5, Electric Blue, Brelee, rubthorn, Roxy Hope, serecovery, Anarchofascist, Living in Gin, sherijr, FundaMental Transformation, MizKit, orangeuglad, Wings Like Eagles, Enrika, Ellie the Kat, tikifire, Larsstephens, ozarkspark, blackandaztec, cassandraX, krwlngwthyou, Amber6541, xsonogall, ladygreenslippers, dalys, smileycreek, BrighidG, MariaWr, mudmanor, angry liberaltarian, ldvisavis, TidBits, winkster, pyegar, sovery, dragonlilleth, RBinDLH, Vacationland, LaughingPlanet, skeezixwolfnagle, robertacker13, imamish, Tea and Strumpets, cindiloohoo, mamak, japangypsy, Capn Sassy Jas, Big Danny, chrome327, Crabby Abbey, cgirard, msmo1918, legalchic, ATFILLINOIS, BonnieSchlitz, Eddie L, Klaus, mommybrain, Gertrude, ctlrick, sullivanst, pixxer, Subo, Benintn, Puddytat, DrFitz, cmlane, Black Leather Rain, BlueTesuque, jdacal, Urtica dioica gracilis, roystah, MsGrin, Floande, bottles, AMfromATL, dwayne, zora129, wrpereir, slice, Ten Sixty West Addison, newusername, Taya Lawrence, sickofcynicism, drchc15, bruinhoo, BrowniesAreGood, atoilune, I love OCD, modalrealist, spooks51, ban nock, NoteForge, Gracian, Stella 4 Obama, Olon, soundchaser, Fickle, sunshineflorida, lynncosbm, sallym, FightingRegistrar, barflyer, page394, CoExistNow, greatlyconcerned, The Creator, Haf2Read, BaxKen, aaon, Cinnamon Rollover

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site