Fairness Doctrine

[imported_Shivetya]

Liberals to attempt to link conservative radio to hate speech in order to win public support for Fairness Doctrine





<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286442,00.html">LOTT: Dianne and I were just talking about that. One of the mistakes that we have made many times on legislation is it's introduced, it comes out of committee, we bring it to the floor. We never bother to explain what we're trying to do and what is in it. I think that was the mistake that was made with immigration. Talk radio defined it without us explaining that there were reasons for it and the good things that were in it.

So the onus is not on them, it's on us to do a better job of communicating what we're trying to do.

And I just want to make ? you know, look, I've been defended by talk radio many times and I will support their right to tell their side of the story, right, left or the middle, forever.

I don't think this fairness doctrine that would try to require that there be X amount on both sides is fair. So you know, it's caused quite a stir, but, you know, it goes with the territory.</a>


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>WALLACE: So would you revive the fairness doctrine?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I'm looking at it, as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way.

WALLACE: But the argument would be it's the marketplace, and if liberals want to put on their own talk radio, they can put it on. At this point, they don't seem to be able to find much of a market.

FEINSTEIN: Well, apparently, there have been problems. It is growing. But I do believe in fairness. I remember when there was a fairness doctrine, and I think there was much more serious correct reporting to people.

</end quote></div>


So the conservatives were right, Congressmen and looking at reviving this affront to the 1st Amendment, they were just wrong about the source. Now its just Congress versus talk radio and simply because Talk-Radio riled up the people to stuff this asinine amnesty bill.

Apparently they think the one or two good things in the Amnesty bill are worth all the negative. Apparently they don't want a free and open forum for discussing the actions of Congress. Talk radio has morphed from just being a bastion of conservatives to a home for the many Americans, liberal and conservative, who truly believe that the Federal Government is nothing about the people anymore.

Basically Wallace is trying to portray it as a liberal versus conservative issue and its not. Feinstein is trying to label it as incorrect reporting but its not. Congress got their hiney slapped by the public because of talk radio. This isn't about Liberal viewpoints not having a large radio audience (polling revealed that in many liberal areas the immigration bill had tepid support) this is all about Congress preventing dissenting views through one form of the media they have a hard time controlling

 

[Rainsford]

Er, I don't know what talk radio YOU'RE talking about, but almost everything I've heard suggests that talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative. Since they get to use public airwaves to broadcast their opinions, I don't think it's totally out of line to ask that ALL sides be included in the discussion. "Free and open forum" is exactly what we should all be after here, but I don't think a bunch of conservatives presiding over vigorous agreement is really what that phrase means.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Er, I don't know what talk radio YOU'RE talking about, but almost everything I've heard suggests that talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative. Since they get to use public airwaves to broadcast their opinions, I don't think it's totally out of line to ask that ALL sides be included in the discussion. "Free and open forum" is exactly what we should all be after here, but I don't think a bunch of conservatives presiding over vigorous agreement is really what that phrase means.

Talk radio is definitely overwhelmingly conservative. They get to use the public airwaves because that is apparently what the listener base wants. Face it, conservative talk radio sells. It draws listeners, hence sponsors and advertising, which in turn brings in the dollars (and thats what it is all about in the end anyways, money).

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Er, I don't know what talk radio YOU'RE talking about, but almost everything I've heard suggests that talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative. Since they get to use public airwaves to broadcast their opinions, I don't think it's totally out of line to ask that ALL sides be included in the discussion. "Free and open forum" is exactly what we should all be after here, but I don't think a bunch of conservatives presiding over vigorous agreement is really what that phrase means.

Um dont these stations pay for these rights? Is the FCC hading out bands for free now?
So if they pay for these rights, under what pretense do we dictate to them what they can broadcast if it isnt considered obscene?

 

[GoPackGo]

With exception of NPR and other "public" radio stations, they really aren't.

Stations pay tons of money for rights to air, broadcast equipment, programming rights...etc...These are private companies.

Air America failed and the libs are in a tizzy.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo


Air America failed and the libs are in a tizzy.

24 hours a day of whining, blaming America, and asking for free handouts; Gee I can't see how this failed.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Genx87
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Rainsford
Er, I don't know what talk radio YOU'RE talking about, but almost everything I've heard suggests that talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative. Since they get to use public airwaves to broadcast their opinions, I don't think it's totally out of line to ask that ALL sides be included in the discussion. "Free and open forum" is exactly what we should all be after here, but I don't think a bunch of conservatives presiding over vigorous agreement is really what that phrase means.</end quote></div>

Um dont these stations pay for these rights? Is the FCC hading out bands for free now?
So if they pay for these rights, under what pretense do we dictate to them what they can broadcast if it isnt considered obscene?

The argument is that available radio frequencies are limited...conservative media has, with few exceptions, bought out all the available broadcast "space". Given that, free market arguments wouldn't seem to really apply, as competitors simply can't broadcast in many markets. Of course there are always ways (buy a station that already has broadcast rights, for example), but it would seem to be quite the problem.

Now maybe I'm wrong, maybe conservatives dominate talk radio because they have better shows, or liberals don't listen to the radio, or whatever. If that's the case, I don't see how the fairness doctrine is necessary (who cares if liberals are on the radio if nobody is listening?). But if there is any sort of artificial control of the market going on, I think it's worth maybe having the government do something. I'm not sure the fairness doctrine is the answer, but in a market where the required resources are kept quite limited, sometimes government action is necessary to make sure the market is really free.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Those suggesting that just because the government licenses use of the airwaves, that it gives the government the right to dictate what content is aired, are walking a very dangerous path. If this ever happened, I think you would see the talk show hosts snub their noses at it, forcing a showdown with the government, and the government would back down amid the public fury at such an affront to our freedom of speech.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Sinsear
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: GoPackGo


Air America failed and the libs are in a tizzy.

</end quote></div>

24 hours a day of whining, blaming America, and asking for free handouts; Gee I can't see how this failed.

I'm not really surprised Air America didn't work. While I believe that there is some artificial anti-competitive behavior going on, I'm also not sure there is that big of a market for liberal talk radio. Liberals, for the most part, like to think for themselves and not be told what to think. Sure, a lot of liberals LIKE Al Franken, but that doesn't mean we want to listen to him every day, telling us how we should feel about various things that happen in the world. Conservatives, on the other hand, seem to THRIVE on being told what to think. And that's really all talk radio is. Liberal radio MIGHT do better with alternative reporting rather than commentary, but Air America was really the liberal answer to Rush Limbaugh, and that isn't really something designed to appeal to the liberal mindset.

I know, I know, unfair stereotypes and all that. But while Air America might just be run by people who don't know how to run a business, ask yourselves why the only regular, well know, liberal commentator on radio or TV is Alan Colmes (and he hardly qualifies)? It doesn't seem real likely that ALL the liberal commentators have bad business sense...so there must be some other reason the airwaves are flooded with loud mouthed conservatives and you have to really hunt to find a liberal.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Genx87
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Rainsford
Er, I don't know what talk radio YOU'RE talking about, but almost everything I've heard suggests that talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative. Since they get to use public airwaves to broadcast their opinions, I don't think it's totally out of line to ask that ALL sides be included in the discussion. "Free and open forum" is exactly what we should all be after here, but I don't think a bunch of conservatives presiding over vigorous agreement is really what that phrase means.</end quote></div>

Um dont these stations pay for these rights? Is the FCC hading out bands for free now?
So if they pay for these rights, under what pretense do we dictate to them what they can broadcast if it isnt considered obscene?
</end quote></div>

The argument is that available radio frequencies are limited...conservative media has, with few exceptions, bought out all the available broadcast "space". Given that, free market arguments wouldn't seem to really apply, as competitors simply can't broadcast in many markets. Of course there are always ways (buy a station that already has broadcast rights, for example), but it would seem to be quite the problem.

Now maybe I'm wrong, maybe conservatives dominate talk radio because they have better shows, or liberals don't listen to the radio, or whatever. If that's the case, I don't see how the fairness doctrine is necessary (who cares if liberals are on the radio if nobody is listening?). But if there is any sort of artificial control of the market going on, I think it's worth maybe having the government do something. I'm not sure the fairness doctrine is the answer, but in a market where the required resources are kept quite limited, sometimes government action is necessary to make sure the market is really free.

Well if what you say is true about conservative stations buying up bands that is a different story. But that should fall under some kind of anti-trust suit. One thing is, if they are buying bands and sitting on them the FCC should have the power to force use the bands. I can tell you on the AM side in Minneapolis there is a lot of dead bands. Either they are sitting idle or nobody has rights to them.

Personally I think it has more to do with liberal radio having to compete with liberal newspapers and tv than conservative talk show buying up all the available bandwidth. Even in the markets Air America competed in they didnt do that well, and those tended to be liberal leaning areas of the country.

I dont like the fairness doctrine because it is such an obvious attempt to silence your critics if you are liberal. By forcing conservative stations to run 50% of their programming with a left viewpoint, they just hurt the stations ability to generate a profit and stay in business. It isnt rocket science if you are forced to sell 50% of your product at a loss you wont last long.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Those suggesting that just because the government licenses use of the airwaves, that it gives the government the right to dictate what content is aired, are walking a very dangerous path. If this ever happened, I think you would see the talk show hosts snub their noses at it, forcing a showdown with the government, and the government would back down amid the public fury at such an affront to our freedom of speech.

You're right, that is a concern...but trampling on freedom of speech can be done by organizations other than the government. Far more worrying, in my opinion, is the media buyouts that are happening all over the country. Rather than having thousands of independent voices, we're getting larger and larger media conglomerates that, in many markets, control ALL the TV and especially radio stations. That kind of thing is just as chilling to free speech as any government regulation, maybe even more so. At least the government is ultimately answerable to the people, who does Clear Channel answer to?

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Now maybe I'm wrong, maybe conservatives dominate talk radio because they have better shows, or liberals don't listen to the radio, or whatever. If that's the case, I don't see how the fairness doctrine is necessary (who cares if liberals are on the radio if nobody is listening?). But if there is any sort of artificial control of the market going on, I think it's worth maybe having the government do something. I'm not sure the fairness doctrine is the answer, but in a market where the required resources are kept quite limited, sometimes government action is necessary to make sure the market is really free.

One of the biggest problems is that the liberals don't have a personality to compete with Rush or Hannity (probably the 2 most popular). These 2 have a huge fan/listener base that has been established for years. Whether you like them or not they are immensely popular and well-supported. If you were to move their air time and force a liberal in there, ratings would possibly go down, and the advertising/sponsor money could possibly be withdrawn, which brings us back to the point of it's all about money.

Now if Congress wants to push fairness (I don't support this doctrine) they damn well better apply it to the TV and newspapers as well. Somehow I don't see this happening so I think we are better left with the status quo. Conservatives have the majority of talk radio and Fox News, while the liberals have the majority of newspapers and television stations.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Genx87
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Rainsford
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Genx87
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Rainsford
Er, I don't know what talk radio YOU'RE talking about, but almost everything I've heard suggests that talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative. Since they get to use public airwaves to broadcast their opinions, I don't think it's totally out of line to ask that ALL sides be included in the discussion. "Free and open forum" is exactly what we should all be after here, but I don't think a bunch of conservatives presiding over vigorous agreement is really what that phrase means.</end quote></div>

Um dont these stations pay for these rights? Is the FCC hading out bands for free now?
So if they pay for these rights, under what pretense do we dictate to them what they can broadcast if it isnt considered obscene?
</end quote></div>

The argument is that available radio frequencies are limited...conservative media has, with few exceptions, bought out all the available broadcast "space". Given that, free market arguments wouldn't seem to really apply, as competitors simply can't broadcast in many markets. Of course there are always ways (buy a station that already has broadcast rights, for example), but it would seem to be quite the problem.

Now maybe I'm wrong, maybe conservatives dominate talk radio because they have better shows, or liberals don't listen to the radio, or whatever. If that's the case, I don't see how the fairness doctrine is necessary (who cares if liberals are on the radio if nobody is listening?). But if there is any sort of artificial control of the market going on, I think it's worth maybe having the government do something. I'm not sure the fairness doctrine is the answer, but in a market where the required resources are kept quite limited, sometimes government action is necessary to make sure the market is really free.</end quote></div>

Well if what you say is true about conservative stations buying up bands that is a different story. But that should fall under some kind of anti-trust suit. One thing is, if they are buying bands and sitting on them the FCC should have the power to force use the bands. I can tell you on the AM side in Minneapolis there is a lot of dead bands. Either they are sitting idle or nobody has rights to them.

Personally I think it has more to do with liberal radio having to compete with liberal newspapers and tv than conservative talk show buying up all the available bandwidth. Even in the markets Air America competed in they didnt do that well, and those tended to be liberal leaning areas of the country.

I dont like the fairness doctrine because it is such an obvious attempt to silence your critics if you are liberal. By forcing conservative stations to run 50% of their programming with a left viewpoint, they just hurt the stations ability to generate a profit and stay in business. It isnt rocket science if you are forced to sell 50% of your product at a loss you wont last long.

Weren't those "anti-trust" rules changed recently? I seem to remember that there used to be pretty severe limits on how many stations in particular markets, and how many stations nation-wide, a single company could own. As far as I know, those have recently been changed to allow virtually unlimited ownership of radio stations. I'd be much happier with those restrictions than with the fairness doctrine, in all honesty, because in some ways you're right...you shouldn't have to cram any particular viewpoint down anyone's throat, it should just be available if people want it.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
who does Clear Channel answer to?

Republicans

 

[QTArrhythmic]

With the increasing consolidation of media I think that implementation of the Fairness Doctrine would appropriate. If radio/media is a organized in one all-powerful monopoly that controls the flow of information to the public, you have the pretext for an totalitarian state if that media group is connected with a particular party, etc.

QT

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Sinsear
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: GoPackGo


Air America failed and the libs are in a tizzy.

</end quote></div>

24 hours a day of whining, blaming America, and asking for free handouts; Gee I can't see how this failed.

Yeah, the libs are really in a tizzy because Air America failed to attract mindless sheep like conservative radio does. Congrats. I can see why conservative radio succeeds esp. with some of the grazers that post here.

:roll:

 

[Mxylplyx]

Two parties in control of our government, and the fairness doctrine attemps to enforce "both" sides be heard on the radio. Anyone besides me see a problem with this??

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Er, I don't know what talk radio YOU'RE talking about, but almost everything I've heard suggests that talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative. Since they get to use public airwaves to broadcast their opinions, I don't think it's totally out of line to ask that ALL sides be included in the discussion. "Free and open forum" is exactly what we should all be after here, but I don't think a bunch of conservatives presiding over vigorous agreement is really what that phrase means.

Well said. The Fairness Doctrine long predates conservative talk radio. It was intended to prevent the problem we see today, where an owner can use the public airwaves to advance a personal or corporate agenda. It's essentially the same justification the FCC uses to enforce decency standards: though there may be great, highly profitable demand for "indecent" material on broadcast television, companies must agree to serve the greater public interest if they want the privilege of using the public airwaves, a scarce resource. If they are unwilling to do so, they are free to disseminate their material through other communications mediums, e.g., newspapers, cable, or direct-sale video. They do not (or should not) have an unfettered right to profit from the use of a limited public resource.

I suspect the same people sputtering about "dictating content" and "open" discussion would swamp the FCC with complaints if broadcast television started showing porn.

In any case, the Fairness Doctrine does not dictate content and it expressly fosters open discussion. It requires broadcasters to provide fair and balanced coverage of issues (real fair and balanced, not the ironic Fox version). Those who demand soapboxes for their personal agendas are welcome to them ... as long as they don't use the public airwaves.


(Edit: I sure hope Fusetalk fixes their screwed-up quoting soon. What a pain.)

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Weren't those "anti-trust" rules changed recently? I seem to remember that there used to be pretty severe limits on how many stations in particular markets, and how many stations nation-wide, a single company could own. As far as I know, those have recently been changed to allow virtually unlimited ownership of radio stations. I'd be much happier with those restrictions than with the fairness doctrine, in all honesty, because in some ways you're right...you shouldn't have to cram any particular viewpoint down anyone's throat, it should just be available if people want it.

Yes, they were. The FCC under Michael Powell changed to rules to allow much greater concentration of ownership. Consider it just another sell-out to big donors by the Bush administration.

 

[QTArrhythmic]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Rainsford
Er, I don't know what talk radio YOU'RE talking about, but almost everything I've heard suggests that talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative. Since they get to use public airwaves to broadcast their opinions, I don't think it's totally out of line to ask that ALL sides be included in the discussion. "Free and open forum" is exactly what we should all be after here, but I don't think a bunch of conservatives presiding over vigorous agreement is really what that phrase means.</end></div>
Well said. The Fairness Dcotrine long predates conservative talk radio. It was intended to prevent the problem we see today, where an owner can use the public airwaves to advance a personal or corporate agenda. It's essentially the same justification the FCC uses to enforce decency standards: though there may be great, highly profitable demand for "indecent" material on broadcast television, companies must agree to serve the greater public interest to if they want the privilege of using the public airwaves, a scarce resource. If they are unwilling to do so, they are free to disseminate their material through other communications mediums, e.g., newspapers, cable, or direct-sale video. They do not (or should not) have an unfettered right to profit from the use of a limited public resource.

I suspect the same people sputtering about "dictating content" and "open" discussion would swamp the FCC with complaints if broadcast television started showing porn.

In any case, the Fairness Doctrine does not dictate content and it expressly fosters open discussion. It requires broadcasters to provide fair and balanced coverage of issues (real fair and balanced, not the ironic Fox version). Those who demand soapboxes for their personal agendas are welcome to them ... as long as they don't use the public airwaves.

Aye.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Rainsford
Er, I don't know what talk radio YOU'RE talking about, but almost everything I've heard suggests that talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative. Since they get to use public airwaves to broadcast their opinions, I don't think it's totally out of line to ask that ALL sides be included in the discussion. "Free and open forum" is exactly what we should all be after here, but I don't think a bunch of conservatives presiding over vigorous agreement is really what that phrase means.</end quote></div>
Well said. The Fairness Dcotrine long predates conservative talk radio. It was intended to prevent the problem we see today, where an owner can use the public airwaves to advance a personal or corporate agenda. It's essentially the same justification the FCC uses to enforce decency standards: though there may be great, highly profitable demand for "indecent" material on broadcast television, companies must agree to serve the greater public interest to if they want the privilege of using the public airwaves, a scarce resource. If they are unwilling to do so, they are free to disseminate their material through other communications mediums, e.g., newspapers, cable, or direct-sale video. They do not (or should not) have an unfettered right to profit from the use of a limited public resource.

I suspect the same people sputtering about "dictating content" and "open" discussion would swamp the FCC with complaints if broadcast television started showing porn.

In any case, the Fairness Doctrine does not dictate content and it expressly fosters open discussion. It requires broadcasters to provide fair and balanced coverage of issues (real fair and balanced, not the ironic Fox version). Those who demand soapboxes for their personal agendas are welcome to them ... as long as they don't use the public airwaves.

But listeners today have so many options...including broadcasting their own opinions on the internet.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Er, I don't know what talk radio YOU'RE talking about, but almost everything I've heard suggests that talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative. Since they get to use public airwaves to broadcast their opinions, I don't think it's totally out of line to ask that ALL sides be included in the discussion. "Free and open forum" is exactly what we should all be after here, but I don't think a bunch of conservatives presiding over vigorous agreement is really what that phrase means.

Well said. The Fairness Dcotrine long predates conservative talk radio. It was intended to prevent the problem we see today, where an owner can use the public airwaves to advance a personal or corporate agenda. It's essentially the same justification the FCC uses to enforce decency standards: though there may be great, highly profitable demand for "indecent" material on broadcast television, companies must agree to serve the greater public interest to if they want the privilege of using the public airwaves, a scarce resource. If they are unwilling to do so, they are free to disseminate their material through other communications mediums, e.g., newspapers, cable, or direct-sale video. They do not (or should not) have an unfettered right to profit from the use of a limited public resource.

I suspect the same people sputtering about "dictating content" and "open" discussion would swamp the FCC with complaints if broadcast television started showing porn.

In any case, the Fairness Doctrine does not dictate content and it expressly fosters open discussion. It requires broadcasters to provide fair and balanced coverage of issues (real fair and balanced, not the ironic Fox version). Those who demand soapboxes for their personal agendas are welcome to them ... as long as they don't use the public airwaves.

But listeners today have so many options...including broadcasting their own opinions on the internet.

Some listeners do not. Their only access, or at least their only ready access is public airways. The content providers, on the other hand, almost universally have scores of options to disseminate their materials, most of them less expensive than broadcast.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

And who will be the judge of what is "fair and balanced"?

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: GoPackGo
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Bowfinger
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Rainsford
Er, I don't know what talk radio YOU'RE talking about, but almost everything I've heard suggests that talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative. Since they get to use public airwaves to broadcast their opinions, I don't think it's totally out of line to ask that ALL sides be included in the discussion. "Free and open forum" is exactly what we should all be after here, but I don't think a bunch of conservatives presiding over vigorous agreement is really what that phrase means.</end quote></div>
Well said. The Fairness Dcotrine long predates conservative talk radio. It was intended to prevent the problem we see today, where an owner can use the public airwaves to advance a personal or corporate agenda. It's essentially the same justification the FCC uses to enforce decency standards: though there may be great, highly profitable demand for "indecent" material on broadcast television, companies must agree to serve the greater public interest to if they want the privilege of using the public airwaves, a scarce resource. If they are unwilling to do so, they are free to disseminate their material through other communications mediums, e.g., newspapers, cable, or direct-sale video. They do not (or should not) have an unfettered right to profit from the use of a limited public resource.

I suspect the same people sputtering about "dictating content" and "open" discussion would swamp the FCC with complaints if broadcast television started showing porn.

In any case, the Fairness Doctrine does not dictate content and it expressly fosters open discussion. It requires broadcasters to provide fair and balanced coverage of issues (real fair and balanced, not the ironic Fox version). Those who demand soapboxes for their personal agendas are welcome to them ... as long as they don't use the public airwaves.</end quote></div>
But listeners today have so many options...including broadcasting their own opinions on the internet.</end quote></div>
Some listeners do not. Their only access, or at least their only ready access is public airways. The content providers, on the other hand, almost universally have scores of options to disseminate their materials, most of them less expensive than broadcast.

So how do you solve the problem? By taking the rights away from some in favor of others?

 

[BMW540I6speed]

The extreme fringe of the right wing dominates talk radio not because all radio listeners are right-wingers, but, instead, because the right wingers and their investors were the first to the market with a consistent and predictable programming slant, making right-wing-talk the first large niche to mature in the newly emergent talk segment of the radio industry.

Listeners always know what they'll get with Rush or one of his clones, and programming to a loyal and identifiable audience is both the dream and the necessity of every radio station's management.

But that response doesn't mean - as conservatives in the radio industry suggest - that there is no market for progressive talk radio.

What it means is that there's not yet an awakening in the broadcast industry to the reality that they're missing a huge (and vastly growing) unserved market. But, like with right-wing talk, for balanced or progressive talk radio to succeed it must be programmed consistently throughout the day.

And, with right-wing ideologues now in charge of our government, the time has never been better: as Rush showed during the Clinton years (the peak of his success), "issues" talk thrives best in an underdog environment. It's in the American psyche to give a fair listen to people challenging the party in power.

Setting aside the shrill and nonsensical efforts of those who suggest the corporate-owned media in America is "liberal," the situation with regard to talk radio is particularly perplexing: It doesn't even carry a pretense of political balance.

Those who listen to talk radio know it has swung so far to the right that even Dwight Eisenhower or Barry Goldwater would be shocked.

As for the fairness doctrine. It is irrelevent. Issues that do not have a strong argument for opposition will only be given undeserved strengthening.

"Presenting the opposing side" is exactly "one" of the things wrong with todays media. It's like what the Intelligent Design people have been trying to push.

They create an imaginary "controversy" and then argue for equal presentation of their viewpoint.

I would much rather TV and Radio stations to be required to be upfront about their bias instead of pretending to be "fair & balanced".