|
|
|
|
KPRC listeners say no to fill-in host after one day. Filling in for conservative talk-show host Michael Berry Tuesday morning, Houston lawyer Geoff Berg was direct with KPRC radio's listeners. "I am a moderate," he announced. "Michael is a right-wing fanatic. We are going to disagree." … The station fired him after "one day of diverse opinion." Radio Free America: Sen. Dianne Feinstein and the liberal left have a problem with unfettered free speech on talk radio and are calling for government regulation. Is it because in the marketplace of ideas they're bankrupt? Liberal Talk Shows Held to Different Standard, Radio Host Says. A popular left-wing talk show host claims liberal radio listeners are being denied the "fair market opportunity" their conservative counterparts receive, but a national media expert countered that the only standards any radio personality must meet are "ratings and revenue." Radio 'Imbalance' Is In the Talent. Rush Limbaugh, the conservative talk-radio pioneer, has been called many nasty things before, but never a "structural imbalance." That's the fancy term a liberal think tank uses to characterize his success — and to dress up its proposal for counteracting that success through new government regulation. Man of the Year: Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh's detractors never learn. They've tried everything to come between Rush and his more than 20 million listeners, intending to destroy his appeal and impact. But it's a hopeless, almost laughable endeavor. They led boycotts against his advertisers — yet his show continues to generate more revenue than any other on radio. HD Radio Grabs the Ear of Satellite Rivals. Over the past few months, high-definition radio technology, which delivers clearer and crisper sound for over-the-air radio, has made inroads into the new-car market, a major battleground for audio entertainment. Will Digital Radio Boom in U.S.?. U.S. radio broadcasters are banking on HD Radio — which transmits digital signals over normal AM and FM bands — as a crucial weapon in their battle with satellite broadcasters. But so far the response from listeners has been lukewarm. [HD Radio, like AM stereo, is like putting a tuxedo on a pig. It's still a pig. Nobody cares about AM radio, except for the 50,000-watt powerhouse stations. The rest of the signals are just clutter. But this introduces another point: AM radio still exists because extremely high sound quality is not that important. How many people can tell the difference between the sound quality of an FM radio versus HD radio in a moving vehicle?] Judge allows music industry to sue XM Satellite. A judge has ruled that the music industry is free to go ahead with a lawsuit against XM Satellite Radio, the company accused of allowing customers to store songs without paying for them. … The record industry alleged in a civil suit filed in May that XM allows subscribers to listen to, store and replay songs as MP3 files. 800-Lb. Gorilla Slims Down To 750 Pounds. [Clear Channel has] announced plans to sell off 448 of its 1,150 radio stations. The stations now on the block are in 90 markets outside of Arbitron's top 100 metros. Additionally, the San Antonio-based company is selling all 42 of its TV stations, which are located in 24 small and mid-sized markets. Since it took advantage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act to super size its radio holdings, the company has been viewed — rightly or wrongly — as the poster child for all things wrong with the radio business. Congress Urged to "Clean House" at FCC Over Profanity Ruling. (Editor's Note: The following contains references to language the reader may find offensive.) A pro-family group is calling on Congress to "clean house" at the FCC. The demand follows the FCC's ruling in October that the Omitting Air America: On July 26, bloggers busted open a brand-new talk radio scandal, and the hypocrisy was juicy: The ultraliberal Air America radio network, the folks who would call themselves Compassion for the Poor Radio, had taken $875,000 from a children's charity as a "loan" that it hasn't paid back. An Air America executive that also served as development director for the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club of the Bronx made a "diversion" of funds for the struggling leftists. Radio host urges poor to loot. In a broadcast yesterday [9/2/2005], Air America radio talk radio host Randi Rhodes repeatedly urged listeners in the hurricane-devastated Gulf Coast to go out and loot, insisting the poor should be allowed to steal goods at will. Editor's Note: If the FCC deserves its continued existence, the radio stations carrying that message should have their licenses challenged at renewal time. Radio stations exist, according to the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, to serve the "public interest, convenience and necessity," and statements of this sort, inciting an already lawless crowd to further violent felonies, are well outside the envelope of protected free speech. The Broadcast Flag comes to radio... Digital Radio Flag Archive. Radio broadcasters have begun rolling out a new digital radio technology, known as "HD Radio," which piggybacks digital signals onto traditional analog FM and AM frequencies. … The recording industry sees the introduction of this new radio technology as an opportunity to renew their decades long effort to take away your right to make personal recordings off the air. … Led by the RIAA, the recording industry is particularly eager to make sure that there will never be a TiVo-like recorder for radio. The Fairness Doctrine Fairness Doctrine hammered 309-115. The House voted overwhelmingly Thursday [6/28/2007] to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from using taxpayer dollars to impose the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters who feature conservative radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. By a vote of 309-115, lawmakers amended the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill to bar the FCC from requiring broadcasters to balance conservative content with liberal programming such as Air America. Lawmakers Reject Fairness Doctrine. Abandoned some 20 years ago, the "Fairness Doctrine" — requiring public and privately owned broadcasters to provide airtime to opposing political and social viewpoints — briefly reared its head again on Capitol Hill in May and June. The flap erupted when leading congressional Democrats suggested the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) could bring back the disputed policy. Republicans, with substantial bipartisan backing, trounced the idea in a relatively easy legislative maneuver. Radio Free America: By just about any measure, the Fairness Doctrine was an unfair impediment to free speech, and a public disservice in an open democracy. But it was something else as well: It was a federal regulation that had kept Rush Limbaugh — and Laura Ingraham and William Bennett and Sean Hannity and others — off the air. That is why Democrats have been seeking (in Dick Durbin's word) to "reinstitute" the Fairness Doctrine: It would require any station that carries Limbaugh to offer equal time to his critics. Let the Fairness Doctrine rest in peace. The FCC reasoned in 1987, when it closed the book on this doctrine, that with the emergence of cable to compete with broadcast, media markets had become sufficiently competitive to preclude government policing. If true 20 years ago, how much more so now. Get your hands off our talk radio. Why do liberals like Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., keep trying to tell the rest of us what political opinions we must listen to in the media? Feinstein says she is "looking at" reviving the Fairness Doctrine to counteract the decidedly conservative bent of talk radio. Former President Reagan and a Democratic Congress repealed the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. Too Little Too Late On Fairness Doctrine? FCC chairman Kevin Martin, a Bush appointee, doesn't seem too concerned. In a recent interview with John Eggerton of Broadcasting & Cable magazine, Martin was asked about "talk of trying to re-institute the FCC's Fairness Doctrine" and whether he would support that. His reply was, "No. The commission eliminated the doctrine in 1987. Doing so has made for a lot of opportunities in things like talk radio." That was it. Martin decided not to challenge any of the Democratic proposals to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine or to make a strong statement in favor of the First Amendment. What's Fair About the Fairness Doctrine? Lately, I've been hearing rumors that prominent liberal politicians, the very same people who are always proclaiming themselves passionate advocates for free speech, are looking into ways to muzzle conservative radio talk show hosts. The (Un)Fairness Doctrine: Who should decide what you hear over the radio and on TV? You? Or policymakers in Washington? If freedom of speech appeals to you — if you think we need robust debate to keep democracy alive and well — the answer should be clear. Unfortunately, it's not so clear to certain liberal lawmakers. The "No Fairness Left" Doctrine: Could the Left be any clearer about its intensions? … Since the Left can't compete in the marketplace of ideas, it wants to shut it down. The aborted push to revive the misnamed Fairness Doctrine, and apply it to talk radio, is but the latest example of liberalism's drive to gag the opposition. Turning The Dial: Ever since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, liberals have been trying to figure out a way to eliminate conservative talk radio. It appears that in Boston, Mass., they've actually managed to do it. Dems Exploit Coulter in Fairness Doctrine Push. The disarray in the Republican Party can be seen in the belated response to Democratic proposals to reinstate the federal Fairness Doctrine. Unfairness Doctrine: Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Ca) said on Sunday that she thought it would be a good idea if the Congress would pass a law bringing back what used to be known as "The Fairness Doctrine." It is a perfectly horrid idea. The Effort to Reimpose the So-Called Fairness Doctrine Grows. As those of us who grew up in the days of transistor radio and black and white television might recall, the FCC required all radio and television stations to devote a certain percentage of airtime to public information and political issues. In 1949, this in turn led the FCC to institute the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," an uncodified regulation based on the principle that the American people were entitled to all sides of controversial political issues on publicly owned airwaves. Fairness' Doctrine — Round Two. Netroots activists intend to engage in a campaign of harassment aimed at crippling the business end of any media outlet they view as the enemy. Fox News may be first, but talk radio, the Wall Street Journal editorial pages and the Internet will be next. The liberal netroots are not interested in contributing to public discourse. They want to wipe out the competition and silence those voices that do not support their agenda. Democrats' New 'Fairness' Push May Silence Conservative Radio Hosts, Critics Say. Democrats in Congress are pushing for legislation that they say would bring more balance to the media, but critics say would muzzle conservative voices. The Fairness Doctrine, a federal regulation requiring broadcasters to present both sides of a controversial issue, was enforced by the Federal Communications Commission from 1949 to 1987, when it was dropped during the Reagan administration. The Liberal Attack on Freedom of Speech: Did you know that the same liberal group that helped to get Don Imus fired for his offensive "ho" remark tried to get Rush Limbaugh censored from the Armed Forces Network? Or that this group, Media Matters, which reportedly is backed by anti-American financier George Soros, has declared war on conservative talk radio? Imus, who is not a conservative, was merely the test case. Hillary's Lap Dogs: When Don Imus was fired … a great deal of attention was focused, appropriately, on the influence of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, each of whom expressed outrage over the broadcaster's racial insensitivity and demanded that he be fired. The real guiding hand over Imus' downfall, however, belonged neither to Sharpton nor Jackson, but to Hillary Rodham Clinton. The Un-Fairness Doctrine: Unevening the Playing Field, by Law. Beware of liberals using such words as "fairness." In resurrecting the "Fairness Doctrine," liberals are trying to kill conservative talk radio and restore their media monopoly. Period. The doctrine would selectively stifle free political discourse, which is essential for our representative government. The Fairness Doctrine, an FCC regulation in force from 1949 to 1987, required broadcasters to present "both sides" of controversial issues. During that time, liberals had a virtual monopoly on the media. All's Fair in Love and Talk Radio. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., caused a stir recently when she criticized talk radio for its role in stopping the recent immigration bill. Talk radio, she lectured, "pushes people to … extreme views without a lot of information." Feinstein then went on to suggest that it might be time to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine, repealed in 1987, that mandated private radio stations devote time to all points of view during discussion of controversial topics. How the Left Intimidates the Media. Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was recently paid $20,000 by Virginia Tech to tell the students that there aren't two sides to the global warming debate and that the problem with the media today is that we don't have a fairness doctrine. Those positions, which sound contradictory, betray the modern liberal agenda. They want to bring back the fairness doctrine not to ensure true fairness and balance in journalism but to intimidate and censor those expressing a view contrary to their own. Old media unrepentant on damaging disclosures. Every time the Old Media are criticized, they trot out the First Amendment, as if they are its exclusive guardians. Heaven help us if that's the case. For it's not the First Amendment they worship, but their self-anointed stewardship of it. Why else would they so adamantly favor suppression of political speech for all but themselves during the 60 days preceding elections? Why else would many of them favor the "Fairness Doctrine" to squelch their successful conservative competitors on radio? Why else would they defend draconian campus speech codes? The Next Conservatism: The other side has no compunction about using state power in all its hideous fullness to ram its ideology down our throats. For example, leftists now want to restore the so-called "fairness doctrine," which if implemented would destroy talk radio. The Plan to Silence Conservatives: Media reform sounds like a good cause. But the gathering here of more than 2,000 activists turned out to be an effort to push the Democratic Party further to the left and get more "progressive" voices in the media, while proposing to use the power of the federal government to silence conservatives. In short, triumphant liberals now want to consolidate and expand their power. Several speakers, including Senator Bernie Sanders and Rep. Maurice Hinchey, declared that they think Congress should use a new federal "fairness doctrine" to target conservative speech on television and radio. Government regulation syndrome: Liberals want to resurrect the Federal Communications Commission's Fairness Doctrine, a tenet created to ensure fair and balanced coverage of controversial issues, so that they can regulate talk radio and require "equal time" be given to opposing political views. Liberals don't like talk radio's mostly conservative content. Talk radio 'dominated' by right. A report from a liberal think tank yesterday criticized the "right-wing domination of talk radio," saying the current landscape does not serve all Americans. Liberals hate it when their propaganda supply exceeds demand. Right's Reign on Talk Radio Called 'Structural Imbalance'. Charging that "right-wing talk reigns supreme on America's airwaves," two liberal groups on Thursday called for increased government regulation and greater diversity of commercial radio station owners to "close the gap" between the amount of conservative and "progressive" talk. The Editor says... If the proverbial shoe were on the other foot, such a move would be called government censorship. Are Politicians Targeting The Correct Medium? The Democrats now seem to control and have access to all TV networks except one, and to liberal blogs and internet sites like www.MoveOn.org. They also seem to have the complete editorial support of almost all newspapers in the nation, especially large metropolitan ones, such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The San Francisco Chronicle and The Los Angeles Times. We must also remember the fact that the Fairness Doctrine originally was added by the FCC when cities were limited to only one TV station owner per locale. The "Fairness Doctrine" Power Grab. Empires of oppression and intimidation, built upon real threats and empty promises, simply cannot endure the scrutiny of an informed public. Thus, the only means by which they can hope to preserve their hold on power is to maintain a monopoly of information. The Fairness Doctrine Is Not Dead. A blogger called the 309-115 vote against federal funding of the Fairness Doctrine a "historic vote for freedom of speech." A columnist called it "A big victory for radio broadcast freedom." But it was nothing of the sort. Even if the amendment from Rep. Mike Pence were to pass the Senate, it would do absolutely nothing to stop a Democratic president and Congress from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. It was a political maneuver that has confused many people. Liberals try to get a mouthhold on Rush. Imagine Rush Limbaugh ordered to give Michael Moore a say on his radio show. Or Air America required to broadcast Ann Coulter's take on the news. Broadcasters were forced to offer opposing views on political issues until 1987, when federal regulators dropped a rule called the Fairness Doctrine. Beyond the Fairness Doctrine: Talk of re-imposing the requirement by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that broadcasters air opposing views on controversial topics sparked an intense and highly publicized debate this summer. Almost lost in the "fairness" furor, however, has been a second, but no less intense, radio industry battle over the merger of satellite radio providers XM and Sirius. The MoveOn-dot-Democrats: [Senator Jeff] Sessions said, "There's no doubt that the Democrats have liked the favored position they've had for decades with the mainstream media. It's very painful for them to have alternative voices out there like talk radio. These attacks on Rush [Limbaugh] could be part of a long-term plan the Dems have to revive the Fairness Doctrine." Republicans such as DeMint, Cornyn and Sessions stand in their way. Attacking Talk Radio: Over the span of some 20 years, Rush [Limbaugh] has been attacked from just about every leftist corner, as would anyone who tirelessly espoused the founding principles of our nation — private property, rule of law and limited government. What has made Rush so effective with this message has been his ability to put things, and ask questions, in a manner that the average citizen can understand and relate to, and do so with a bit of humor. Humor creates madness among leftists who want their interventionist agenda taken seriously. The Left's Gag Rule: A Democratic Congress voted to turn [the Fairness Doctrine] into law in 1987, but Ronald Reagan vetoed the bill and the rule was scrapped. In the bloom of freedom, conservative talk radio has dominated. Which is why Democrats want to revive the Fairness Doctrine. The Plan To Rein In Free Speech: A manufactured flap over Rush Limbaugh has stirred talk of new "fairness doctrine" hearings in Congress. That's just what Media Matters, the flacks behind it, were after. Their agenda is worse than it looks. 'Fairness' Is Foul. It wasn't that hard for Indiana's Rep. Mike Pence to build media and congressional support for his Free Flow of Information Act, which would protect the confidentiality of contacts between reporters and sources. It passed the House this month by an overwhelming vote of 398-21. His next battle will be a lot harder — to permanently ban the Fairness Doctrine, the regulation many liberals are now actively trying to revive in an effort to silence their critics. How Taxpayer-Funded Broadcasting Is "Surging" Left Under Democrats. The Democratic takeover of Congress in 2007 quickly made one definitive change in the national media infrastructure. ... In previous years with Democratic control of Congress, PBS has played a more activist role within the media, dragging the rest of the national media further to the left and spurring more aggression and ill will against conservative and Republican leaders. Just as 2007 has been a year for a "surge" of troops in Iraq, it's also been a year of "surging" activism within PBS. Hillary's Campaign To Turn Off Talk Radio: The Fairness Doctrine is that outmoded, likely unconstitutional regulation requiring balance on the air. But since newscasts are excluded, the Doctrine made it possible for ABC, CBS and NBC — and especially the left-leaning Public Broadcasting System — to be as liberal as they wanted. But talk radio was stifled. During the Reagan era, the country had about 125 talk stations. Since the demise of the Doctrine we have more than 2,000 of them with hosts espousing every conceivable opinion that free speech can muster. It's just that most of those opinions are from the Right, and that drives Mrs. Clinton and the Democrats nuts. Bush: 'Fairness Doctrine' unfair. In Nashville today [3/11/2008], during a speech to the National Religious Broadcasters Convention, President Bush said there's nothing fair about the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" that once required broadcasters to offer air time for competing ideologies. The FCC got rid of it about 20 years ago. Now, some Democrats in Congress — long the target of popular conservative radio talk-show hosts — think it's time to bring it back. Conservatives Rally to Defeat the Fairness Doctrine. Several high-profile conservatives gathered on Capitol Hill to rally support for the Broadcaster Freedom Act, a measure to block the government from any future attempts to chill political speech on the airwaves. Specifically, the legislation would kill the Fairness Doctrine, an old Federal Communications Commission policy to require broadcasters must provide equal time to both sides of a debate. Although abolished in 1987, several congressional Democrats have recently expressed interest in renewing the Fairness Doctrine. The tyranny of "cultural diversity": Thanks to a little-noticed item in the Federal Register, the Federal Communications Commission may soon be handed the power to drive Rush Limbaugh off the air. There are liberals obsessed with "balancing" Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, Mark Levin, and the rest of conservative talk radio, even though plenty of other outlets — the Washington Post, the New York Times, USA Today, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, and National Public Radio — constantly flog the liberal agenda. Unfairness Doctrine. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously wrote that the best test of truth "is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market..." But today many are turning away from this theory, calling for greater government intervention in media ownership over the perceived lack of fairness in the press. The Fairness Doctrine at Work: The Fairness Doctrine was originally intended to encourage a public dialogue on controversial issues by ensuring that both sides of a topic were aired. As a former radio and TV journalist, I can assure you that the opposite was true. Station owners were afraid that their licenses would be yanked if there was the slightest possibility that they could be accused of violating the doctrine; it was far safer to simply avoid controversial matters. That, and its questionable constitutionality, caused the Reagan-era F.C.C. to repeal the Fairness Doctrine. Affirmative action gone mad: Here in the land of the free and the brave, some liberals are looking more like cowards not much interested in real freedom. They have basically conceded that their ideas are on the losing side in the free market of ideas. Why else would some Democrats — and their think tank boosters — be calling, once again, for laws that mandate equal time on the airwaves for left-wing voices and right wing voices? That sounds like manipulating the free market of ideas, using laws to make sure people hear progressive views even if people don't want to hear them. Fairness Despotism: Forty years ago, Walter Cronkite could declare on the evening news that the Vietnam War was lost, and that's the way it was. Do Americans want to return to those days by reviving the so-called Fairness Doctrine? Think of it in terms of consumer choice. You're on vacation, and you take your family into the $10.95 all-you-can-eat buffet. How would you like it if, when you walk up to fill your plate with lobster and ribs, you find the government has made the restaurant replace those with liver and brussels sprouts? Time to Bury the Fairness Doctrine Once and For All. Now that the Democrats have control of Congress, their leaders are openly championing the return of the Fairness Doctrine. If they can't beat conservative ideas in the radio marketplace, they might as well stifle them through government fiat. Make no mistake: a return of the Fairness Doctrine would end talk radio as we know it, for religious broadcasters, the right, the left, and everywhere in between. And that's just what the left wants. Democratic leaders have not been shy about their desire to stifle free speech on the airwaves. There Should Be No Fairness-Doctrine Secret Agenda. Off the record the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) says that it has no plans to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Nevertheless, earlier this month in a public letter to FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) charged that the doctrine was going to be re-imposed secretly upon broadcast media. Pelosi Supports Return of Fairness Doctrine. Talk radio's suspicions of a movement to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine were confirmed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Tuesday June 24 during her comments at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast. When John Gizzi, an editor for Human Events asked Speaker Pelosi whether she favored a return of the Fairness Doctrine, she told him an unhesitating "yes," reports Gizzi. Jump to the page about Broadcast Television Back to the Home page |
|
Document location http://www.akdart.com/radio.html Updated July 4, 2008. Page design by Andrew K. Dart ©2008 |