"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