Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
: 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? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
What is the typical price/length of a syndicated radio news contract? | Broadcasting | |||
Question on antenna symantics | Antenna | |||
Smith Chart Quiz | Antenna | |||
Auto News Group Poster | General | |||
Auto News Group Poster | General |