"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...


OK, my first instinct said the FCC was getting lobbyed to maintain the
status quo by the local stations.

So what was motivating the FCC?

The motive was a belief in the concept that local media reinforces the
Republic. No kidding... there were frequent references to things like this
back in that era. It was believed local voices were important. I think the
FCC used the newspaper model for localism, not undetrstanding that
newspapers are restricted by distribution, not localism.
OK, the issue of editorializing on public radio stations came up before
the
Supreme Court in 1984.

A quote from the decision:

"Indeed, the pivotal importance of editorializing as a means of satisfying
the public's interest in receiving a wide variety of ideas and views
through
the medium of broadcasting has long been recognized by the FCC; the
Commission has for the past 35 years actively encouraged commercial
broadcast licensees to include editorials on public affairs in their
programming."

But the fact is, due to the restrictions and potential for litigation,
fines, protests, nearly no station did editorialize until later that decade
when Fariness was revoked.

And the footnote on the quote:

"[ Footnote 14 ] In 1949, finding that "programs in which the licensee's
personal opinions are expressed are [not] intrinsically more or less
subject
to abuse than any other program devoted to public issues," the FCC
concluded
that overt licensee editorializing, so long as "it is exercised in
conformity with the paramount right of the public to hear a reasonably
balanced presentation of all responsible viewpoints" is "consistent with
the
licensee's duty [468 U.S. 364, 383] to operate in the public interest."
Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F. C. C. 1246, 1253, 1258
(1949).
At the time, of course, this decision applied with equal force to both
noncommercial educational licensees and commercial stations. The FCC has
since underscored its view that editorializing by broadcast licensees
serves
the public interest by identifying editorial programming as one of 14
"major
elements usually necessary to meet the public interest, needs and desires
of
the community." FCC Programming Statement, 25 Fed. Reg. 7295 (1960). The
Commission has regularly enforced this policy by considering a licensee's
editorializing practices in license renewal proceedings. See, e. g.,
Greater
Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, 143 U.S. App. D.C. 383, 402, 444 F.2d 841,
860 (1970); Evening Star Broadcasting Co., 27 F. C. C. 2d 316, 332 (1971);
RKO General, Inc., 44 F. C. C. 2d 149, 219 (1969). "

Still, nearly nlo station editorialized in the 50's, 60's and 70's. All they
needed to do is look at Red Lion to see how editorials can lose the licence.
I do not remember a single station that editorialized in that period, and it
was out of fear. There were plenty of other ways to get the license renewed.
like keeping the commercial locad below 18 minutes, running PSA,s etc., that
one did not hve to jump in the fire on editorials.

Actually, very very few did. Mostly either small town stations that
editorialized for the blood drive, or major market ones who had on-staff
lawyers, who editorialized for the blood drive.

I know I sure heard alot of editorals on the radio and almost as many
editorial replies. They were particularly prevalent on WBBM.

A very big station... one of the top 10 reevenue producers in the USA, in
fact.

Yeah, and the programming is more interesting for it. And I haven't heard
a
stand alone radio editorial in years.

Most radio stations research. we find that the interest in editorials is
about the same as among under-55 readers of the newspaper... nearly none. It
is a tune out, and there is so much opinion available today, it is not
needed.