In the "Public Interest" vs. What the Public Is Interested In
Air America radio’s ratings have been dropping. For the winter 2004 ratings period, they reached an all time low 1.2 percent share for all listeners aged 12 and over in the New York City area. Since then Congresswoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and 12 co-sponsors have introduced H.R. 501, the "Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act" modeled on "The Fairness Doctrine" which was rescinded in 1987. H. R. 501 requires that radio and television broadcasters provide equal time to liberal and conservative viewpoints because broadcasters are given free licenses to promote "the public interest". The bill also requires each station to hold two public hearings per year to "ascertain the needs and interests of the communities they are licensed to serve". The bill also requires stations to biannually "document and report in writing" all programming broadcast to cover issues of public importance and document how "coverage reflects the diverse interests and viewpoints in the local community". Transcripts of each hearing and the semi-annual reports must be placed in the station’s public file, made available electronically to the public and submitted to the FCC with the license renewal application. License renewal can be denied for non-compliance.
One problem with this bill is the expense involved, for both broadcasters and the taxpayer, in the documentation and review of hearing transcripts and reports. Broadcasters and the FCC will require larger staffs to deal with compliance issues.
A major problem with H.R. 501 is that it justifies itself on the basis of data gathered by a "progressive" radio network. Paragraphs (5) and (6) of the "Findings" section of H. R. 501 cite a 2004 study by Democracy Radio. That study found that there were 2,349 hours of local conservative talk and 555 hours of local progressive talk. Nationally, there were 39,382 hours of conservative talk compared to 2,487 hours of progressive talk. Democracy Radio is a "progressive", (liberal), talk radio network that tries to compete with Air America. The network’s talk show hosts include Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller. Legislation demanding "equal time" would clearly benefit Democracy Radio. Such a conflict of interest is unacceptable.
This bill also forces private enterprises to lose money. Licenses are granted by the federal government, but, with the exception of taxpayer funded liberal NPR and PBS, radio and television stations are privately owned. These businesses get funding from advertising revenue rather than from the government. Liberal talk radio programs have fewer listeners than conservative talk radio shows. Hence they have lower Arbitron ratings. For example, since he has been on the air in New York City, Al Franken’s highest rating for listeners aged 12 and older was a 2.8 percent share in the summer 2004 ratings period. In New York City, Rush Limbaugh had a 3.2 percent share among that listener group for the same period. By fall 2004 Franken’s share dropped to 1.8 percent for that listener group in New York City compared with Limbaugh’s 4.1 percent share. Those numbers may not sound significant, but they make a big difference in advertising revenue. Progressive views dominate in television and print media, so there is little demand for liberal talk radio because that market is already saturated. If the government forces broadcasters to air shows with few listeners, it will hurt some of those businesses.
My main objection to H. R. 501 is that government control of broadcast content violates the First Amendment. The amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Forcing businesses to air liberal or conservative views is just as much of an infringement of freedom of speech and the press as prohibiting the expression of those views. There is also the possibility that such legislation could pave the way for further restrictions on what content can be aired. The FCC has rules against the use of obscenity and they are considering expanding the definition of obscenity in broadcasting. The same could happen with political speech.
The 2004 Democracy Radio survey used to justify the legislation only dealt with talk radio. It did not compare the viewpoints expressed in the television, electronic or print media, all of which include progressive views and liberal interpretations of current events. People who wish to be well informed can easily learn both sides of an issue now. There is no need to force broadcasters to give equal time to both viewpoints. If this bill passes, will it be a victory for liberals when it dawns on them that the legislation would force the mainstream television media to give equal time to conservative viewpoints?
Ó Eva Ellsworth, 04/27/05, all rights reserved
One problem with this bill is the expense involved, for both broadcasters and the taxpayer, in the documentation and review of hearing transcripts and reports. Broadcasters and the FCC will require larger staffs to deal with compliance issues.
A major problem with H.R. 501 is that it justifies itself on the basis of data gathered by a "progressive" radio network. Paragraphs (5) and (6) of the "Findings" section of H. R. 501 cite a 2004 study by Democracy Radio. That study found that there were 2,349 hours of local conservative talk and 555 hours of local progressive talk. Nationally, there were 39,382 hours of conservative talk compared to 2,487 hours of progressive talk. Democracy Radio is a "progressive", (liberal), talk radio network that tries to compete with Air America. The network’s talk show hosts include Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller. Legislation demanding "equal time" would clearly benefit Democracy Radio. Such a conflict of interest is unacceptable.
This bill also forces private enterprises to lose money. Licenses are granted by the federal government, but, with the exception of taxpayer funded liberal NPR and PBS, radio and television stations are privately owned. These businesses get funding from advertising revenue rather than from the government. Liberal talk radio programs have fewer listeners than conservative talk radio shows. Hence they have lower Arbitron ratings. For example, since he has been on the air in New York City, Al Franken’s highest rating for listeners aged 12 and older was a 2.8 percent share in the summer 2004 ratings period. In New York City, Rush Limbaugh had a 3.2 percent share among that listener group for the same period. By fall 2004 Franken’s share dropped to 1.8 percent for that listener group in New York City compared with Limbaugh’s 4.1 percent share. Those numbers may not sound significant, but they make a big difference in advertising revenue. Progressive views dominate in television and print media, so there is little demand for liberal talk radio because that market is already saturated. If the government forces broadcasters to air shows with few listeners, it will hurt some of those businesses.
My main objection to H. R. 501 is that government control of broadcast content violates the First Amendment. The amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Forcing businesses to air liberal or conservative views is just as much of an infringement of freedom of speech and the press as prohibiting the expression of those views. There is also the possibility that such legislation could pave the way for further restrictions on what content can be aired. The FCC has rules against the use of obscenity and they are considering expanding the definition of obscenity in broadcasting. The same could happen with political speech.
The 2004 Democracy Radio survey used to justify the legislation only dealt with talk radio. It did not compare the viewpoints expressed in the television, electronic or print media, all of which include progressive views and liberal interpretations of current events. People who wish to be well informed can easily learn both sides of an issue now. There is no need to force broadcasters to give equal time to both viewpoints. If this bill passes, will it be a victory for liberals when it dawns on them that the legislation would force the mainstream television media to give equal time to conservative viewpoints?
Ó Eva Ellsworth, 04/27/05, all rights reserved
7 Comments:
That's just about the lamest excuse for an argument I've ever read.
Sixteen months ago, the format of Progressive Talk was nonexistent. Now Ed Schultz is on 95 stations and 8 of the top 10 markets.
Clear Channel (which gave $65,000 to the RNC last year) has reformatted 25 stations to a Progressive Talk format and will do another 25 by the end of the year.
Yes, conservatives maintain a stranglehold on the nation's talk radio airwaves. But where there was once nothing, now there millions of American who can listen to an alternative to the same, stale diet of right-wing chatter.
THe most idiotic comment, though, was calling into question the statistics showing the conservative dominance of talk radio, because the study's author, Democracy Radio, syndicates the two biggest names in Progressive Talk. Does even the most reactionary right-wing partisan disagree that there are a hell of a lot more Rush Limbaugh's than there are Ed Schultz's???
Why not give Americans the freedom to choose what they want to hear?
Freedom? The first comment came from a dedicated Stalinist - no doubt. If freedom means at least 50% of talk radio must be progressive/liberal/stalinist, then it stands to reason 50% of talk radio should be government subsidized or controlled. Leftist chat is a big money-loser on the radio. This is a well documented fact. Freedom means choosing what you want to hear. A majority of Americans don't want to hear liberal bullshit and won't support advertisers that push that nonsense.
We have a free market in talk radio right now. People are choosing common sense (conservatism) instead of childish sophistry (liberalism). Those who don't like it should learn to face reality.
I wish people would take even five minutes to do the most rudimentary fact checking. A hamster with a tiny little "press" hat on could have done a better job of checking this out than the author ever did.
I have lived in Louise Slaughter's district (suburban Rochester, NY) since she was elected. Louise Slaughter has been interested in the issue of equal access in the media -long- before there was a Bush Administration, much less an Air America... even before Rush Limbaugh and conservative talk radio was such an issue.
Her position and bill -does not- demand 50/50 splits in airtime as the author purports. It demands that the now corporate-controlled media provide time for those maligned by an announcer/programmer on a radio or television station.
Radio and television stations are licensed to serve in the public interest - ALL the public, not just a particular segment. Prior to the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine, radio and TV stations still aired opinion programs and aired commentaries. The Fairness Doctrine simply gave the public a chance to respond to views presented on those stations.
Slaughter's bill would re-establish that right. In practice, it would provide the public with 30-120 seconds of time to respond to things said on a radio or TV station. For decades before Reagan, this hardly meant a disruption in programming. It resembled the "letters to the editor" section in the paper.
Here in Rochester, a local talk show host attacked our African-American mayor in 2003 when he ran for county supervisor. When mentioning him, he brought up the sounds of screaming monkeys and made references to "monkeys getting loose" from the zoo who "are running for county executive."
Under Slaughter's bill, Mayor Johnson would have been afforded the opportunity to give his view of that in a spot on the station during the program in question. That sure sounds fair to me.
It also would give viewers the chance to comment on the nonsense Sinclair Broadcasting forces on their owned stations during their evening newscasts, which are required to air commentaries from a guy in Baltimore of all places.
In short, it puts the public back into the equation of public airwaves. It doesn't mean Al Franken gets three hours to refute Rush Limbaugh.
Thankfully, having been one of Slaughter's constituents all along, I knew what her legislation was about before this commentary came along. I then spent about five minutes verifying it... time that could have been spent by the author. Remember, Google is your friend.
Big Eddy Schultz is rocking the airwaves! He's turned these Repubs into listeners.
As Bush's ratings sink, Big Eddy keeps going UP.
Sign up yet another "Ditched Rush for Ed" listener!
This article is both misleading and ignorant of what occurred to all talk radio. Look at how WABC crashed after the election. Look at Bill O'Lielly's ratings, where he's lost a third of his TV audience since the election.
Air America will survive and grow. It took Rush Limbaugh almost 15 years to gain national syndication. Air America is well ahead of his rate.
"Fairness Doctrine?" Would that mean that those maligned by Pacifica, Air America, NPR, PBS, Democracy Now, and whatever, would have a chance to air "responsive" views? Who is giong to decide when there should be a response, and under what circumstances? Naturally, there wasn't any call for a return to the "Fairness doctine" until conservatives were able to effectively use radio to reach listeners in a COMMERCIAL market. Clearly, Democrats and others on the far left have to resort to state subsidized programming because the unpopularity of their point of view means that they can't make it on commercial broadcasting. So, the response from Democrats to conservative popularity on radio is, of course, to seek more government intervention (and an indirect subsidy), by a return to the so-called "Fairness doctrine."
I have had my fill of the Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly and their half truths and I'm Republican.
Ed Schultz is a breath of fresh air and the airwaves could use a few more like him as well as Randi Rhodes.
Post a Comment
<< Home