Corrections and updated information

[megotelek]

Okay, this is a caveat to my previous post. As 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.

Comments

[avischneider.livejournal.com]

Again, why does the government need to get involved with what is on the airwaves?

This isn't exactly a radical thing. The government has always been "involved" because it's the agent of the public and, as a matter of law, the public owns the airwaves (or at least the analog spectrum). See generally Communications Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1064 (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.). It's for that reason that the FCC already enforces a "public interest" rule and has since its inception, though the definition is rather narrow, covering things like airing a bit of "educational and informational" programming for children and not running subliminal advertising. It was much more expansive before 1987, when the Commission stopped enforcing the Fairness Doctrine (which is still on the books, BTW).

But I mostly agree with you. Restoring local control should accomplish most of the public accountability goals, and if it doesn't, then other measures (but probably not CAP's) might be in order. (One other thing worth doing, maybe: licensing low-power stations as spectrum availability allows. The more voices out there, the better our democracy.)

[megotelek.livejournal.com]

Oh, I know it's not a radical thing...the government is involved in a whole host of things I don't think it really belongs in (healthcare and education, to name a couple).

But that won't change, because people still see government programs as some sort of cure-all for everything that's wrong with society.

[jeeperstseepers.livejournal.com]

I have an idea. If they're so upset about there being more conservative talk radio than "liberal" (in quotation marks, because so many of the liberals I encounter are anything but--hating those who have different opinions and lifestyles is anything BUT liberal) they can do a trade: they can give up their dominance over all of Hollywood and the music industry and take stuffy, boring talk radio instead.

[megotelek.livejournal.com]

Hear, hear!

I also think one of the reasons there isn't a lot of 'liberal' talk radio (and it bombs when they try) is that the left-wing worldview is already out there in all of the newspapers and on television and in Hollywood...whereas for most conservatives, the only way to get their point of view is to...listen to talk radio. It's the only thing left!