This isn’t a new argument. We’ve heard it many times before, mostly from groups who have a hard time understanding why so many people listen to — and agree with — Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and other Conservative talkers. But from a fellow broadcaster?
KCAA (Yoma Linda, CA) CEO Fred Lundgren writes in his latest Huffington Post piece that “there is a growing consensus that the elimination of “The Fairness Doctrine” is the single largest contributor to the manifestation of nationwide verbal hostility, and if so, it’s the product of several decades of media deregulation.” And he says “The Fairness Doctrine was abolished in 1987 which gave rise to right wing talk radio.”
Lundgren states that the Mayflower Doctrine and the Fairness Doctrine prevented the rise of ideological talk radio because, under those rules, a station that aired half-truths and “alternative facts” could be found liable and be subject to FCC fines and even license revocation. Many people might argue with that statement, taking the stance that perhaps talk radio is broadcasting the truth and the mainstream media is airing alternative facts.
Lundgren writes the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine is the single largest contributor to the spread of a new and virulent strain of toxic discourse that has seated itself in the public’s consciousness.
The Fairness Doctrine was abolished back in 1987.
I didn’t see any sound reason for running this article and the comments once, much less twice.
Ed, can’t you do better than this?
agree and there is the first amendment,,, so where is the opposite views ??? they can have a voice too !!
Dear “Winner”
I’ve written numerous articles in the HuffPo that I’ve never asked Ed to consider for publication because they were not related to our industry.
I would be happy to risk offending you with any number of them if you would just name your favorite subjects.
Or, simply Google my name, followed by the word “Huff”, and enough red meat articles will appear to feed a small army of trolls.
It’s really pretty easy to figure out why Conservative Talk Radio continues to thrive while every liberal effort soon withers and slithers away: In the end, the TRUTH will win out; always has, always will.
The Fairness Doctrine was stupid, but so is driving more than half the population away from AM radio. Most women and progressives don’t listen to the main two AM formats – conservative talk and sports. That means the only people listening to AM are 35+ conservative men.
Fred,
I listened to your station’s stream this am, the woman on at 5:25 am. You should be so lucky to have a “right-wing” toxic discourse to replace her.
Dear Mr. Oh Fred
You were listening to “The Power Hour” hosted by Joyce Riley on KCAA. Obviously, I don’t usually agree with Joyce on political issues but I agree with her right to voice them over the air.
KCAA is not a one trick pony. We have a full spectrum of subjects and world views and people of many backgrounds on the air. We are different than almost anything else on the dial.
Moreover, I never allow my personal world view to censor programming or anyone’s opportunity to be heard.
I can strongly disagree with your opinion and just as strongly support your right to voice it. That’s consistent with why think The Fairness Doctrine should not be revived in any way.
There are sure ways to level the playing field between conservative and liberal programming and win the hearts and minds of voters in the Red States but to do it, democrats must get out of their echo chamber.
My next article will present those ideas.
He is spot-on. If Limbaugh, Hannity and their ilk had someone across the glass on the other mic to challenge their half-truths and lies the public airwaves would be much better served by real compelling dialogue. Limbaugh and Hannity have preached hate for a couple decades now unchallenged…and their appeal is to people with low mental acumen and the uneducated. The end result now is we have a narcissistic racist, sexist, xenophobe for POTUS. I’ve taken the liberty to shorten that up to simply POS. Hey try convincing the ADVERTISERS…the LISTENERS…the EMPLOYEES (past and present) of radio stations across America that deregulation back in 1996 was a good thing.
Hey Nimrod..
We are talking about the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, not deregulation of 1996. But, you’re so educated, POS, that you should have known that.
Hey CRETIN…did you miss the words, “MEDIA DEREGULATION” in the article, or were you working on how to color within the lines? Who read the article to you? NIMROD!
One can always tell a right-wing hack…but you can’t tell them much. Totally missed the words “MEDIA DEREGULATION” or didn’t bother to read the article. Nice job to of hiding behind your stage name… FACT CHECKER must be an oxymoron…or simply a moron. That’s why he’s wrong a lot.
David,
The ownership deregulation in 1996 was the perfect “act two” after 1987 for the right wing talkers because it allowed the roll up of hundreds of stations under one licensee, so at the flip of a switch, these bloviators had an instant nationwide audience on the most powerful stations in every major market in America.
Fred…I hope someone will read your comments to Cretin the Fact Checker. He has a tendency to get intoxicated on his own rhetoric.
I wonder if he actually read beyond the title.
I saw nothing in the Radioink article, short as it was, about the 1996 Act. If something was in the Huffington Post article I didn’t click to link as I make it a point never to look at that Bolshevik garbage. David AAmodt made the hot-head mistake of assuming. That’s why he’s wrong a lot.
When the government decides what is acceptable to say then only what agrees with the government can be spoken. The present fluff over “fake news” assumes that some one arbitor has ALL THE TRUTH and nothing else can be said…the same problem. I don’t want the government dictating what is true. Look what it has done for “global warming” …no one is allowed to look at the study facts and come to their own conclusion. The whole world has to be turned on its head to match the approved government line regardless of the research because the government has declared what is “truth”.
Timothy,
I don’t want the government telling me anything, but on most days, there are several three and four letter agencies kicking me around like a soccer ball. Also, I do not want the return of the Fairness Doctrine but its elimination has turned 90% of political talk radio into an SNL version of itself. I am troubled that lying over the airwaves is acceptable if the audience believes the lie and the sponsors support the lie.
Fred,
If you don’t like lying, why are you in the Huffington Post? Appearing in that Alinsky-sheet doesn’t speak well of you.
Dear Mr. HuffPo Crap,
First of all, if my name was HuffPo Crap, I would probably change it. The dots you are trying to connect have too much space between them to anchor an argument. William F. Buckley Jr. said that Alinsky was “very close to being an organizational genius”. I have some talent in that area, but nothing like Saul had, but thanks for the compliment.
Dear Mr. HuffPo Crap,
First of all, if my name was HuffPo Crap, I would probably change it.
The dots you are trying to connect have too much space between them to anchor an argument. William F. Buckley Jr. said that Alinsky was “very close to being an organizational genius”. I have some talent in that area, but nothing like Saul had, but thanks for the compliment.
The Fairness Doctrine was based on the assumption that broadcast media were a scarce resource, and needed to be managed in some way by government. But it was an affront to the First Amendment from the start (so are still-extant obscenity rules). “Fairness” as an ethos in journalism also gave rise to what Jay Rosen of NYU calls “the voice from nowhere” that strives to opinionless neutrality. In our new digital world, we have voices from everywhere, and old-fashioned radio persists by the grace of car radios and the absence of an easy way to navigate through an infinitude of streams and podcasts. When somebody comes up with the latter, watch out.
Doc,
As long as words have a meaning that create images in the mind, there will be a reason for obscenity rules.
I reject the assertion that fairness creates a voice from nowhere. That only happens if a false equivalency is imposed on the issue. Fairness must be tied to accuracy.
In my opinion, an example of a “voice from nowhere” would be to report that “President Trump said the crowds at the mall were the largest in history while unreleased estimates by the Park’s Service said they were smaller than the previous three inaugurations. To me, that’s just bad reporting”.
A fair and accurate report would state that “President Trump said the crowds at the mall were the largest in history but the President is clearly wrong and here is the data that proves he is wrong.
All I need is one accurate voice that I know values and reports the truth above all else and these days, it seems impossible to find.
Fred,
How about this as an assessment of the last 8 years-
“President Obama said if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor but experience has shown that Obama was lying through his teeth and he knew he was lying through his teeth in order to get re-elected, a fact that very few reporters have reported.”
Benny – As Repuglicans are finding out, the ACA – which was created in a conservative think tank and embraced by many Repuglicans before the President proposed it – is doing exactly what it was meant to do. It is pushing people from expensive emergency care to MUCH less expensive primary care. Oh – and it is covering a lot of people.
But then again you sound like one of those “poorly educated voters” who bought the Reality Show Con Artists (who was always running for ATTENTION and not the Presidency) BS.
But I have a question for you. When someone tells such obvious lies, they are saying to the listener that agrees that they are either A) too stupid to know the truth or B) too intimidated and in awe of the speaker to care that the line is true.
So what is it Benny – Stupid or Intimidated? I’ll also accept a combination of both if you’d like.
I love it when liberal jerks like the above stick up for their disasters. Easy to prove you wrong, A-hole. I live with the ACA Obamacare concept and pay the bills-but not for long. Your skinny big-eared Chicago hood’s lying crapola BS is being dismantled daily. Have fun watching-I am.
Wow Benny – you surprised me. I thought you were too stupid to be insulted. I CAN be wrong. So I guess your answer must be B, right? Intimidated? Oh, with just a touch of racism thrown in as well. Thanks for conforming to my stereotype of the Reality Show Con Artists supporters.
Ah, realist.
The true colors of a bankrupt left-winger. Throw out the race card when you’re out of ammo. The term racist has lost all meaning because of hollow humans like you.
Benny – since I was the only one who provide a fact (you just provided insults including calling the President a “hood” – oblivious to your racism as well), I don’t understand your statement.
Facts are the least powerful way of changing people’s minds (it is one of Radio’s problems as well) but I will provide a few for you to chew on.
Fact – The genesis of the ACA came out the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
Fact – It was backed by Newt Gingrich and that paragon of Liberal Values Rick Santorum
Fact – It was put into effect in Massachusetts by a Repuglican Governor and later Repuglican Nominee for President Mitt Romney.
Fact – After seven years, the Repuglicans have no plan to replace the ACA because it is covering people, working AND slowing the arc of raising health care costs.
I know there is a lot of facts to chew on here and thinking hurts. You would rather have an “impression”. Is that why you were fooled by a Reality Show Con Artist who doesn’t even want the job? Or are you as enthralled with Russia as our “Manchurian Candidate”? Are you a “commie”?
Now that I have engaged a mental midget and I don’t feel good about it, I’m going to go take a shower.
David,
The ownership deregulation in 1996 was the perfect “act two” after 1987 for the right wing talkers because it allowed the roll up of hundreds of stations under one licensee, so at the flip of a switch, these bloviators had an instant nationwide audience on the most powerful stations in every major market in America.
Better make that shower a long one. It’s worse than you think.
You seem to have forgotten in all your ACA finger pointing (nice try) that NO…NO Republicans voted for it. It was all B.O., Harry and Nancy. You remember Harry Reid who said in 2008 that Obama might be a good candidate since he didn’t have a Negro accent. And Joe Biden who said BO was a clean black man.
I didn’t call B.O. a hood. That’s where he came from, organizing the community, you know “midnight basketball” and all that.
Benny,
Study your history… Go back to the alternatives to Hillary’s plan when she was First Lady
Benny,
If you are expecting me to defend the ACA, then you will be disappointed. It was a bad republican plan from the beginning and it should be replaced by medicare for all.
While we are doing it, we need to lift the cap on Social Security contributions so at least 90% of all wages fall under SS. Then, create a realistic transaction tax on Wall Street. Then, amend the tax system to force active reinvestment of profits the year after they are earned and the system will begin to re balance itself. The ACA helps the poorest people and it forces portions of the middle class to pay the bill while the rich get a pass, as usual. I voted for Obama in 2008 but I had seen more than enough by 2012 to make me leave the ballot blank at the top. In my opinion, almost no one worthy of the job ever gets elected as President. Its simply amazes me that our country can grow at all.
When we had the “Fairness Doctrine”, the news was determined by The New York Times, The Washington Post and CBS Television. The editors of those 3 media had tremendous influence over what Americans knew and thought about. Overall, it was a slightly left-of-center view.
Dumping the “Fairness Doctrine” opened up the airwaves to divergent viewpoints and much more robust discussion of meaningful matters, and although it can get a bit rowdy at times, all in all, it has been good for the Republic. Long-suppressed resentments are given an opportunity to be expressed, defusing potential explosive results and allowing all sides to be heard, not just what a few select media choose to be heard. It was a positive correction.
News vet,
Rowdy is good. I can do rowdy, but lying with impunity for hours each day over America’s mass communications system is indefeasible. On the other hand, I agree with your point about defusing explosive results. During one headed exchange I had with a conservative broadcaster, we agreed that our ability to take full advantage of the First Amendment lessened our desire to abuse the Second Amendment.
News vet,
Rowdy is good. I can do rowdy, but lying with impunity for hours each day over America’s mass communications system is indefeasible. On the other hand, I agree with your point about defusing explosive results. During one headed exchange I had with a conservative broadcaster, we agreed that our ability to take full advantage of the First Amendment lessened our desire to abuse the Second Amendment.
Fred,
“Lying with impunity for hours each day” is something I associate with Barack Obama for his entire political career. I’m a news vet and I hear all the backstage talk.
I’m glad that you answered several of these posts at 11 at night. We now understand you a lot better.