![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Corrections and updated information
Jun. 23rd, 2007 09:40 amOkay, this is a caveat to my previous post. As ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
avischneider correctly pointed out, the report released from the Center for American Progress does not specifically indicate that legislation should be passed to limit conservative talk radio. Here are the three conclusions it does reach:
There are still a couple of things I find troubling with this. However, first of all let me say I agree with #1 - I would not have any problem with reinstating the cap on the number of radio stations one owner can own and returning to more locally-owned radio stations. But...that doesn't necessarily mean the formats will change if the local markets don't want them to...and that decision should be entirely in the hands of each individual local market.
My problem is with 2 and 3. Who would 'ensure local accountability over radio licensing'? For #3, who decides what is in the 'public interest'? And why does the fine to be paid go to public broadcasting? Because it's always in the public interest?
I'm guessing the answer to the first few questions in that last paragraph is: 'some sort of government-appointed bureaucracy'. Which is madness. Fine stations that don't serve the public interest? What? If the local market has any influence with the station (which they would, if the station were locally-owned), they'll lobby the station to play what they want or they'll stop listening. And, if the station listens to market demand, they make money. If they don't, they go bankrupt. It's as simple as that. No need to get the government involved with what the station is playing.
However, recent remarks by Trent Lott and alleged remarks by Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton reference the 'need' for a 'legislative fix' to the 'problem' of the dominance of conservative programming on talk radio. Again, why does the government need to get involved with what is on the airwaves? They should stick to reinstating the ownership cap and letting the local markets sort it out themselves.
avischneider correctly pointed out, the report released from the Center for American Progress does not specifically indicate that legislation should be passed to limit conservative talk radio. Here are the three conclusions it does reach:- Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations.
- Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.
- Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.
There are still a couple of things I find troubling with this. However, first of all let me say I agree with #1 - I would not have any problem with reinstating the cap on the number of radio stations one owner can own and returning to more locally-owned radio stations. But...that doesn't necessarily mean the formats will change if the local markets don't want them to...and that decision should be entirely in the hands of each individual local market.
My problem is with 2 and 3. Who would 'ensure local accountability over radio licensing'? For #3, who decides what is in the 'public interest'? And why does the fine to be paid go to public broadcasting? Because it's always in the public interest?
I'm guessing the answer to the first few questions in that last paragraph is: 'some sort of government-appointed bureaucracy'. Which is madness. Fine stations that don't serve the public interest? What? If the local market has any influence with the station (which they would, if the station were locally-owned), they'll lobby the station to play what they want or they'll stop listening. And, if the station listens to market demand, they make money. If they don't, they go bankrupt. It's as simple as that. No need to get the government involved with what the station is playing.
However, recent remarks by Trent Lott and alleged remarks by Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton reference the 'need' for a 'legislative fix' to the 'problem' of the dominance of conservative programming on talk radio. Again, why does the government need to get involved with what is on the airwaves? They should stick to reinstating the ownership cap and letting the local markets sort it out themselves.
