American Morning
Talk Radio: Do we need a new Fairness Doctrine?
In the late 1940’s, the Federal Communications Commission decided that it was more likely to grant and renew licenses to broadcasters who offered up more than one point of view to their listeners. That decision came to be known as the Fairness Doctrine.
The doctrine was intended to serve the public interest by having broadcasters offer the public more than one side to controversial issues.
But the Fairness Doctrine didn’t last. With its constitutionality in question, the doctrine was repealed in 1987. Not long after that, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh took to the AM radio dial and became a hit.
It wasn’t long before other conservative talkers followed his lead. They became so successful they pushed most liberal talkers off the dial. Today, according to Talkers Magazine, 91 percent of talk radio on the AM commercial dial is conservative.
Some say that’s reason enough for the return of the Fairness Doctrine. But, most experts say that’s not likely to happen. There is a new push, however, called “localism.”
Simply put, it means radio stations would be forced to carry more local programming that appeals to local audiences. Right now, big broadcasting companies like Clear Channel Communications, CBS, and others own hundreds of radio stations across the country. They often program syndicated, national shows featuring conservative talkers like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck.
Some say that kind of national programming is not serving some audiences across the country. Randi Rhodes, a syndicated progressive talker, is based in Washington D.C., where 93 percent of voters voted for Barack Obama. Yet, only a small percentage of AM talk radio is liberal or progressive.
“If you know that you live in a town where everybody votes Democratic and all you have on your radio is conservative talk, then you can see how localism isn't part of the equation in media programming,” Rhodes says.
The idea of requiring radio stations to carry more local programming is appealing – even for some conservative talkers – but there is a sense there is something else behind the idea of localism.
“In effect what they want to do, is they want to program the radio station,” says Bob Durgin, a conservative talker in Pennsylvania. “They want to tell the people what they want to hear. They don’t want the people hearing what they want to hear, and they want people to hear more liberal radio.”
Durgan says liberals want it all, even though they have plenty now. He says Hollywood, newspapers, FM, satellite radio and the mainstream media all give voice to liberals.
Michael Harrison is the editor of Talkers Magazine, an online publication that reports on talk radio. He agrees with Durgin. “There’s no bias against liberals. There is bias against people who don’t have track records of success, of ratings and revenue.”
Randi Rhodes, a progressive talker, who has had success, strongly disagrees. She says she has no interest in shutting down conservative talk radio. She says millions of Americans get their political talk from AM radio, and it’s unseemly that 91 percent of AM radio offers conservative voices – even in cities where the population is mostly liberal.
“I do want to be on their stations,” she says. “I ... want a crack at their audience, and let me live or die by the success or failure, but I don’t have that. I don’t have access.”
About this Show
Welcome to the American Morning blog where you can get daily news updates from American Morning's reporters and producers. Join us for "the most news in the morning," weekdays from 6-9 a.m. ET, only on CNN.
On Twitter
You should talk about why the Fairness Doctrine was removed. In short Rupert Murdoch was giving Reagan and the republicans tons of money to drop the foreign ownership limits and Fairness Doc. knowing full well he could flood the country with his dumb brand of propaganda.
Since we lost the Fairness Doctrine this country just turned stupid. Germany rose under propaganda, so does the extreme right. The airwaves are owned by the public and should be tightly regulated like the airlines who fly in same.
Hey Andrew Stevens, AIr America failed. They ran out of money. If you want them back, pay for it. Otherwise, suck it up and pay for Sirius.
Carol is wrong when she states that the media is merely a marketplace. The media is one of the cornerstones of our democracy.
If the media is controlled by one political viewpoint, we elimiate one of the most important freedoms that we have. AM radio is one of the most accessible forms of media that we have. It reaches the most people in all parts of the US. Change the present dynamic of AM Radio, and the political landscape in America will truely be transformed. If the media continues in its present form, the political landscape of the US will come more to resemble that of a banana republic, than the "land of the free".
move over Castro, Chavez and Mao...here comes the next proggressive wave of socialist's doctrine Obama style. The attack on the free enterprise system must include taking over the airwaves. Look at the Indoctrination in our schools, through liberal professors, and elementary school teachers....any objections and your labeled a racist.
we are giving up our country and not a shot fired in her defense....they always said they'd get us from within....
the attack on Fox demonstrates how much they want diversity...wake up folks before its too late
Localism sounds a lot like Government controlled health care? We don't need either! When the government starts dictating the content of broadcast our freedoms are dimished. If a liberal doesn't like what's on the radio they have the freedom to turn the knob and change the station. Perhaps even listen to more liberal views as broadcast by stations like CNN. Its up to individuals to exercise their freedoms, its not up to the US Government to impose freedoms upon its people.
Sam
Why do you fail to mention the Air America, a nationally syndicated radio network for Progressive talk. Was it because Randi Rhodes was fired from the network? She used to have the slot against Hannity.
WABC NY and (I believe) Clear Channel which broadcast and syndicate Rush Limbaugh are news and entertainment broadcasters that carry a conservative talk show host. Air America's is designed and promotes themselves as a Progressive Talk Network. How will they be affected by the Fariness Doctrine?
Obamamedia types took a stab at AM Talk Show Radio with Air America which was an epic fail, no one tuned in and therefore no advertisers.
Localism is just the Fairness Act rebranded. Liberals don't want to discuss, they want to shut up the left. If it's not true then why isn't the media all over the Whitehouse for bashing Fox News? The only person to say something was from ABC and I'm sure his press priveledges got a check mark for being a bad boy with a phone call shortly thereafter to the executives at ABC news requesting his immediate removal.
Human nature dictates that you believe what you hear. As history and studies show, many people vote for the candidate whose name they heard last, or who's poster they saw last. When all you hear is conservative ( hate ) radio, a person does not even have an oppertunity to make an informed decision.
My mother watches so much Fox TV that she had be come sick.. ( another story in itself ) Conservative radio, rules the Arkansas air waves but yet Arkansas is definately a Democratic state. I have asked myself why this is the case ? The reason, entertainment. The real problem with this is that people become like parrots , repeating what they hear without even think about what they are saying.
Lets get some diversity on the air so someone can actually make an infromed decsion and get the all this hate talk that is deviding our county off the air.
CNN, you surpirse me everydaqy. If somehow this localism thing is pushed, you are going to have to make some changes yourself. Everyday you morph closer to MSNBC. Listen, Air America failed. That was available to everyone. I listened and I am right center. The girl in the morning was great and funny. Otherwise, everyone else was an angry elite who continued to preach about how much more they new than the "Red Center". This whole thing is dumb. The Fairness Doctrine was established in order to ensure you could hear all sides. If you want a left viewpoint turn on NPR, MSNBC, CNN, BBC or CNN Int. If you want a right leaning view, FOX, and talk radio. Where is the lack of fairness there. The truth is liberal radio fails becasue liberal radio hosts suck. They have no personalitites. Randy Rhodes, a boring elitye who makes fun of people she disagrees with. She will never be successful. Now if you get Stephanie Miller on the air, things would change.
Sure, lets have a Fairness Doctrine. But it should apply to television first. Radio talk may be 90% conservative, but this is only because TV is 95% liberal. It all smells of Hugo Chavez to me.
A Gov mandated "fairness doctrine" is inherently unfair. The founding fathers knew all to well the heavy handness and Gov regulation that supports Gov policies. The fairness doctrine imposed today is clearly the squelcing of free speech. Let the market decide. NPR is clearly liberal, and the commentators comment "they may take exception to this" is not news it is biased commentary.
I saw an interview on your program a few weeks ago where your reporter pushed Hugo Chavez about controling and shutting down his country's radio stations. What's the difference here? We would be controlling the content of American radio stations and what would happen to those who don't comply? Would they be shut down or fined? Maybe Chavez and Obama could have a beer at the White house and coordinate their game plans!
Somebody around your news room needs to read Orwells' 1984 AND FAST , SUCH FOOLS YOU ALL ARE.
Why don't you do a story on why Air America failed and that was subsidized by the taxpayers..which NEVER should be done ...government then can control what is said..by the way..when you have on TV all major media CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, backing this administration, to extent where they do very few critical reports on this administrtaion(proven by the PEW rsearch)..and when they do have an opposing viewpoint on..their supposed impartial reporter attacks the opposing side, so you always end up with two..even today at the conclusion of the interview..the anchor at the end made a little snide comment..Let's be honest..all the networks above and this administration, wants to wipe out any opposing views. It's scary when the President wants all opposition shut down..reminds me of Chavez....where were they on Van Jones story, on the Acorn story..now Anita Dunn from the Presidents Communications Office, who praises Mao Tse Tung as one of her favorite philosophers..the guy the had muirdered 50-70 million pe4ople killed for opposing him..where was CNN then?
What we really need is less governmental control, not more. If some folks don't like talk radio hosts – I have a good solution – turn the dial to some soft congenial music.
Liberal talk dominates most major TV channels – why do they need to take over radio too?? We are overrun with liberalism – where else can conservatives and independents have a voice if not for talk radio. If this outlet is taken away we will have to go underground and that movement will be much more destructive – case closed.
We need a new interpretation of the Fairness Doctrine. The old model of having to show "both sides" is not only too easy to stack in either direction, but it does seem somewhat too intrusive on broadcasters.
Instead, the provision from the Fairness Doctrine relating to "personal attacks" should be re-instated- where any public official that is subject to a personal attack on any media is required, by law, to have equal time on that same media to answer that personal attack.
This would seemingly stop idiots like Limbaugh from spewing completely fact-free monologues about public officials, but would allow him to keep conservative spin on everything he says.
The bottom line is, a large amount of consumers don't really get to decide what goes on the air because of the size of the corporations and the relatively small listening populations of each of these shows. We should not forget that as taxpayers, it is our money and government (regulation, FCC, etc) that even allows these buffoons to get air time. The average citizen cannot just take WABC's license to broadcast- therefore, it is our right as citizens to control what is on the federally licensed airwaves. If Limbaugh wants to have a "freedom of speech" discussion, well, no one is stopping him from getting on a stump and spouting for 3 hours on the sidewalk every day.
Chris B.
NYC
The question should not be about "Fairness," it should be about "Truth and Accuracy." Everyone should have access, we are a nation based on the "Free Speech of People." The problem is when the truth is spun (Death Squads). A "Real Democracy" can only exist and prosper when people know the truth and facts, not lies and propaganda.
fairness on the radio?...yes!....here in dallas where it is predominately republican i wold just lik to have a choice as to what i listen to...its seems all we get down here is limbaugh and hannity crammed down our throats...just give us a choice!...
If people wanted to listen to Libral talk shows they would not have to pass any legislation to force stations to carry them. They think congress should force stations to carry a program noone will listen to.
I'm the Operations Manager at a small broadcasting company. It's about what works on the radio.
If you get higher ratings broadcasting Czech Folk music then that's what you program. It's not personal or political, but financial. Radio margins are thin right now and if it makes ratings and therefore money it plays.
I'm not really sure how well or poorly Air America did...Or Randi does now, but if it made money...It would be on more stations.
If more liberals listened to the radio, maybe there'd be more liberal-perspective shows.
Air America is struggling to survive....because nobody listens, so they can't garner ad revenue and get advertisers on.
And I have to laugh about "Fairness." I listen to NPR almost everytime I'm in the car, and it always strikes me as having a subtle leftward bias in the news programming...and really apparent in the choice of the "social commentary" programs like "This American Life." And NPR is friggin' government funded! And speaking of Fairness, everyone loves to bring up Fox News (even the White House now), yet totally ignore the flip side of the coin, like MSNBC and CBS, though I admit CBS is a little better since Dan Rather was fired.
It's censorship, plain and simple. I'd be saying the same thing if it was a Republican administration trying to legislate against "liberal bias" in cable news. It stunk back then and it stinks now.
No to the Government control of the airwaves. We get enough of their propaganda on TV.
The market place should decide who is worth listening to.
fairness on the radio?...yes!....here in dallas where it is predominately republican i wold just lik to have a choice as to what i listen to...its seems all we get down here is limbaugh and hannity crammed down our throats...just give us a choice!...that would be fairness on the radio
The newspapers are delivered over the public roads. So when are we going to start talking about regulating the New York Times?
There are far more major newspapers that are liberal, than conservative. Is the fairness doctrine going to apply to newspapers too?
Having opposing points of view is part of democracy. Shutting opinions up, is not.
We need something. These are public air waves and it seems the 'right' gets 91% of the 100 % there. Joe about half an half ?
Why not a "fairness doctrine" for magazines, newspapers, TV networks, etc.? Why only focus on the radio, which is the only bastion left for hearing opinion that is not slanted to to favor Democrats? Most of the media in our last election cycle was openly cheering for Barack Obama. Thank goodness there was one network (Fox) and talk radio for us to go to to hear real investigtions into Barack Obama - investigations that the mainstream media refused to do.
It seems to me people talk with their choices. We do not need the government to make those choices for us. If people want to listen to liberal radio they will.
To me talk radio is basically entertainment, eventhough I don't really find it entertaining. It is not news, most of the time it is not factual, because it is the opinion of the host (or the owners of the station). I listen to mostly right-wing radio because that's all there is where I live and I would like to have another viewpoint presented. Good luck down here in Florida. Do we need a fairness doctrine? Yes we do. It is too one-sided and there are a lot of stupid people who actually believe what these talkshow hosts are saying. It's amazing that for 8 years people didn't organize teaparties, or protest, maybe they were afraid? Now all hell has broken loose, and a lot of it has to do with talk radio.
We need to restore true balance in talk radio. In third world countries when there is a coup de etat or a revolution the first thing the rebels want is control of the media, particularly radio. We have handed control over this media to the extreme right wing faction of our political system and they've never fired a single shot. And they are using it with great success.
It is a shame that so few people have so much power in am radio. Clear Channel, which has a conservative view controls the dial. This is unfair. The airwaves should be controlled by the people not a monopoly.
I would like to see the return of more classical music stations. How can communities that have many classical music venues not have even one classical music, radio stations?
If there isn't a market for a liberal news show, and if they have "faded" since the repeal of the fairness doctorine, then who cares? There are plenty of other sources of news and information where liberal's can go to keep informed and participate. Local AM radio will be dead in 5-10 years anyway, so what are we all fighting about anyway? Find me someone under 30 years old that listens to AM, and I'll show you a flying pig.
I often wonder why the government needs to be involved in these situations where the consumer market has clearly choosen what they want. Trust me, if there were a truly liberal voice that had a great show, i'm sure it would sell. And in the end, it all comes down to ratings. If no one listens, then they pull the plug. It's nothing to do with liberal or republican. If Rush's ratings fall, rest assured he will also be off the air.
You failed, just like our government to recognize that we have dials on our receivers. We have a choice to listen to what we want to hear. Why should the FCC try and censor. I listen to NPR sometimes. Hey, I happen to be a democrate. Who would of thought.
FCC arent elected officials, why do they care if an issue is politically charged. they arent in risk of losing anything, not jobs, not public opinion. thats why they do what they do, they dont really answer to anyone. If your job had no accountability would you care?
This is an old story getting older everyday, people listen to him to find out what is the next outrageous thing that will come out of his mouth. I doubt that all his listeners believe in him, I bet you that a lot of his listeners love to hate him. I do not listen to him and I do not know why I have to hear about him on the news when I really do not care to. By the way, you have just mentioned that an energy trader is bound to make over $100 million in bonus, well now that is news that I did see anywhere else. This is interesting given that energy is an essential commodity and that is traded now as a speculative vehicle. Therefore, we are paying more for a commodity that is in excess supply right now because some traders are sending prices higher, and on top of that the traders are going to be rewarded with huge bonuses. Now, this is news of interest, I trust that soon they will short energy and make bonuses on the way down as well.
Have people supporting localism and a fairness doctrine ever read the first amendment of the constitution? It was solely meant to protect freedom of political speech.
Why is CNN so interested on this topic? This is the 3rd consecutive day that I turn on the TV in the morning and I see the same subject...
Carol,
I like your report on AM talk radio. 91% dominance of conservative talk radio does not represent the ideological distribution of the general population.
However, to be fair you also need to compare the dominance of conservative programming and producers (ie: I consider CNN producers of CNN/AM conservative leaning as well as the body language & innuendo of comments by John Roberts, Kiran Chetry & Rob Marciano) vs liberal on "cable news" and network channels.
It is my conjecture that there is a conservative dominance in "Cable News", especially in interviewing so paid political commentators.
Then to complete your inquiry you should examine network television (MSNBC, CBS, ABC).
Marsha's comment sounds like it was pipelined directly from Limbaugh or Beck... Do you feel "threatened" by right-wing radio?
The only threat I see from them is that they create false issues and then phony facts to support those issues... thus leaving their listeners (the voters) miinformed.
Anyone can go to factcheck.org or mediamatters.com and see just how many lies and distortions come from these wingnuts! Remember, most of them promoted the distortions about the invasion of Iraq!
Hey Mitch – if Rush has so much power how come the Democrats blew away the Republicans in the last election? Censorship is bad for all of us – period. I'll fight for your right to voice your opinion. Are you willing to fight for my right for the same?
The Fairness Doctrine is not censorship and let that be clear to everyone. Talk Radio hosts can open their mouths all they want or say whatever they want to say, but we also want to see somebody else on the other side with an antithetical view to do the same. No duct tape is forced on mobody's mouth. We the listeners feel bullied when someone is not there to defend our opposing views.
The Fairness Doctrine is not censorship and let that be clear to everyone. Talk Radio hosts can open their mouths all they want or say whatever they want to say, but we also want to see somebody else on the other side with an antithetical view to do the same. No duct tape is forced on no body's mouth. We the listeners feel bullied when someone is not there to defend our opposing views.
"Localism" is a non-word, invented by operatives in the White House and DNC to silence conservative and libertarian opposition to their Marxist agenda for America. Like the term "fairness doctrine", localism spearheads an illogical argument for quashing free speech on the ground of fairness. The idea that all the Democrats in DC don't have access to liberal media outlets, be they radio, television, and print, is absurd. Not only do they have the opportunity to tune into a variety of leftist race hustlers on local radio in the DC market, they can get the same bilge by tuning into CNN, NBC, MSNBC, and CBS, or reading just about any newspaper in the U.S. with the exception of the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post.
Once again, Costello, Chetry and Roberts shamelessly spin another unconstitutional and totalitarian power grab by the left as a form of political enlightenment. Any counterpoint to this dishonest reportage is relegated to emails from listeners.
By the way, since you've aired shows on "what it's like to be Hispanic in America" and "what it's like to be Black in America", shouldn't "fairness" mean you also air what it's like to be European-American in a country whose government and media are doing everything in their power to destroy every aspect of that ethnic group's culture from their language and history to their very gene pool? I won't hold my breath waiting for this episode. The people who have defined this Nation and made it great are invisible to CNN.
my 93 year old mother watches fox news and sad to say she believes their lies. we want to get fox block from her tv! they feed in to peoples fear and it is just wrong.i always thought you had to report the thruth-guess i was wrong. fear feeds hate and hate make people do awful things! they have to take responability for what they say we are all americans-left or right!! like it or not OBAMA is are president!!
Dave McCumber stated it best! When our broadcast media was consolidated because our politicians were lobbyied heavily by corporate media, companies like Clear Channel went on a serious buying spree when ownership rules were changed in the late 80s. They went from owning just 55 or more stations throughout the entire U.S. to more than 1600 today. They lead the way and the buying free for all had begun with corporations like Cumulus, Cox, Clear Channel and others.
The one funny thing of all this was four political action groups: NRA, Anti Gun, Pro Life, Pro Choice all finally agreed on something. The consolidation of our broadcast media is bad for this country. When Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks criticized Bush on stage, Clear Channel which was a hugh Bush donor banned all Dixie Chicks music on ALL their stations out of revenge. She had just as much right to speak her mind on stage as Rush Limbaugh and other conservative radio talk show hosts used the airwaves to call Bill Clinton a crook on the air. Did anyone ban them on the air? HELL NO!
I'm sick and tired of hearing left and right wing, Democrat and Republican talking points which are usually lies and only advance those parties agenda's. If people in this country would open their collective eyes, and see what is going on in this country at the hands of both these VERY CORRUPT parties, they will see the serious damage both Democrats and Republicans have done to our nation our Grandfathers worked so hard to build. Now because of both these parties, we are losing our manufacturing sector on large numbers and how the hell can we be a super power if we have to rely on Communist China to make things we used to make ourselves? What if another world war breaks out, and we have to rely on other countries to supply our country with goods because we no longer make them? We will be screwed! And it will happen!
Because of Democrats and Republicans, we are no longer the richest nation in the world because we have exported our middle class to cheap foreign labor countries like Mexico and China and India. How the hell do these idiots in both parties think the economy is going to recover when people who used to make good money now make less than half because our idiot politicians on both sides have sold us out to a lobbyist? Anyone who thinks we are still the richest nation, ask yourself this: If we are still the richest nation, then why are we having to borrow money from a communist nation?
Obama says the job front is improving? Any creation of jobs will be in service which doesn't pay squat! and a man or woman trying to provide for a family cannot survive on that kind of pay. But the talk radio hosts will lie their way through and bend the truth or just outright lie to push forward a party agenda. This is why we are in desperate need of a NEW government, and new amendments to the constitution banning ALL lobbyists and campaign donations soft or hard money, period and no exceptions. Require all brodcast and cable, talk radio to provide information that is the truth, no more spinning or bending the truth. No more CPrights type ads or "527s", only advertising that is 100% truthful!
We will never get that from either of these two parties, and certainly from those like Limbaugh or liberal media. We will continue to get lies, just like being in the Soviet Union where we only get a controlled message. And its kind of ironic when you here conservatives talk about socialism when their own party partakes in socialistic policies such as broadcasting controlled messages to fit the party agenda regardless of liberal or conservative.
"Localism" is simply a code word for censorship. Censorship in any form is an erosion of our civil liberties. I support the rights of anyone with a point of view to air that point of view however to suggest that private companies should carry programming based on a point of view, conservative or liberal, is misguided. Unfortunately, AM radio is the only public airway left where the conservative point of view has access so it is the current target of liberals. The "Fairness Doctrine" won't be brought back because it would require CNN, CBS, NBC & ABC to moderate their liberal points of view by including equal time devoted to the conservative perspective. Fortunately this isn't the 1940's. People who are interested in what's happening in the world have multiple sources of information and don't require government intervention to find a source of information that agrees with their point of view. Let the free market work and let listeners drive content. Advertisers will support popular programming. Randi Rhodes – if you want airtime on AM radio spend the next 20 years building a fan base that advertisers will want to access. You can then have all the airtime you want!
The Fairness Doctrine is censorship. Where does Talkers Magazine place NPR in the political spectrum? It certainly isn't "fair and balanced".
If Randi Rhodes proves to attract listeners, the advertisers will want her on the air. The advertisers aren't political animals. They're just marketing animals.
Gee I wonder why the American people believe that iraq was responsible for 9/11–maybe because the media only offered the luney side 24/7 and no one saw or heard a single sane person question the rationale for the invasion of iraq.
One sided reporting has consequences. Its not about fairness, its not about who's winning and who;s losing-its about the most fundamental process that must exist for democracy to function–civil discourse.
Maybe Carol, rather than patting yourself on the back for ticking off everyone unitlaterally-saying you know your doing your job-MAYBE you should ponder the fact that using your logic the flat earth society could be considered being on to something. Buy a clue, honey.
Let's not forget that "talk radio" is also entertainment. I wonder what verifiable impact talk radio has on the voting patterns of talk radio listeners? Does talk radio actually convert liberals into conservatives, or merely provide reassuring entertainment for those with similar views?
When the voter pulls that lever so to speak, are they thinking about what their talk radio hero thinks about the issue, or are they thinking for themselves? We still have the freedom to turn it off, ignore it, avoid it. That's the freedom we need to protect. (– include to not have it blasted at us in public places too!)
Incidentally, I knew Rush Limbaugh when he was still "Rusty Sharpe" at his Dad's radio station in Cape Girardeau, Mo.
I didn't have any respect for him then either!
Oh yes... and "Localism" has some good features as far as serving the station's community, but as far as "Conservative" or "Liberal", your Washington D.C. example shows the silliness of going too far with it.... most of the people who work in the city don't live there, and most station's signals go far beyond the city limits.
If people like what your selling they'll buy it. Talk radio succeeds because smart people know they are being spun by abc cbs nbc cnn and especially the shameful msnbc and they are sick of it. Go ahead and legistate fairness. I'd love to see the Brian Williams/Rush Limbaugh report. The The Charlie Gibson/Sean Hannity report. The Katie Couric/Mark Levin report. The Keith Olberman/Glenn Beck show.
Either 100% fairness or you live or die buy your profits.
Yes we need a Fairnes Doctrine, without it there is no free speech. The listners are being dumbed down by only hearing one side of an issue. Localism would be even worse, now where ever you live you would be forced to listen to political retorhic from only one side of the spectrum when both sides need to be heard in order to find a solution for all people in one nation that is supposed to be indivisible. I want to be able to hear both left and right where ever I live in America.
Regarding the reinstatement of the "Fairness Doctrine", I am not sure such a reinstatement would do any good. I don't see how a fairness doctrine can change anything or even be enforced. In order to work, someone would have to determine when one side has gone over the fairness line. Once such a determination has been made, can you imagine how this would play out in a court of law?
No a fairness doctrine is not the answer. I think we have to consistently support, maintain, and reward fair and objective reporting and encourage and reward "fair and objective individual thinking." CNN should continue to fight against half-truths, hatred, and bigotry on either side of a debate with facts presented in a fashion that invites the viewer to consider all sides. I think CNN should also motivate people to join in objective and fair consideration beyond the IReport feature. In addition to broadcasting a fair and objective presentation of news, it seems to me that a broadcaster should offer suggestions to help an Individual change things. It truly is the Individual that should be the targeted audience and not the population. Such a process would be more horrifiying to the Becks, Limbaugh's, Fox, and the like than simply providing clear, objective, and fair news reports. Keep up the good work and take it to the next step.
This is funny – or the pot calling the kettle black. The left is trying to make this an issue because it's the one area that they don't have control over. They already control 80% of the television market – media and Hollywood included. They just feel threatened by the right wing talk show hosts.
Hi Carol... you are not only doing a great job, you are doing it while looking exraordinarily beautiful.
Regarding "The Fairness Doctrine", anyone who ever worked in broadcast news prior to it's repeal (like me) would be likely to call for it's reinstatement if they are in their right mind.
Even notorious conservative Ted Turner favors it's return. About 5 years ago, he outlined some very GOOD reasons to reinstate "The Fairness Doctrine" in Atlantic Monthly.
Turner said "Today, media companies are more concentrated than at any time over the past 40 years, thanks to a continual loosening of ownership rules by Washington. The media giants now own not only broadcast networks and local stations; they also own the cable companies that pipe in the signals of their competitors and the studios that produce most of the programming. To get a flavor of how consolidated the industry has become, consider this: In 1990, the major broadcast networks–ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox–fully or partially owned just 12.5 percent of the new series they aired. By 2000, it was 56.3 percent. Just two years later, it had surged to 77.5 percent. "
Needless to say, these huge media giants could either promote an idea they favor or ignore an issue they dislike... leaving a large block of voters either uninformed or misinformed.
Carol:
Thank you for bringing up this very important topic that I definitely think needs much more public discussion!
A back door version of the Fairness Doctrine being reinstated (such as "local content," "diversity of ownership," or "public interest" rules) is the one and only thing that Rush Limbaugh and his followers really and truly fear. That is because this would greatly diminish the enormous amount of political power that he has as the leading voice of the Republican Party right now and the firm control that he has over so many elected Republicans in Congress. Ann Coulter admitted how powerful that Rush Limbaugh really is when she said on Larry King Live back on February 19, 2009 "Oh, I think it's fantastic" to the question "Now, are you frightened or gleeful that Rush Limbaugh seems to be the head of your party these days?"
Rush Limbaugh is so powerful that Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) called into Rush's radio show and begged him for his forgiveness after he publicly criticized Rush and when so many of Rush's followers called Rep. Gingrey's office to complain about what he did. Also, former Sen. Trent Lott apologized to Limbaugh while he was in office just like how RNC Chairman Michael Steele did back in March of 2009. I can quote several other examples of high profile Republicans who have also apologized to Rush Limbaugh after they upset him and how that Republican leaders in Congress are truly afraid of him. The main reason why so many elected Republicans fear Limbaugh so much is because they know that he and his many millions of followers can primary them just like how they did to Arlen Specter who crossed him!
Rush Limbaugh in my opinion is definitely exploiting his power to divide the country which is NOT in the public interest when he openly admitted on February 12, 2009 that he wants every Republican who does not agree with him to lose and be purged from the Republican Party when he said "We must have Republican representatives from the Northeast." No, we don't, not if they're going to be liberals, not if they're going to be moderates, they may as well not even be Republicans. If there aren't any conservatives in the Northeast that can get elected, then fine. We don't need Republicans in name only. So one of the reasons that we're where we are is that the party flushed a bunch of RINOs. There are other reasons, of course, but this is part of the cleansing process that's necessary here in putting things back together" and when he also said "Good Riddance, GOP Moderates" on October 24, 2008.
Rush Limbaugh has also said many offensive things over the years such as "I Hope the Stimulus Package Fails" and "Not only do I want Obama to fail, I want this package to fail. I want this to blow up in their face" in February of 2009, he also said that "we despise bipartisanship here at the Limbaugh Institute" in February of 2009, he called Obama "the little black man-child" in August of 2008, he made a highly offensive sexual comment about Elizabeth Edwards in August of 2008 that even former Bush aide Brad Blakeman called "indefensible," and he called our troops who disagree with him about Iraq "phony soldiers" back in September of 2007.
The Don Imus incident of April, 2007 and the regulation of Howard Stern on television in my opinion set a very clear precedent that "free speech" does NOT include high profile and influential people making any irresponsible public comments that they feel like making. If Don Imus and Howard Stern could not hide behind "free speech" and "the First Amendment" when they made highly offensive public comments, then the same standard should also apply to Rush Limbaugh after all of his highly offensive and inappropriate public comments.
The promoters of pornography try to put it in the category of "free speech" and "the First Amendment" just like how Rush Limbaugh tries to do with his radio program. But this does not change the fact that pornography is regulated speech because it is deemed by many as being offensive and not being in the public interest.
Rush Limbaugh's program in my opinion and in the opinion of many other people is the equivalent of political pornography. To be fair and to call things down the middle, I definitely agree that the exact same thing is also true of extreme left wing talk radio ideologues such as Randi Rhodes. I would apply the exact same standard to the far left that I would apply to Rush Limbaugh so I am being fully consistent.
Government regulation of things that many people have tried to put in the area of "free speech" over the years such as pornography and tobacco advertising which are not in the public interest make reinstating a back door version of the Fairness Doctrine a very legitimate issue to bring up right now in my opinion!
There is diversity of opinion on television where one can watch FOX News to get a more conservative viewpoint, they can watch MSNBC to get a more liberal viewpoint, or they can watch CNN to get the most objective news (in my opinion). There is diversity of opinion in newspapers where one can read papers like the Washington Times to get a more conservative viewpoint or they can read papers like The New York Times to get a more liberal viewpoint. Unfortunately, this diversity of political opinion and this degree of political balance does not exist on the radio airwaves which Rush Limbaugh and people like him virtually dominate with a one-sided political monopoly.
President Obama probably has the votes that he needs in Congress to pass some version of the Fairness Doctrine right now which I hope he does. I am sure that President Obama can get 218 House votes and he should be able to get 60 Senate votes because Republican Senators Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe should realize that Rush Limbaugh is far more dangerous to them politically than any Democrat would be because it would be Limbaugh who would be putting up and supporting far right wing primary challengers against them as part of his purging process of the Republican Party.
The bottom line is that a back door version of the Fairness Doctrine (such as "local content," "diversity of ownership," or "public interest" rules) is in the best interest of the country because President Obama in my opinion will NEVER be able to change the tone in Washington or get that many Republican votes on his major legislation as long as so many elected Republicans in Congress fear Rush Limbaugh as much as they do and keep on apologizing to him. He will also not be able to change the tone in Washington if far left wing ideologues like Keith Olbermann or Randi Rhodes should ever become so powerful in the future that many elected Democrats fear upsetting them. Reinstating a back door version of The Fairness Doctrine should help to solve this problem across the board.
Even if Obama should lose his case in trying to reinstate a back door version of the Fairness Doctrine, this issue will still be tied up in the courts for so long that it will put Limbaugh on the defensive and it will also expose to the entire country how that so many elected Republicans fear him which should also help to diminish his power!
Mitch Dworkin
Dallas, Texas
Theres a new revolution in 2012 and it dont involve liberals! White America is waking up and when the sleeping bear awakes there will be true justice! Middle Class America is tired of giving everything they have worked for to some minoritiy thats cried foul, its gotten old and we are sick of it! How about teaching liberals personal responsibility instead of how to take from the tax payer by making them feel guilty for something that happened 150 years ago!
as a snowbird who goes back and forth from New Hampshire to Florida often I must comment on what is available on FM and AM stations. Yelling Rock, Evangelicals/Religion, Rush et al, and ONE let me repeat ONE NPR station. In some areas there is NO NPR on the radio. We subscribe and listen to Sirius Radio in order to get the music we enjoy, CNN and other balanced reporting. Our NPR station in the Orlando area does NOT carry Diane Rehm or other liberal leaning commentators, why? The reality; Conservative Radio Station owners dominate the airwaves in this country. Ann Coulter is a wet dish rag, only willing to cause more trouble.
Shane Smith–
That is by far the weakest argument i have ever heard. "We need something." WEAK. The reason that you get "Left/Lib" stations on PAY RADIO (SIRIUS/XM) is because ratings don't matter as much. Their income is primarily from subscriber cost (15-20/mo per subscriber). CNN is becoming a hybrid of MSNBC and ABC, anyone else notice this?
Put down the remote turn off the radio and think for yourselves these hosts are just "talking heads". All these people are for entertainment value at best. We are out of balance with all of it. Just like with a spoiled child STOP encouraging the bad behavior and it will cease. They produce nothing of any value and if people are listening they too must not be too busy with meaningful tasks either. Our nation was not built on words it was built on deeds. "The bubble headed bleachblond comes on at five, she can tell you about the plane crash with a gleam in her eye".
I think we do need an updated version of the fairness doctrine. Talk radio/television has gone so far to the right, they shape the argument in their image by keeping it so far to the right, the best the left can hope for is a voice somewhere near center. This keeps discourse from ever presenting what a left concept might look like.
A fairness doctrine would at least provide the opportunity, one on one, to hear an alternate view. Americans are not stupid, thought it seams that our government is endeavoring to get us there. When presented with a balanced argument on an issue, most of us can think it through, or at least start to consider it.
"No child left behind.......read just well enough to be able to read the manual for our weapon, math; count well enough to count our ammunition. NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND!
Would Carol ask the same question – should there be more "localism"? – regarding music radio stations? I doubt it. Randi Rhodes complains about lack of access when, in fact, the access is there. Apparently not enough people want to listen to her and that's why she isn't as well distributed as other more popular radio talk hosts. And therein lies the key – popularity, ratings and who can garner the most advertising dollars for any given station are what drives the programming for any broadcaster whether it's radio or television. I don't want the government programming my radio (or TV) stations. Do you, really?
Hello Carolyn,
As a broadcaster of more than 30 years, I was taught in college the original fairness doctrine was supposed to guarantee equal airtime for political candidates. The FCC should enforce that rule because networks like CNN barely gave 3rd party candidates any airtime and gave the lions share to Democrats and Republicans where the message is only what they want you to hear which is usually lies.
There was also a law that stemmed from the original Orson Wells radio broadcast of "War of the worlds". Back in the day was called "spruious" or a broadcast of untrue or misleading information which is widespread in both liberal and conservative talk radio and yes on todays news channels including CNN. This is a rule that should be strongly enforced again because of half truths, lies, advertisements such as the ones on healthcare reform all bend the truth or are outright lies.
CNN is about to broadcast the latino in America, and on your promo you talked about going from minority to majority, but what CNN failed to mention in that promo is they are achieving the majority by coming here illegally in large numbers which cost American taxpayers $336 billion dollars in 2008 alone. I hope CNN will point that out on this program, but my guess is CNN won't do that out of fear of angering the hispanic audience and this programs translates into ad dollars which ALWAYS trumps the truth in broadcasting these days. When money and profits are involved, journalistic integrity is out the window regardless of how good a journalist Soledad O'Brien is. This is why I won't watch CNN for the rest of the week because of the lack of truth on the issue of illegal immigration.
Our country does not need a fairness doctrine – what the heck is this – communist Russia or China....get real. I listen to talk shows and they are all informative and one gets the real lowdown of what is really happening to our poor downtrodden country today. Shame on all of you. First I cannot watch CNN, CBS or any of the stations for that matter except FOX on television (Sharpton even did away with Imus) and now I cannot even listen to the radio. Wake up out there.
Yes carol we need a fairness doctrine. People become diddo heads because they don't listen to anything else. I don't understand why obama is against a fairness doctrine. Obama and his people are whining about limbaugh and saying fox is a propaganda machine for the republican party, so why the disconnect. Obama and the dems run everyting but yet they do nothing. I don't get it.
2 things– If the comment about skin as thin as cellophane was journalism or reoprting and not commentary I am happy to announce that I am the Queen,
And- Randi Rhodes is a flat out liar- I live in the Tampa Bay area and remember Randi Rhodes being on the radio at a local level several years ago. She had her shot at our market, and the market spoke in her case. She's not here anymore. Maybe she's the one with thin skin, because I tried to listen to her on Air America, but could only hear the hate and venom she spewed and couldn't make it to her core message.
Why "progressive" and not the more accurate "liberal" label? Also, wasn't Randi Rhodes fired from Air America because of offensive comments? She is gripping about not having a chance, she has had many chances and can't make the cut. This is not about fairness or competition but incompetence.
People pay these people to be on their radio. None of these people want to listen to liberal jabber! The owners of the radio stations dont want to listen to it either! Most of it is nonsense and it amounts to a bunch of whiners complaining how they should be given something without working for it! Let liberals get out there and buy these radio stations and run what programming they want to! Dont think we need to make another law pandering to minorities! Thats not American! If you turn the radio on and dont like what you are hearing than change the channel, dont sit there and listen and get so mad that now they way to solve this is making a new law that strips more freedom away from the conservative!
I am a middle age woman and a registered independent.I agree that the media is very unbalenced. CNN, NBC, ABC,and MSNBC are biased to the left and FOX and talk radio are on the right. If talk radio is going to be required to present a liberal view, I feel that more conservation views should be presented on the news stations also, especially MSNBC. The media is indeed very unbalanced already but on the side of the liberals. Most liberals refuse to admit this and this has made me tend to lean to the right.
There are many grave issues facing the media today. It is very important that we continue to fight for the freedoms we take for granted, and the ability to express diverse opinions is a major part what I was raised to believe made this country great. Not only should there be localism in radio programing because representing the audience in a locality is not bias and diversity is one of the other things that is supposed to make this country the "land of the free". But something that I find very frustrating about this debate in its entirety is the continued assumption that terms like liberal and conservative are representative of the complexity that our nation now exhibits. There is no "liberal" media because what does that mean any more? Anyone that does not agree with Rush (even on a single issue) is a Liberal? Well – I don't think that is a reasonable grouping of America! Really? Are we not adults? Can we not handle adult group discussions based on facts and not just random opinion and emotionally charged rhetoric? Why should we not demand, especially from news sources, that biases and other viewpoints are explored!?!
Talk radio is a great thing.... however, if the content is directed at destroying people and ideas.... it merely provides entertainment for those that want to destroy...
Certain hosts are continually critical, continually taking things apart, have little of value to contribute.
What would be the effect of those people having something worthwhile to say, having ideas as to how to solve problems, presenting solutions..
Then they may have something of value to offer...
Liberal views are shoved down EVERYONE's throats 24 hours a day through entertainment shows. Liberal news outlets – NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN. Conservative – FOX. And y'all are complaining about talk radio? What you should be talking about is having a man sitting in the oval office using the strong arm tactics of a mobster. He is acting like any mafia gangster who doesn't want people getting in his way. What would a mafia leader do to someone who gets in his way? Get rid of them – and that is what obama is trying to do to Fox because he is mad because they don't grovel at his feet like other news outlets. You are endorsing the loss of freedom of speech. You in the media should be more concerned about a thug trying to take away from freedom of speech and be happy that you have a multitude of outlets to shove your liberal views down the throats ot the American people. And why aren't you spending your time talking about people in this country who think you can't fly the American flag because your community is "diverse." What does that mean? Isn't this still America? If you chose to live in America, why would be offended by the flag. Quit whining because you can't control EVERY SINGLE THING that is said that isn't liberal. You have TONS of liberal outlets. You're sounding like the white house – just whining, whining, whining. You people at CNN, MSNBC, etc. better wake up because this White House is destroying this country.
No – we don't need a new Fairness Doctrine! How far is CNN going to go to protect this President? I never listen to Mr.
Rush Limbaugh or FoxNews until CNN started this campaign against them. I've told you before, you guys are your own worst enemies.
What in the world is so different between this president and all the others that have been hit on? Oh yes, I forgot, CNN helped get this President elected! PS I voted for Mr. Obama – you guys are making me regret it.
If you do some research on the FCC czar you will find out he is a fan of Chavez and his tactics to shut down opposition in the media in Venezula. This is just a ploy to shut down any opposition to Obama. Don't fall into this ploy CNN. Don't be Obama's lapdogs. Be the watchdogs you are supposed to be. This is very scary stuff.
Any attempt by any government body, whether conservative or progressive, to limit free and lawful speech erodes the foundations of personal freedom and liberty in this nation.
I can't understand why any media outlet would be concerned about the form and content of another media. Focus and deliver your content and hope it finds a home. Focusing on dampening down other voices does not serve you or the nation well.
Yellow journalism and sensationalism is more prevalent in modern media. Yellow journalism, in short, is biased opinion masquerading as objective fact. Moreover, the historical practice of yellow journalism involved sensationalism, distorted stories, and misleading images for the sole purpose of boosting newspaper sales and exciting public opinion. It was particularly indicative of two papers founded and popularized in the late 19th century- The New York World, run by Joseph Pulitzer and The New York Journal, run by William Randolph Hearst. Hearst was ridiculed in parody by Orson Wells in CItizen Kane. In many ways yellow journalism has returned today in two cable outlets that present their perspectives 24/7/365.
The FCC/Clinton created this monster by allowing big companies to buy all the local market radio stations and programing them the way they see fit. That's what they get, what did they expect would happen? There is no such thing as "Local Market" anymore.... Here's hoping it will return one day...... Thanks FCC
I've watched many of Carol Costello's interviews, and it is very obvious she is not reporting information as much as she is promoting her biases, trying to lead viewers into her doubts and way of thinking.
As a Bleeding Heart Liberal democrat, I say no we do not need a new fairness doctrine. With only 8 or 9 percent of radio stations that air liberal talk radio, look how good they do in spite of the numbers. They still get the word out.
Besides, the democrats are scared to death of the right anyway and they would be so afraid of what the right would say about them for having done that.
It would be a good thing to see but our spineless democrats do not need the extra baggage to carry and this is after all America.
Talk radio is a free market that puts on programing that people tune into for ratings and the higher the rating the higher the profit. If a program does not generate ratings why should they be forced to carry it?? Sounds unAmerican to me.
What happened to Air America??
We need something. I live in Georgia and I can not even get any liberal talk stations. It is all conservative. And If I want to hear the left take on MSNBC, I have to pay more for it where Fox News the conservative station is with in the price of regular cable.
I actually have to purchase Sirius / XM radio to listen to the left stations. I hear people on those stations frustrated because they can not even get MSNBC in some of there areas.
Everything is conservative talk and some of us who want to hear liberal talk radio cant. Its very frustrating.
Shouldn't airtime be driven by the consumer (ie listener) not regulated by the government? I believe these talk shows are more for entertainment than for actual intellectual content, and should be regulated as such.
On one hand, conservative talk radio is downplayed as entertainment while on the other it is decried for its powerful influence on politics. The discussion concerning the lack of access of liberal talk radio shows strikes me as somewhat ironic. Shouldn't the listener-ship decide what they want to hear? If the ratings are strong and people are listening to conservative talk, why should a radio station want to change its programming? If the liberal talk radio shows want to compete, then let them earn their place on the dial and make enough impact on the radio listening market to get those spots. No one is arguing that the tofu burger market is not getting a fair shake because McDonalds serves billions of customers...
I do not want the Government to use taxpayer money to produce radio, tv, art, or any other media which can be used for propaganda proposes. If this lady wants to go on the radio then she should be talking to her audiance for money support, period. Free speech does not mean she gets a "free ride".
I do not think we need a new fairness doctrine or what has been called "localism" The guest on the show this morning said "I want to be in these markets, just give me a chance" Well, many liberals have been given the chance. Jessie Jackson had a program, many others have had programs. The programs did not survive because they did not generate enough listeners. No company, no matter what there political leanings, is going to keep someone on air who is not getting listeners. What people who are arguing for a new fairness doctrine are arguing for is a destruction of the Free Market system. They want to force company's to put shows on that will not generate either viewers or listeners.
BOTTOM LINE: If you don't want to hear radicals, don't turn on the radio. If you don't want to watch moderates with an overt agenda (ie; liars), don't watch CNN. I feel embarrassed to even have to address this topic in America.
Your segment on The Fairness Doctrine only served to prove that it is not needed. Talk Radio reaches a small fraction of people compared to network and cable news. It would be detrimental to your political views and to TV news if The Fairness Doctrine were FAIRLY reinacted. The majority of TV outlets is, for all practical purposes, owned by Obama and his staff of sensors. If radio were to be sensored (and that's what The Fairness Doctrine would do), then TV MUST BE HELD TO THE SAME STANDARD. Hmm, now THAT would be a refreshing change..."standards" on TV (and that includes CNN).....
Good Morning just a comment on the Radio issue. First we should point out that the media is all owned by the military complex including your station. If anything we should propose it illegal to own a media outlet and be a military contractor. Foe instance
General Electric
$100.5 billion
1998 revenues
Time Warner
$26.8 billion
1998 revenues
The Walt Disney Co.
$23 billion
1998 revenues
Viacom
$18.9 billion
1998 revenues
News Corporation
$13 billion
1998 revenues
Background GE/NBC's ranks No. 1 on the Forbes 500. Prior to its merger with NBC and an alliance with Microsoft, GE specialized in electronics. The peacock owns many New York sports team. It also owns or has equity stakes in many popular websites, including Snap.com and iVillage. The largest media corporation in the world, Time Warner owns film and music production companies, theme parks, sports teams, magazines, websites and book publishers as well as Turner Broadcasting With its 1995 merger with Capital Cities/ABC, Disney has become a fully-integrated media giant. In addition to its theme parks, the company profits from retail outlets, magazines, book publishers, websites, motion pictures, sports teams, TV, cable, radio, music and newspapers. Viacom's purchase of Paramount, CBS and Blockbuster Video enables them to use cable, television, movies, comic books, theme parks, music publishing and book publishing to cross-market their products. Broadcasting alone brings in over $6 billion in revenues. CEO Rupert Murdoch's style has inspired respect and fear, and it has also made his multinational ventures in publishing, television and satellite services very successful. The company owns 20th Century Fox, the New York Post, the London Times, TV Guide, many stadiums, the LA Dodgers and five New York sports teams.
Networks Owned NBC
includes programming, news and more than 13 TV and radio stations
TURNER BROAD-
CASTING
includes sports teams, programming, production, retail, book publishing and multimedia
WB
Television Network
ABC
includes ABC Radio, ABC Video and ABC Network News
CBS
includes stations, CBS Radio, CBS Telenoticias and CBS Network News
UPN
includes programming and TV stations (50%)
FOX
includes programming and stations
Cable Interests Owns 25-50% of the following:
# A & E (with Disney and Hearst)
# American Movie Classics (25%)
# Biography Channel (with Disney and Hearst)
# Bravo (50%)
# Bravo International
# CNBC
# Court TV (with Time Warner)
# Fox Sports Net
# History Channel (with Disney and Hearst)
# Independent Film Channel
# MSG Network
# MSNBC (50%)
# National Geographic Worldwide
# News Sport
# Prime
# Prism (with Rainbow, a subsidiary of Cablevision, and Liberty Media, a subsidiary of TCI)
# Romance Classics
# Sports Channel Cincinnati, Chicago, Florida, New England, Pacific, Ohio, Philadelphia
I can strongly tell you I would never listen to a liberal radio talk show no matter who was on. The only way I would even consider listening to liberal radio is if George Bush was President again and we had to go through that mess again, other than that all liberal radio has to offer is more pandering to minorities! Like never mentioning that 5 black kids setting one white kid on fire, and is somehow justified due to the ills of the past! I`m not responsible for what happened 150 years ago! The more you keep blaming the white man the more divide theres going to be! White people have to walk on egg shells for fear they will be labeled a racist by lily liberals not getting their way! Where are white peoples rights? Is this how we make the past right by punishing the other race 150 years later?
Doesn't the market determine what works and doesn't work? I presume with 'forced' liberal programming some listener market might develop, but at the end of the day, radio station execs will pick the format, the message content and the programming that best delivers ratings.
Nothing in your 'expose' introduces the Economics 101 theory of supply and demand into the discussion. Shame on you for your one sided depiction!
No I don't think we need a fairness doctrine. I think us Liberals need to get on board and make our voices heard. If we put the same time and effort into being heard we would never have a Republican president again,
I hunt and hunt and hunt for talk radio that is even handed and cannot locate a show in the Dallas/Fort Worth area...outside of NPR. It's absolutely essential that we bring back some fairness to this media. I cannot stomach Rush Blimpbaugh or Glenn Sick and would welcome a talk show with half a brain. I don't think it's going to happen so I'll stick with my beautiful satellite radio where I have a choice in what I listen to...not the Republican Nutwigs.
rupert murdoch has been controlling radio and t.v. and newspaper political doctrine for years. maybe it's time we let someone left of center have a shot on a radio station that we don't have to pay for (i.e. sirius/xm)
This is funny...she whines that all "right-wing" radio does is rinse wash and repeat the republican talking points. And liberal radio does not? What about "It's all Bush's fault...last 8 years...War in Iraq...you get the idea. Good news for libs, you will never lose your precious CNN, they will always be in the tank.
I do not like most "conservative" talk radio, but if "liberal" hosts want to get into the market they need to find other ways on aside from getting the government to force them on. After all these are businesses and they have already determined their format and who will be on, so obviously liberals are not going to generate money for them. NPR is out there anyway.
Yes....there should be more fairness on public radio. I enjoy more liberal talk radio however the only way I can enjoy it is buy purchasing xm radio. All of the am stations are conservative and this should not be the case. During Clinton's administration there was a more balance playing of ideas but now there is only one hard pounding of conservative crazy talk.
Carol... are you really concerned about that fool? You're doing a great job and I enjoy watching you on the tube! The Fairness Doctrine does need to return in my opinion to put a clamp on idiots like him. He's a shameful disgrace...
Go Carol!
I think that liberal based broadcast networks can not stand the fact that the silent majority is not being silent anymore. The more the President, his administration, and the liberal based news networks continue to blast the conservative coverage, the more the conservative base will continue to grow (as well as their ratings). keep up the broadcasts and adding fuel to the conservative fire.
I like Carol Costello's reports.
I don't like "localism." It sounds like just another kind of censorship.
Stop trying to demonizing Rush Limbaugh and stop calling him a racist because he doesnt pander to minorities. No what we need is a law that is fair for all races including white! White people are the biggest losers in the economy going south, they are the biggest losers when it comes to fairness. Last year when Bush was in office there were far more liberal radio talk shows than conservative ones, it goes with the territory.! You got Sanchez advocating for illegal immigrants to get a free pass here and suggests that they are NOT here illegally, CNN should be ashamed of themselves! Anything to appease the minority! Lets check Ricks immigration status!