The Democrat and Chronicle is simply wrong with regards to the Fairness Doctrine
Reading the D&C editorial about the fairness doctrine the other day really pissed me off. Why? Glad you asked.
1. The D&C and its corporate master has a stake in not allowing the Fairness Doctrine.
2. It failed to mention issues with media consolidation
3. Most importantly - it blamed the customer (or ‘consumer of opinion’ if you will)
But those days are long gone. The challenge now is not for government to figure out how to balance the scales but for readers, listeners and viewers to sample a good balance of the viewpoints available, to become, in other words, wise consumers in the teeming marketplace of ideas.
So in a truly free market is the customer is king? Well, maybe in the short term but in the long term, companies that provide the product consolidate because, well companies desire monopoly.
Why? It creates great entry barriers to competition and allows control of the market. In the end it isn’t about innovation, it is more about maximizing shareholder value - sometimes those activities intersect - sometimes they do not.
Who can prevent this? Citizens. Citizens via the government regulation.
Well - Itchy has been doing a tremendous job in the storychat - of the puts and takes. Have a read here. It is worth it
Meanwhile -
I have a homework assignment for you this week.
Watch Fox news 31 @ 10:00 pm then @ 11:00 pm watch News8 Now on WROC.
Tell me what the differences are?
I’ll give you a hint - they are produced by the same news team - just a different anchor. It really doesn’ t hit you until you see it. There is a lot of editorial power selecting points of view and having air over two similar medias.
So Rochester’s public airwaves has 3 outlets for local news not 4. WROC/WUHF, WHAM13, WHEC. (PBS doesn’t have a local new segment and rnews is cable)
The bonus question is what does TV’s WHAM13 have in common with Radio’s WHAM1180? Hint Clear Channel communications. Gee, more powerful editorial power now over two different mediums.
So a listener can listen to the radio driving home and watch the news. Hear the same content from two different mediums and conclude that is all there is.
and so it goes.
Introduce editorial bias and pretty soon well… - that is where the fairness doctrine comes in.
Related posts:
Oh, let’s apply the economics and corporate economies of scale to net neutrality? Read this paragraph from Sahar’s NN post and draw your own conclusions. it isn’t about “the market” - the market needs some boundaries and guidance - the guidance is rooted in the fundamental principles of our country.
I think you did an excellent job of illustrating what is happening in news media with so few words. For a little drama, go to CNN and watch Michael Moore go after Wolf Blitzer after CNN’s medical reporter aired a review of Sicko. It was a television moment I will never forget. Whether you are a fan of Moore or you hate his documentaries—he hit CNN and most mainstream media in the gut. In this particualar case, it was about the media’s handling of the build up to the Iraq War. They stuffed themselves on it like the PR candy it was.
I really do not understand why someone like you, who should be reveling in you free speech rights, would support the (so-called) Fairness Doctrine.Are you really so afraid of Rush, Savage, and the rest, that you would risk your own right to be heard?
I disagree with you guys over 90% of the time, but I don’t want to stop you from expressing your opinions. It seems to me that you and everyone on this site are part of the “balance” of available opinion.
I was able to watch RFK, Jr. go offon a tirade calling policians and corporate leaders villains on MSNBC or CNBC. I could read about Cindy Sheehan trying to force Speaker Pelosi to impeach Pres. Bush. I could watch the interminable interviews with Al Gore on global warming and Michael Moore on all things against America. I can read your post and respond to it.
Who needs protection? Who are the apparently stupid or sheep-like masses who are having their minds controlled. The internet allows anyone to access almost any opinion and limitless information.
There is no rational explanation for the attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine except as a tool to silence “right-wing” talk radio hosts, who, quite frankly, have been, for the most part, far more effective and successful in that endeavor, than most “left-wing” (ok, sorry, progressive) talk radio hosts.
Leave free speech alone.
You are in the Rochester metro area, if I remember rightly, so you are fortunate enough to have a choice in talk radio. Many other areas of the state and the country get to choose only from right-wing, or scary-right-wing talk radio. Many folks don’t have time or ability to access the internet. So a large majority of the news they get is from talk radio.
It’s like stocking the only store in town with Coke and nothing else, and wondering why folks aren’t buying any bottled water. And then pointing to that and saying “See, people are buying Coke, not bottled water, they must prefer it!”
May I just emphasize this: “Many folks don’t have time or ability to access the internet. So a large majority of the news they get is from talk radio.” , from previous comment.
John- you assume,like many republicans, that all have access to the internet. That is just not the case. Most, however, do have radios in their cars. The radio, like the library, is a great equalizer, so both sides, progressive and (picture me holding my nose) neo-con should be represented. It would also be nice if we had some moderate views (Howard would make a great talk show host, wonder if he could fit that into his schedule).
Because of Reagan and (Bill) Clinton the broadcasting industry underwent what was called “deregulation.” Allow me to give you a brief history for those not familar with what I’m talking about.
Before “deregulation” a radio station had to renew its license with the Federal Communications Commission every three years. Part of the license requires included that a station provide a certain number of hours of local news and public affairs programming. That provision was eliminated under deregulation. At one time Rochester had 8 radio stations staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week with full-time news reporters/anchors and producers.
Also a company or individual could only own two local radio stations in one market. Once de-regulation, and the Communications Act of 1996 were enacted, this gave giant media companies like Clear Channel and Entercom the right to come in and purchase as many stations as they legally could. Are you aware for example that between both those media companies they own 98 percent of all the radio stations in Rochester? That’s right! Only WDKX, WYSL and WJZL are locally owned.
Here is a true story. There was a train derailment, I believe in North Dakota, a few years ago in which chemicals spilled from the train. The police called the four local radio stations news departments in order to alert the general public. The problem was all four stations were owned by the same company (Clear Channel ) and they was no news department; in fact the stations were automated.
People talk about a monoply when it comes to the gas and electric and phone companies in Rochester. A real monoply is in broadcasting.
When you have two media giants owning such a vast number of broadcasting properties, and they are not required to provide local news after 9am in the morning, in my opinion they are not serving the public…especially if an emergency should arise.
Great comment. Actually can you elaborate please? I’m really interested in Reagan “deregulation” and media consolidation.
I will try to explain deregulation. Reagan’s businessmen buddies in the broadcasting industry were tired of being limited to the amount of radio stations they could own in one market. Also they were not pleased with having to renew their licenses every three years, plus pay the salaries and benefits for local newscasters and reporters. So, under deregulation, the regulations that I mentioned above were eliminated.
Now one company, say Entercom, can own up to several stations in one market. Since there is no requirement to carry a certain number of hours of local news and public affairs programs, they have virtually eliminated local news, except for the morning drive shows. So what happens if an emergency arises say in the afternoon? How are you, the radio listener going to know about it? You’re not! Plus where is the competition? Have you really listened to local radio recently? It’s the same thing; after 9am the personalities are gone and the music is repetitive. Radio listener ship is down considerably from what it used to be because radio has become sterile.
Even the “news leader†WHAM reduced its radio news department by two employees last year in a money-saving effort because Clear Channel was trying to sell off a number of its broadcasting properties and wanted to make the bottom line look good for a potential buyer.
I hope this answers some of your questions.