McClatchy: Congress braces for fight over Fairness Doctrine

[AsburySkinsFan]

Wait a minute, I thought talk radio was against the Democrats. I'm so confused.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/17670.html

Congress braces for fight over Fairness Doctrine

By Rob Hotakainen | McClatchy Newspapers

Posted on Mon, July 9, 2007

WASHINGTON — After conservative radio talk show hosts helped bury an immigration bill, Republican Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott complained that "talk radio is running America."

Lott suggested a remedy that immediately got talk-show hosts talking: He suggested bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, which would force broadcasters to provide more political balance on the nation's airwaves.

"It's absurd," said Mike Shanin, a self-described conservative radio talk show host in Kansas City, Mo.

Shanin said there's no doubt that liberals have been left behind in the world of talk radio and that it makes perfect economic sense: "Look, these are businesses, just like newspapers are businesses. If liberal talk worked, it would be on. It's been tried."

With their industry suddenly on the defensive, talk show hosts are trying to ward off any intervention from Congress.

Scott Parks, Shanin's co-host, said that reviving the Fairness Doctrine would "make radio extremely boring." He said it's clear that talk radio had a lot to do with pressuring members of Congress to vote against the immigration bill last month but that critics are overestimating its influence.

"Keep in mind it's not that (conservative talk hosts) Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity convinced millions and millions of Americans that this bill was bad," Parks said. "These people most likely didn't like this bill to begin with and it was listening to Rush and whomever that spawned them into action."

Talk radio contains 10 times as much conservative talk as progressive or liberal talk, according to a study released last month by The Center for American Progress, a research and educational institute that works for "progressive and pragmatic solutions," and Free Press, a group that focuses on media competitiveness.

The report, called "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio," found that of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial stations, 91 percent of the talk was conservative, while 9 percent was progressive. Ninety-two percent of the stations did not broadcast a single minute of progressive talk, according to the study.

Those numbers are providing ammunition for critics.

"Unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way," California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein said on a recent Sunday television talk show.

Shanin, who worked in radio when the Fairness Doctrine was in effect, said he believes it resulted in less political debate because so many station owners didn't want to bother with its requirements.

"Smaller radio stations - and they are in the vast majority in this country - chose to not address many controversial issues, because they did not want to go through the hassle of trying to find the proponents and the opponents and people of other points of view," he said.

The talk show hosts have found plenty of friends in Washington.

Sen. Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican, said any attempt to revive the Fairness Doctrine "ought to be dead on arrival."

"Some Democrats may not like talk radio, but that does not give them the right to use the heavy hand of government to regulate it," he said.

No one has yet introduced legislation to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. But before Congress left town for its weeklong July 4 break, the House passed an amendment to a federal spending bill that would block all funding for implementation of the Fairness Doctrine. And separate bills were introduced in both the House and Senate that would prevent the Federal Communications Commission from reinstating it.

Republican Rep. Todd Tiahrt of Kansas, one of the House co-sponsors, said the Fairness Doctrine would "effectively and dangerously mandate what can and cannot be said."

Another House co-sponsor, Republican Rep. Connie Mack of Florida, called it "a left-wing idea that only the likes of self-proclaimed communist Hugo Chavez could love."

"Just as we've seen the systematic elimination of a free and independent media in Chavez's Venezuela, some Democrats in Congress want to impose their own type of `check' on our free and independent media in the Untied States," he said.

The doctrine was repealed in 1987, giving station owners the right to fill their programming with political content as they see fit.

Conservative talk show hosts point to the recent failure of Air America as evidence that liberal talk radio doesn't sell with the public.

And Shanin said that, unlike the old days when the Fairness Doctrine was deemed necessary, the public now has access to a broad array of choices to get other political views, including the Internet, cable television, satellite radio and newspapers.

"If somebody is interested in finding an opposing point of view or something different than a talk show host on some radio station, they'd have to be an idiot not to be able to find it," he said.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Wait a minute, I thought talk radio was against the Democrats. I'm so confused.

You have to remember... Trent Lott is about as Conservative as Ted Kennedy. Talk radio is mainly CONSERVATIVE, not Republican. There's a difference. The fact that talk radio was not only willing but able to put serious pressure on the supposedly conservative Republicans from their constituents made many of those Senators very concerned. That's what it's all about.

[Rumrunner6900]

Fairness docrtrine?? C'mon now....sounds like a bunch of :bsflag:

[Teller]

Sounds like a simple case of "if you can't beat 'em, legislate against 'em."

The plain and simple truth, whether the left wants to admit it or not, is that liberal radio doesn't sell. Air America went flat broke because they couldn't sell advertising. And they couldn't sell advertising because they didn't have the listenership to support it.

Conversely, conservative talk radio sells because many hosts on the right are giving conservative listeners a nationwide voice. I don't listen to Bill O'Reilly or Gordon Liddy because I often agree with them. I listen to them because they often agree with me.

I find it truly commical that many on the left believe that we on the right are mindless drones, doomed to believe whatever a talk show host spits out. The truth is quite the opposite. Conservatives are no more homogenous or "group thinkers" than are liberals. As I said, it's the fact that many of these hosts espouse MY position that makes me listen. But hey, let the libs keep thinking we're being brainwashed. Maybe that's what they tried to do with America; and part of why it failed.

All of this being said, I think renewing the Fairness Doctrine (a complete misnomer, BTW) would be a colossal mistake. Let the market determine which products sell and which don't. Let station managers and owners decide what to broadcast. Afterall, we do still have free speech and free press, don't we?

Also, if the Fairness Doctrine is renewed, I believe any federal funding for NPR should be immediately stopped; and/or the government should fund a conservative voice.

[Burgold]

Sounds like a simple case of "if you can't beat 'em, legislate against 'em."

All of this being said, I think renewing the Fairness Doctrine (a complete misnomer, BTW) would be a colossal mistake. Let the market determine which products sell and which don't. Let station managers and owners decide what to broadcast. Afterall, we do still have free speech and free press, don't we?

I agree. And I don't like censorship of ideas. Even ones I don't like.

Also, if the Fairness Doctrine is renewed, I believe any federal funding for NPR should be immediately stopped; and/or the government should fund a conservative voice.

I don't think that's a fair view. NPR does tries to find balance. In their round tables, there are always representatives from every side. I think that you are overreaching. They do tilt, but they also do try and they try pretty hard to be fair. Afterall, if it were determined they were biased, they would lose their not-for-profit status and cease to exist.

On top of which you have already admitted that NPR can not be a liberal bastion. Afterall, you just pointed out that no one listens to liberal radio and liberal radio doesn't sell. Therefore, since tons of people listen to NPR it can't be a liberal and therefore must be fair using your operational constraints.

[PleaseBlitz]

How can they apply it to radio, but not TV or newspapers?

[Koolblue13]

Liberals don't need people to yell at them so they can have an opinion. Conservitives do.

I kid I kid, it was a joke.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Conversely, conservative talk radio sells because many hosts on the right are giving conservative listeners a nationwide voice. I don't listen to Bill O'Reilly or Gordon Liddy because I often agree with them. I listen to them because they often agree with me.

Chicken or the egg.

Fox News is the most popular for a reason, and its not because of the quality of the journalism that is presented, the same goes for Conservative Talk Radio.

[Teller]

Heh. Tricky little bastage, you answered within your quote of me so I can't quote you. Clever.

So, using your reasoning for NPR, is Bill O'Reilly fair when he has Geraldo Rivera on? How bout Juan Williams? Maybe when he has Bill Clinton on the show? What about inviting Nancy Pelosi? Couldn't I site those examples and say O'Reilly "tries to be fair?" (Incidentally, my mom is almost as far left as I am right, and she enjoys his radio show too. Although she does tend to agree with him less frequently than I do. We both HATE the TV show.)

And with all due respect, you didn't shoot a hole in my NPR theory at all. I said that liberal radio doesn't sell. Not that people won't listen to it under any circumstances. Who exactly is NPR selling advertising time to? Also, NPR does try to steer clear of politics in most cases. It just seems that they frequently examine more "liberal" causes in their features, and tend to lean to the left in doing so.

In all seriousness too, I'm more concerned about a federally funded network being "tilted" than any other privately-owned enterprise. I listen to NPR on occassion, and they do a fairly good job of staying neutral. However, the issues they choose to focus on, and the manner in which they're presented far more often tilt to the left than to the right. It's a legitimate concern when they're receiving tax dollars, are they not?

[Teller]

[/i]

Chicken or the egg.

Fox News is the most popular for a reason, and its not because of the quality of the journalism that is presented, the same goes for Conservative Talk Radio.

As a conservative, and a consumer of conservative talk radio, I feel qualified to say that conservatives listen to those hosts that espouse their own positions; not the other way around.

[AsburySkinsFan]

As a conservative, and a consumer of conservative talk radio, I feel qualified to say that conservatives listen to those hosts that espouse their own positions; not the other way around.

Ok, so that means that talk radio is pandering to their listeners instead of challenging them to think differently. Here's something I learned since I've been in school; if you listen to people who think exactly like you think then you're never going to learn.

[Teller]

Ok, so that means that talk radio is pandering to their listeners instead of challenging them to think differently. Here's something I learned since I've been in school; if you listen to people who think exactly like you think then you're never going to learn.

Wow. Maybe it's just me, but I'm able to listen to someone without having to agree with every single thing they say. It's akin to loving Joe Gibbs, but not agreeing with each and every play call he makes.

I think I've shown the ability on multiple occassions on this board, to admit my own mistakes and even change my way of thinking on certain issues. (See Bush v. Congress thread TODAY.) If you think I'm a lemming locked into every word some pundit spews at me, then you haven't the slightest clue who I am.

Just by being an active member of the tailgate, and participating in some heated discussions here, I've demonstrated my ability and desire to at least contemplate opposing viewpoints on a regular basis. Failing to acknowledge that is at best misguided, and worst, deliberately so.

[Burgold]

Heh. Tricky little bastage, you answered within your quote of me so I can't quote you. Clever.

In all seriousness too, I'm more concerned about a federally funded network being "tilted" than any other privately-owned enterprise. I listen to NPR on occassion, and they do a fairly good job of staying neutral. However, the issues they choose to focus on, and the manner in which they're presented far more often tilt to the left than to the right. It's a legitimate concern when they're receiving tax dollars, are they not?

I think you pointed out the true danger of bias which is often misportrayed. It is not that journalists are going out of their way to villianize and demonize, but that sometimes the choice of what to cover, what seems like an interesting story is influenced by predispositions. It's not that the runners are biased at this track meet, it's that the choice of venue sometimes is.

They still try to be fair as to what story they choose or don't choose, but it's impossible to eliminate preferrance from the equation totally.

On the "FAIRNESS" or "BALANCE" issue, it's really harder than it would it seem. I bet O'Reilly believes that he is being fair and that he takes steps to ensure it. I know NPR tries to be fair and you've said you've seen the effort, but fair through my eyes, fair through your eyes, and fair through their eyes are all different things which means that we never really get to FAIR.

[Destino]

Anyone catch Stephanie Miller on Hannity and Colmes? Seems there is more to this then simple ratings.

Here is a partial transcript:

<< LexisNexis News Home Page

Latest news from over 4,000 sources!

Back to Document List

Copyright 2007 Fox News Network, LLC.

Fox News Network

SHOW: FOX HANNITY & CO 9:00 PM EST

July 5, 2007 Thursday

070504cb.253

NEWS; Domestic

1275 words

Will Dems Bring Back Fairness Doctrine?

Karen Hanretty, Alan Colmes

Dennis Prager, Stephanie Miller

(NEWSBREAK)

HANRETTY: Welcome back to "Hannity & Colmes". I'm Karen Hanretty, filling in for Sean Hannity.

The word is that liberal efforts to bring back the Fairness Doctrine are completely on track. Some think if the Democrats win back the White House and keep power in Congress, the doctrine will return. This has many conservative radio hosts outraged.

Some liken the doctrine to Hugo Chavez's forced shutdown of an anti- government TV station.

Here to sound off is nationally syndicated radio talk show host Dennis Prager and radio talk show host Stephanie Miller.

Stephanie, thanks for joining us.

STEPHANIE MILLER, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Thank you, Karen.

HANRETTY: What does this exactly do for the Democratic Party as you're heading into the next election, that the liberal base is out there trying to not only stifle free speech but once again just doesn't understand the basics of the free market system?

MILLER: Well, let me explain the free market system to you, Karen. My show has about -- oh, I'd say -- triple to quadruple that the right-wing show that's in my time slot. Same thing with Ed Schultz, with Randi Rhodes, with Tom...

HANRETTY: Throughout the country? Throughout the country you have triple their ratings? You have triple their ratings throughout the country?

MILLER: Yes.

HANRETTY: Really?

MILLER: Yes. So let's start with the fact that liberal radio is not failing. If we're going to argue the facts, let's start with what the facts actually are. You know, we're not trying to shut down right-wing radio.

I don't want the Fairness Doctrine, Karen. What I'm interested in is fairness. Why is there 90 percent conservative stations and 10 percent progressive?

HANRETTY: In the San Francisco, in Sacramento media markets -- in the San Francisco and Sacramento media markets, you're getting quadruple the ratings of Armstrong and Getty, which is the largest talk radio show in northern California?

MILLER: Yes, in fact, I just beat Armstrong and Getty in my very first ratings book in San Francisco.

HANRETTY: So then what's your gripe? What problem? I mean, if you're doing so well in the major media market.

HANRETTY: You know what? Karen, I'll tell you, Karen, what -- what is drawing Democratic lawmakers' attention. That is, for instance, in Ohio, which Howard Dean credited progressive talk, with being part of what helped in Ohio in 2006. They shut down every progressive radio station in Ohio.

In Columbus, where I was on, they replaced us with Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham, a right-wing lineup. The ratings dropped 60 percent. They're in last place now in Columbus. You tell me if that's fair.

I'll see if I can find the youtube version...

I think it's been an accepted truth that liberal talk radio is all bad because conservatives have pointed to Air America. It's time to question that fact because when you look closer to shows like Stephanie Millers you see that she's not struggling. She is in fact winning, yet seeing more stations replace her with shows that don't out perform hers that happen to fit with thier conservative package.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Wow. Maybe it's just me, but I'm able to listen to someone without having to agree with every single thing they say. It's akin to loving Joe Gibbs, but not agreeing with each and every play call he makes.

Failing to acknowledge that is at best misguided, and worst, deliberately so.

H_H, I personally think that you are one of those that are few and far between, on either side.

[Kilmer17]

If I want to open a restaurant and sell ***** sandwiches, I can do it.

If I own a radio station and want to replace a high earning, high rated liberal talk show with a poorly earning, low rated conservative one, I SHOULD have the right to do that as well.

That's not unfair. It might be stupid, but not unfair.

[19Skins72]

Fairness Doctrine = :pooh:

I think this is less a left or right issue, and more a case of many politicians being angry that talk radio could be motivating the public to "interfere" with their political decisions.

My office is a fairly even split between Republicans and Democrats, and we all thought the Fairness Doctrine was an awful awful idea.

[Destino]

If I want to open a restaurant and sell ***** sandwiches, I can do it.

If I own a radio station and want to replace a high earning, high rated liberal talk show with a poorly earning, low rated conservative one, I SHOULD have the right to do that as well.

That's not unfair. It might be stupid, but not unfair.

That's true, but we are talking politics here. If newspapers started merging and suddenly even conservative voices that were doing well were pushed out of print completely republicans would start to consider action. As much as we want to pretend this is just another business, it's not. This is politics and talk radio is always on and able to get extremely partisan messages out without concern for balance at all. They are a tool for those in Washington, they are not simply "**** sandwiches".

Conservative shows are starting to package themselves, you can't get Hannity often if you don't also air Mark Levin. This kind of market play combined with ownership of radio stations shrinking to just a few large companies is working AGAINST the free market influence.

I'm against the fairness doctrine, but I am for a free market. If players in the talk radio market are behaving in a way that is hindering the free market from operating as it should (those that do well succeed) then something needs to be done to keep the market free. It happens in every other industry but suddenly radio is off limits? From software to phone companies the government has stepped in numerous times to keep the market free.

[Kilmer17]

I'd be more willing to believe the Dems felt that way if they included broadcast news (there's only 3, hows that for a monopoly) and Newspapers in their attack.

As long as they are only singling out radio, it's total bull****.

[chomerics]

I find it truly commical that many on the left believe that we on the right are mindless drones, doomed to believe whatever a talk show host spits out. The truth is quite the opposite. Conservatives are no more homogenous or "group thinkers" than are liberals. As I said, it's the fact that many of these hosts espouse MY position that makes me listen. But hey, let the libs keep thinking we're being brainwashed. Maybe that's what they tried to do with America; and part of why it failed.

In your case Hog, I would agree, they agree with you. . . but to the uneducated Southerner, it is a different story. What the right managed to do was to get people to vote against their better interests through radio and Fox News. There is absolutely no reason Joe Six Pack making $12/hr at the local coal mine should be voting for a ®, but Joe Six Pack hears all day long how the liberals are the ruin of the world, and he believes the stuff.

Not all of America fall for the stuff, and there are many, like yourself, who are just conservative. . .but. . .there are also a number of uninformed voters who vote outside of their best interest because they believe the BS the radio and tv throws at them. . .

if you don't acknowledge this is going on, then you really need to reevaluate your position. . .

one more thing, this is different than saying poor people voting democrat is against their better interest, because the democrats are the ones that actually fight for the rights of the poor. Their systems my be ass backwards, which I tend to agree with, but you can't deny their side of the fight

[chomerics]

I'd be more willing to believe the Dems felt that way if they included broadcast news (there's only 3, hows that for a monopoly) and Newspapers in their attack.

As long as they are only singling out radio, it's total bull****.

Yet is Trent Lott who is proposing the legislation. . .that damn dem

[19Skins72]

In your case Hog, I would agree, they agree with you. . . but to the uneducated Southerner, it is a different story. What the right managed to do was to get people to vote against their better interests through radio and Fox News. There is absolutely no reason Joe Six Pack making $12/hr at the local coal mine should be voting for a ®, but Joe Six Pack hears all day long how the liberals are the ruin of the world, and he believes the stuff.

Not all of America fall for the stuff, and there are many, like yourself, who are just conservative. . .but. . .there are also a number of uninformed voters who vote outside of their best interest because they believe the BS the radio and tv throws at them. . .

if you don't acknowledge this is going on, then you really need to reevaluate your position. . .

one more thing, this is different than saying poor people voting democrat is against their better interest, because the democrats are the ones that actually fight for the rights of the poor. Their systems my be ass backwards, which I tend to agree with, but you can't deny their side of the fight

Joe R grew up in a society that offers free public education up to including high school ... I know we do not have the greatest education system in the world, but if Joe R. graduated as little more than a mindless idiot, then I think he was simply destined to be a mindless idiot (*.)

I guess the point I'm getting at is that some people will always be litte more than sheep, and I'm tired of seeing good citizens with a brain in their skull deprived of rights due to the mindless sheep.

(*) Joe R.s career choice/wages earned wouldn't make him a mindless idiot; the suggestion was that he was gullibile and mindlessly believed the rants of the radio politics...that's what would make him an idiot....all I ask is for people to take the time to form their own opinions, be they conservative or liberal...don't let anyone do your thinking for you.

[Kilmer17]

"n your case Hog, I would agree, they agree with you. . . but to the uneducated Southerner, it is a different story. What the right managed to do was to get people to vote against their better interests through radio and Fox News. There is absolutely no reason Joe Six Pack making $12/hr at the local coal mine should be voting for a ®, but Joe Six Pack hears all day long how the liberals are the ruin of the world, and he believes the stuff."

Wow.

The bigotry of the left on display.

[Burgold]

If I want to open a restaurant and sell ***** sandwiches, I can do it.

Except that you can't. If you want to open a restaurant you have to get licenced by the government and pass inspections. You can't simply open it. Similarly, all broadcast (radio/tv) have to be licenced and follow certain regulations including performing a community service (emergency broadcasting for example)

If I own a radio station and want to replace a high earning, high rated liberal talk show with a poorly earning, low rated conservative one, I SHOULD have the right to do that as well.

That's not unfair. It might be stupid, but not unfair.

It's not nice to call all Conservatives fairly stupid

[Tulane Skins Fan]

How can they apply it to radio, but not TV or newspapers?

the us government actually OWNS the electromagnetic spectrum that broadcast tv and radio travel over. that how the legislate it. they have much less authority over cable tv and newspapers.