"Fuller Wrath" wrote in message
...

:


a bigger question should be what has happened to the FCC period (hint:
michael powell is no help). AM and FM interference "standards" went out
with the fairness doctrine. both bands have been totally ghettoized. fits
in nicely with the crud channel corporate sound of slop. no standards on
the technical side and no standards on the programming side. no wonder
listenership is down....



The fairness doctrine is interference. It was used as a political club.
Richard Nixon and the Republican party were using the so-called fairness
doctrine to go after the licenses of radio and TV properties of networks and
newspapers they didn't like. But Nixon didn't invent the tactic. It was
first used in the Kennedy administration. Given today's political
climate,I'm sure both parties would enthusiastically hammer the media
companies whenever embarrassing stories got out.

Is that really what you want?

There's a mistaken belief that dropping the fairness doctrine made right
wing political talk radio possible. That's not true. In Chicago, Howard
Miller had a greatly entertaining political talk show back in the early
seventies. Miller was to the right of Limbaugh, Hannity and Atilla the Hun.

Let's also consider who else gets treated shabbily by the fairness doctrine.
Who should determine what the audience should hear -- the government or the
audience?

Frank Dresser

But Nixon didn't invent the tactic. It was first used in the Kennedy
administration.

1) Kennedy was killed in 1963.

2) There was no Fairness Doctrine until 1969.

Want to try that again?

"Sid Schweiger" wrote in message
...
But Nixon didn't invent the tactic. It was first used in the Kennedy
administration.

1) Kennedy was killed in 1963.

Maybe so, but your statement...

2) There was no Fairness Doctrine until 1969.

....is quite incorrect. Quoting
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/...rnessdoct.htm: The FCC
fairness policy was given great credence by the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case of /Red
Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc/. v. FCC. In that case, a station in Pennsylvania,
licensed by Red Lion Co., had aired a "Christian Crusade" program wherein an author,
Fred J. Cook, was attacked. When Cook requested time to reply in keeping with the
fairness doctrine, the station refused. Upon appeal to the FCC, the Commission
declared that there was personal attack and the station had failed to meet its
obligation. The station appealed and the case wended its way through the courts and
eventually to the Supreme Court. The court ruled for the FCC, giving sanction to the
fairness doctrine.

Point being that the Fairness Doctrine had been in place for quite some time...at
least long enough that the challenge to it (which, as the article notes, failed)
culminated in 1969. Another article (http://www.twf.org/News/Y1997/Fairness.html)
asserts that the policy was in place in 1947 (and enforced since 1949) when the
"Mayflower Doctrine", which prohibited all editorialising by broadcasters, was
abandoned.

Want to try that again?

Indeed.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there's nothing that offends you in your community, then you know you're not
living in a free society.
Kim Campbell - ex-Prime Minister of Canada - 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-

"Sid Schweiger" wrote in message
...
But Nixon didn't invent the tactic. It was first used in the Kennedy
administration.

1) Kennedy was killed in 1963.

Yep.


2) There was no Fairness Doctrine until 1969.

What are you refering to?


Want to try that again?


Cite?

Frank Dresser

:
: The fairness doctrine is interference. It was used as a political club.
: Richard Nixon and the Republican party were using the so-called fairness
: doctrine to go after the licenses of radio and TV properties of networks
and
: newspapers they didn't like. But Nixon didn't invent the tactic. It was
: first used in the Kennedy administration. Given today's political
: climate,I'm sure both parties would enthusiastically hammer the media
: companies whenever embarrassing stories got out.
:
: Is that really what you want?
:
: There's a mistaken belief that dropping the fairness doctrine made right
: wing political talk radio possible. That's not true. In Chicago, Howard
: Miller had a greatly entertaining political talk show back in the early
: seventies. Miller was to the right of Limbaugh, Hannity and Atilla the
Hun.
:
: Let's also consider who else gets treated shabbily by the fairness
doctrine.
: Who should determine what the audience should hear -- the government or
the
: audience?

1. The Fairness Doctrine could be resurrected and rewritten to assure a
balance of voices/opinions are heard on the public airwaves.
2. The audience has absolutely no input over what is heard on the airwaves
(with very limited exceptions). If you try to argue that broadcasters are
responding to market demands then the I.Q. factor in this country has
indeed fallen to the low double or even single digit range.
3. No, what I would really like to see is an ownership cap of seven to a
dozen stations per entity with no cross ownership. Then there might
actually be some creative programming and diversity - you know, like there
was for the first 75 years or so.... Imagine! stations with different
studios, different personnel, maybe even different program directors! Then
they wouldn't sell for over inflated amounts and we wouldn't get stripped
down, dumbed down voice-tracked generic dog-vomit programming!
4. Radio listenership is down by 15-20%. There's a reason for that

Fuller Wrath wrote:

:
: The fairness doctrine is interference. It was used as a political club.
: Richard Nixon and the Republican party were using the so-called fairness
: doctrine to go after the licenses of radio and TV properties of networks
and
: newspapers they didn't like. But Nixon didn't invent the tactic. It was
: first used in the Kennedy administration. Given today's political
: climate,I'm sure both parties would enthusiastically hammer the media
: companies whenever embarrassing stories got out.
:
: Is that really what you want?
:
: There's a mistaken belief that dropping the fairness doctrine made right
: wing political talk radio possible. That's not true. In Chicago, Howard
: Miller had a greatly entertaining political talk show back in the early
: seventies. Miller was to the right of Limbaugh, Hannity and Atilla the
Hun.
:
: Let's also consider who else gets treated shabbily by the fairness
doctrine.
: Who should determine what the audience should hear -- the government or
the
: audience?

1. The Fairness Doctrine could be resurrected and rewritten to assure a
balance of voices/opinions are heard on the public airwaves.
2. The audience has absolutely no input over what is heard on the airwaves
(with very limited exceptions). If you try to argue that broadcasters are
responding to market demands then the I.Q. factor in this country has
indeed fallen to the low double or even single digit range.
3. No, what I would really like to see is an ownership cap of seven to a
dozen stations per entity with no cross ownership. Then there might
actually be some creative programming and diversity - you know, like there
was for the first 75 years or so.... Imagine! stations with different
studios, different personnel, maybe even different program directors! Then
they wouldn't sell for over inflated amounts and we wouldn't get stripped
down, dumbed down voice-tracked generic dog-vomit programming!
4. Radio listenership is down by 15-20%. There's a reason for that

Yeah, it's called 'a lot of other things going on'.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

: 1. The Fairness Doctrine could be resurrected and rewritten to assure a
: balance of voices/opinions are heard on the public airwaves.
: 2. The audience has absolutely no input over what is heard on the
airwaves
: (with very limited exceptions). If you try to argue that broadcasters
are
: responding to market demands then the I.Q. factor in this country has
: indeed fallen to the low double or even single digit range.
: 3. No, what I would really like to see is an ownership cap of seven to
a
: dozen stations per entity with no cross ownership. Then there might
: actually be some creative programming and diversity - you know, like
there
: was for the first 75 years or so.... Imagine! stations with different
: studios, different personnel, maybe even different program directors!
Then
: they wouldn't sell for over inflated amounts and we wouldn't get
stripped
: down, dumbed down voice-tracked generic dog-vomit programming!
: 4. Radio listenership is down by 15-20%. There's a reason for that
:
: Yeah, it's called 'a lot of other things going on'.


Judging by the obesity epidemic going on in this country, none of the
"other things" involve very much physical activity (except flipping the
remote and playing with a joystick) Or is listening to the radio such an
intense experience that it requires 100% of your attention?

"Fuller Wrath" wrote:

| 1. The Fairness Doctrine could be resurrected and rewritten to assure a
| balance of voices/opinions are heard on the public airwaves.
| 2. The audience has absolutely no input over what is heard on the airwaves
| (with very limited exceptions). If you try to argue that broadcasters are
| responding to market demands then the I.Q. factor in this country has
| indeed fallen to the low double or even single digit range.
| 3. No, what I would really like to see is an ownership cap of seven to a
| dozen stations per entity with no cross ownership. Then there might
| actually be some creative programming and diversity - you know, like there
| was for the first 75 years or so.... Imagine! stations with different
| studios, different personnel, maybe even different program directors! Then
| they wouldn't sell for over inflated amounts and we wouldn't get stripped
| down, dumbed down voice-tracked generic dog-vomit programming!
| 4. Radio listenership is down by 15-20%. There's a reason for that

Regarding your item number one, who gets to be the arbiter of this
"Fairness?" Government?

Regarding items two through four, I would argue that the problem is,
and always will be, program content. You'd never know this if you
read the industry rags; they are obsessed with digital transmission
methods, but if the monopoly ownership rules aren't attended to, radio
will dwindle and, eventually, die.

73,

--
Steve Lawrence
KAØPMD
Burnsville, Minnesota

"If a man wants his dreams to come true then he must wake up."
- Anonymous


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.775 / Virus Database: 522 - Release Date: 10/9/04

"Fuller Wrath" wrote in message
...

:

1. The Fairness Doctrine could be resurrected and rewritten to assure a
balance of voices/opinions are heard on the public airwaves.

So, why doesn't the government also require newspapers to have a balance of
voices and opinions?

What are the details of this rewrite? The old fairness doctrine was a club
for partisians and others with an ax to grind. How would the new fairness
doctrine keep the political partisans and kooks from harassing media
stations with nusiance complaints? Who would define what a nuisance
complaint is?

Should this new fairness doctrine cover internet radio, satellite radio,
satellite TV, and cable TV?


2. The audience has absolutely no input over what is heard on the airwaves
(with very limited exceptions). If you try to argue that broadcasters are
responding to market demands then the I.Q. factor in this country has
indeed fallen to the low double or even single digit range.

Yeah, people listen to what they want to listen to. I have no idea if the
IQ factor is up or down. I am sure people would be stupid to be listening
to things they don't want to listen to.

I am also sure there has never been as much bad radio as there is now.
There has never been as much radio as there is now. There are more
stations broadcasting more hours than ever before. Too bad. As a radio
hobbyist, I miss the days of easy coast to coast dx'ing.


I dislike most of the stuff on the radio. So what? There's still plenty to
listen to. Nobody makes me listen to Limbaigh, and I don't. I can't stand
Sport Babble but I don't have to. Mostly I listen to a local FM Jazz
station and US domestic shortwave radio. For me, radio has never been more
entertaining. There are also some local Spanish and Polish language AM
stations here with good music. Very little of this was around 30 years ago.


3. No, what I would really like to see is an ownership cap of seven to a
dozen stations per entity with no cross ownership. Then there might
actually be some creative programming and diversity - you know, like there
was for the first 75 years or so..

When was there more radio diversity? When there were three of four radio
networks, each playing their own similiar so-so comedies or dramas? When
each of the top 40 stations in the US were playing "Muskrat Love"? The
radio industry is like the rest of the entertainment industry. As soon as
somebody comes up with an idea which grabs a part of the audience, that idea
gets reused over and over in each market.


.. Imagine! stations with different
studios, different personnel, maybe even different program directors! Then
they wouldn't sell for over inflated amounts and we wouldn't get stripped
down, dumbed down voice-tracked generic dog-vomit programming!
4. Radio listenership is down by 15-20%. There's a reason for that



If that's true, then the problem will fix itself. These overpriced radio
stations will soon go for giveaway prices. You'll buy a radio station and
so will I. I will realize that your programming ideas are so good, I'll
copy them all!!

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Fuller Wrath" wrote in message
...

Should this new fairness doctrine cover internet radio, satellite radio,
satellite TV, and cable TV?

Never mind the rest of it....here's the deal. As I've said elsewhere, the reason for
the Fairness Doctrine is due to the fact that broadcast spectrum is a limited
commodity, where the existence of one station eliminates the possibility that another
can be in the same area on the same channel (and a few adjacent, too). This hard,
physical limitation means that there is no opportunity for a diversity of
voices...unlike the printed word, where all it takes to get your opinions out is a
printing press and a ream of paper. The Fairness Doctrine simply encouraged (even
coerced) broadcasters to air opinion/issue programming, and provide an opportunity
for those in dissent to provide their opposing view...analogous to "sharing" the
printing press.

Satellite radio is subscription, so listeners have already made their choices in the
most concrete mannaer possible...with their wallets. There is no practical limit to
the number of internet radio stations, and likewise satellite and cable TV doesn't
use spectrum, and so has no practical limit on how many service can be delivered.
Thus, in the absence of those limits, there is no need to promote diversity of voice
and opinion. It's inherent in the service.

The Fairness Doctrine is needed only for the medium where a diversity of voices is
reduced when a service limits, by its existence, the ability for others to be heard.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there's nothing that offends you in your community, then you know you're not
living in a free society.
Kim Campbell - ex-Prime Minister of Canada - 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-