"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!-

"Bob Haberkost" wrote in message
...


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.

I live in a big city. The radio spectrum here is saturated, and I don't
think it would be much more diverse if there were an infinate number of
possible stations.


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.

It discouraged political programming in the sense that it forced opposing
viewpoints. No political programming is easier than trying to strike a
subjective balance.

There was alot of bad radio forced on the public during the fairness
doctrine days. Well, people weren't really forced to listen. They just
tuned out.



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.

Just as a nit-pick, and I don't think it changes the thrust of your point,
but there is also alot of free audio on the non XM and Sirius sattelites.


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.


People who want to be informed are informed. They can read newspapers,
listen to news stations, surf the net, etc. I don't think people who don't
much care to be informed have ever appreciated the accidental information
from their favorite radio station. They just tuned out.


And how do we keep any sort of fairness doctrine from being used as a tool
of political harassment?

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...
:
: "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?

Is this a rhetorical question or what? That's the first thing taught in
Mass Media 101. There is a limited amount of spectrum space available for
utilization. That's one of the reasons why the FCC was (supposedly)
created (I remember when the FCC was NOT a lap dog for the broadcasters).
To manage a natural resource which supposedly belongs to the people
(although that is now empty rhetoric). The same conditions hardly apply to
the printed media.


:
: 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?

so what do we have now? Rushbo "Oxy" Limpballs 24/7

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

no


:
: 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.

The people listen to what the corporate Crud Channel goons (and their ilk)
shovel out of the broadcast latrine.

:
: 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.

The FCC responded to what the broadcasters wanted and now both AM & FM have
been technically ghettoized.

:
:
: 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.

Yup. There's sure al ot of cariety. A "classic rock" and "hot hits" and
"modern country" station in every town. All voice tracked with the same 20
minute spot load anmd 200 song playlist. And news? What is that? Where did
it go?


:
: When was there more radio diversity? When there were three of four radio
: networks, each playing their own similar 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.

See above. You are equating quantity with diversity. I laugh at the way
"top 40" has been fractionalized into "classic rock ("B" side losers),"
"hits of the 60s & 70s," "alternative," and the latest insanity, "old
school, " ad nauseum. Give me a break! That is hardly diversity.

Diversity and creative died about 15 years ago. About the time the big push
for deregulation began.

:
: 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!!

That's the whole point! YOU can't buy a radio station and neither can I.
Radio stations have become so overpriced thanks to the accumulation of
corporate control that few single ownership outlets remain. I love having
all my programming delivered voice tracked from some studio 1500 miles
away. The problem is solving itself: radio is dying.

"Fuller Wrath" wrote in message
...

That's the whole point! YOU can't buy a radio station and neither can I.

Of course you can ... an AM station that probably can't make money.

Two recent big-city AM sales:
WBIX (Boston suburb) 40 kW day, 2.5 kW night, to an INDIVIDUAL for $7
million.
WPLC (Washington suburb) 1 kW day, 48 watts night, to Bonneville for $4
million. But an astute friend suspects that Bonneville could diplex it on
their WTOP towers and get more day power and possibly "real" night
operation. And just think, with 450 kHz spacing everybody driving past a
joint-site WTOP/WPLC would hear them no matter where their AM radio was
tuned.

"Fuller Wrath" wrote in message
...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...
:
: "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?

Is this a rhetorical question or what? That's the first thing taught in
Mass Media 101. There is a limited amount of spectrum space available for
utilization. That's one of the reasons why the FCC was (supposedly)
created (I remember when the FCC was NOT a lap dog for the broadcasters).
To manage a natural resource which supposedly belongs to the people
(although that is now empty rhetoric). The same conditions hardly apply to
the printed media.

But that limatation has been relaxed. There have been many new licenses
issued since 1980, and there are many more 24 hour stations. Given the open
situation, I'm sure there many open radio frequencies in most markets. TV
channels haven't been saturated since the introduction of UHF in the early
50s.

Should the fairness doctrine apply in markets in which there are open
frequencies and channels?




:
: 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?

so what do we have now? Rushbo "Oxy" Limpballs 24/7

24/7? Remarkable!



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

no

Why not? Despite their large bandwidth, satellites don't have an unlimited
number of frequencies. The FCC currently has jurisdiction over wire
communications, but they generally have never enforced program content
there. Isn't it unfair that fairness, as defined by the government, isn't
enforced there as well?



:
: 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.

The people listen to what the corporate Crud Channel goons (and their ilk)
shovel out of the broadcast latrine.

But why do they listen? Is it because they have single digit IQs? If they
are really that stupid, is regulating their radio and TV programming all it
takes to make them smarter?



:
: 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.

The FCC responded to what the broadcasters wanted and now both AM & FM
have
been technically ghettoized.

:
:
: 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.

Yup. There's sure al ot of cariety. A "classic rock" and "hot hits" and
"modern country" station in every town. All voice tracked with the same 20
minute spot load anmd 200 song playlist. And news? What is that? Where did
it go?

They still sell newspapers. And the internet is a better newssource than
radio and TV ever was. If radio and TV disappeared entirely as a news
source, people would still have no excuse for being uninformed.




:
: When was there more radio diversity? When there were three of four
radio
: networks, each playing their own similar 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.

See above. You are equating quantity with diversity. I laugh at the way
"top 40" has been fractionalized into "classic rock ("B" side losers),"
"hits of the 60s & 70s," "alternative," and the latest insanity, "old
school, " ad nauseum. Give me a break! That is hardly diversity.

Sure it is. It's just not the kind of diversity you want. It isn't what I
want, either but I still have alot of good choices.



Diversity and creative died about 15 years ago. About the time the big
push
for deregulation began.

The most creative part of radio has always been the commericals.


:
: 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!!

That's the whole point! YOU can't buy a radio station and neither can I.
Radio stations have become so overpriced thanks to the accumulation of
corporate control that few single ownership outlets remain. I love having
all my programming delivered voice tracked from some studio 1500 miles
away. The problem is solving itself: radio is dying.



Stations go on sale from time to time. They aren't cheap, but that's a
reflection of the revenue they can bring in. And the revenue reflects the
number of listeners.

I can buy time right now on brokered stations. There are several around
here, and most of them have open air time. There are probably similar
situations in most markets.

Air America is buying time on at least one Clear Channel station.

The shortwave stations are a good bargain. Time goes for around a dollar a
minute, and most of the country gets covered.

Frank Dresser

On 24 Oct 2004 02:18:10 GMT, "Frank Dresser"
wrote:

It discouraged political programming in the sense that it forced opposing
viewpoints. No political programming is easier than trying to strike a
subjective balance.

Proof by blatant assertion, I heard plenty of political
programming.

There was alot of bad radio forced on the public during the fairness
doctrine days. Well, people weren't really forced to listen. They just
tuned out.

It still happens and has nothing to do with the fairness
doctrine.

On 23 Oct 2004 04:13:48 GMT, "Frank Dresser"
wrote:


"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?

Did you read the last two words -- public airwaves? Spectrum
was considered a limited resource and government permission was
required to use it. In return, conditions were imposed.

There is no apparent shortage of newsprint for purchase.

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Fuller Wrath" wrote in message
...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...
:
: "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?

Is this a rhetorical question or what? That's the first thing taught in
Mass Media 101. There is a limited amount of spectrum space available for
utilization. That's one of the reasons why the FCC was (supposedly)
created (I remember when the FCC was NOT a lap dog for the broadcasters).
To manage a natural resource which supposedly belongs to the people
(although that is now empty rhetoric). The same conditions hardly apply to
the printed media.

But that limatation has been relaxed. There have been many new licenses
issued since 1980, and there are many more 24 hour stations. Given the open
situation, I'm sure there many open radio frequencies in most markets.

And you would be wrong. Further, with the coordination/transition to DTV, there's no
space anywhere, in any market. And besides, twice a finite number is still a finite
number.

Should the fairness doctrine apply in markets in which there are open
frequencies and channels?

No, because a licensee should do their part to represent all divergent views.

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

no

Why not? Despite their large bandwidth, satellites don't have an unlimited
number of frequencies. The FCC currently has jurisdiction over wire
communications, but they generally have never enforced program content
there. Isn't it unfair that fairness, as defined by the government, isn't
enforced there as well?

Satellite spectrum is, by definition, not broadcast spectrum....it's just a band that
some operators choose to operate un-encrypted. And subscription satellite is another
animal altogether, like cable.

The shortwave stations are a good bargain. Time goes for around a dollar a
minute, and most of the country gets covered.

Covering the country is not the same as getting gross impressions. The reason why
shortwave is a dollar a pop is because the cost on a cpm (cost-per-1000) basis is,
still, probably higher than the most expensive station in the most expensive market.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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!-