I agree with Larry that local programming is what is really missing from
radio.
But strongly disagree that the government has no role in insuring that
citizens are well informed, and exposed to both sides of any issue. The
Fairness Doctrine provided at least
a measure of that to the airwaves, and some civility to our political
discussions. Broadcasters use a publicly owned resource (RF spectrum)
and are granted a license to use it
for commerce. Part of that agreement is that it should be used in the
public good--- and they have a responsibility to do so.
While the majority of listeners might prefer to hear the views of the
Right, that doesn't mean that broadcasters don't have a responsibility
to present opposing ideas. Or at least
they did under the Fairness Doctrine.
Now it's just more mindless "group-think" where no one is ever exposed
to other ideas, viewpoints, or belief systems. History shows that isn't
healthy for a Democracy.
The viewpoint that commercial success alone should determine broadcast
content is highly flawed. It's like people who think that the
Constitution is there to protect the rights
of the majority. Nonsense. The Constitution was written to protect the
rights of the /minority. /The majority rarely needs their rights protected.
The Fairness Doctrine existed to prevent exactly the kind of extremism
that we currently see in our news coverage. If you watch only Fox News,
or listen to Rush, then you only
get one side of any issue. Ditto if you tune in only to MSNBC. A far
better approach, if you really care about Democracy is to expose the
audience to both points of view.
Ditto (irony intended) for deregulation of media ownership rules. Want
and enjoy local programming--well, you can thank deregulation for the
lack of it. In the Birmingham market,
two companies own nearly all the radio stations in the market---and it's
dominated by satellite based programming. During an emergency, such as
our huge tornado outbreak in
2011, it was almost impossible to get any local news from radio.
If media ownership rules had remained in place, and the Fairness
Doctrine intact, you'd have a much different landscape to listen to now
on the AM dial. The real power of
radio is in local content---sadly, that's almost entirely lacking now.
And gone with it, I fear the sense of being part of a small community.
Instead, our Ipads and Twitter accounts
allow us to be citizens of the global community---and I don't think that
is an acceptable trade off.
For those who supported the deregulation of radio, and the repeal of the
Fairness Doctrine, I wonder if you envisioned this result back then?
Many liberal thinkers of the time did.
Maybe hearing some ideas from those darn lefties isn't such a bad thing
after all.
73,
Les N1LF
On 3/6/2013 6:16 AM, Larry R Fravel wrote:
Larry K8YYY
_______________________________________________
IRCA mailing list
IRCA@hard-core-dx.com
http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/irca
Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the original
contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the IRCA, its
editors, publishing staff, or officers
For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org
To Post a message: irca@hard-core-dx.com
