It's not surprising really. Just another example of how the once-proud KXL (once the only station I ever listened to) has just gone to hell in a handbasket, the worst example of a dreary, lackluster radio broadcasting scene.

It's also not surprising that nobody outside of blogs like this really seems to care very much.

It's also not surprising that the "Fairness Doctrine" needs to be brought back. Its repeal forecast the days of the present, when actual fairness is out of style.

About two years ago, Peter Jennings came to town as part of an ABC News project to broadcast the Nighly News from all 50 states over the period of a year.

One part of the network dog and pony show was a "Town Hall" that was moderated by Steve Dunn of KATU news and Jennings. Also appearing were Jeff Kropf and Lars Larsen. There were a pair of progressives who appered as well (whose names escape me at the moment). Kropf and Larsen had all the answers. They were right and everyone else was dead wrong on every topic that came up. The priceless moment came near the end of the show when Peter Jennings put Lars in his place with a simple one liner that said it all.

It was very apparent from watching that program that both Larsen and Kropf are scary people with a very distorted view of the world.

The so-called "fairness doctrine" has no place in a free society. It is a horrible idea with no possible objective method of measurement.

You only clamor for it because it is the one arena where conservative ideology rules. I don't hear you yammering for a fairness doctrine in the newspapers or on blog sites.

Get over yourself.

LC,

We, the people, own the airwaves. It's just as much mine as it is yours, so why give voice to only your perspective? Why allow a business to make money off the public airwaves when they're only representing one set of beliefs?

Broadcasters argue that if government just gets out of the way, the commercial marketplace will produce a marketplace of ideas. Unfortunately, this doesn't happen. The marketplace does not create a broad spectrum of opinion. Instead, it endlessly replicates the same narrow, dumbed-down, shock-jock programs that guarantee eyeballs and eardrums to advertisers.

Arguably, this is a First Amendment issue where citizens have a RIGHT to access a broad spectrum of opinion and information. Obviously, the station owner has a right to free speech, but as long as he uses the public airwaves he's also obligated to protect the rights of the citizenry.

Arguably, this is a First Amendment issue where citizens have a RIGHT to access a broad spectrum of opinion and information.

You heard it here first: the First Amendment REQUIRES censorship! Take that, logic!

JS,

I'm not sure where to start. Maybe with this silly notion of public ownership of the airwaves. Nobody "owns" the airwaves. Our government licenses their use to those who would invest their own resources to use them to turn a profit. Nice deal for the government, they get to charge for a license to broadcast.

At one point, the Government actually owned the internet backbone (now it is mostly privately owned). At that point the "public ownership" argument would have been truly applicable. Do you really believe we would have been better off if the fairness doctrine had been applied to the internet?

And now you have Air America trying to make a buck with its own political agenda. Why not just be happy you have a station that caters to your socialist predilictions?

What would happen if the government required radio stations to give equal time to every competing political ideology? (for example we could allocate 10 minutes out of every hour to consider the fascist position the topic du jour).

The saddest part is that you (and Chuck) have no idea how you sound to the rest of the world with this argument:

Like a couple of whining children.

I visit a lot of conservative blogs and I have never run across a serious discussion of using the government to thwart liberal messages. No one is arguing that Michael Moore's movies should be regulated by the FEC.

Brett: You seem to be confusing "censorship" with "promoting a diversity of ideas and opinions". These things seem contradictory to me, so I'm not sure how you've apparently confused them. Perhaps you should review John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty"?

I'm not advocating for anything except a diversity of information, ideas, and opinions. Something, I think is a good thing, in and of itself.

Oh, and I'm advocating against media outlets shilling for politicians.

Regardless, the current system (as described in the original post) seems to be doing a rotten job on both accounts. I wonder how incentives can be tweaked to encourage a diversity of opinions without censoring anybody?

LC: Would you be singing a different tune if Armed Forces Radio broadcast only Al Franken's talkshow to our soldiers around the world? Are you a big supporter of the fact that Rush Limbaugh's show has been the only talkshow broadcast on AFR for the past decade?

LC:

I visit a lot of conservative blogs and I have never run across a serious discussion of using the government to thwart liberal messages. No one is arguing that Michael Moore's movies should be regulated by the FEC.

Um... dude. You were almost sounding sane until you said that. I know June might seem like a long time ago but try to think back.

What's really annoying is that you're half right about what the actual problem is. It's not about who owns/licenses the airwaves as it is about the scarcity inherent in the current broadcast model. Since most stations are owned by a handful of companies, all we get is lowest-common-denominator crap that is teased and produced to make as much cash as possible.

The solution is to shift the economics around. Look at XM radio. They've got what? 200 channels? And they're still growing. Instead of marketing and building a product to force feed everybody, they hit on the idea of just giving people what they ask for.

Arguably, this is a First Amendment issue where citizens have a RIGHT to access a broad spectrum of opinion and information. Obviously, the station owner has a right to free speech, but as long as he uses the public airwaves he's also obligated to protect the rights of the citizenry.

Tell me this doesn't mean that you believe the First Amendment can be used to force a station owner to broadcast "a broad spectrum of opinion and information," and I'll revise my opinion.

By the way, while we're considering this, we should consider the case of Dave Ross, Democratic candidate for Congress in the Washington 8th, who, until late July, had his own radio talk show, and who still does commentary for.. wait for it.. CBS Radio News.

First one to guess what the subject of his commentaries is gets a gold star.

Who said Dave Ross is right either?

It seems that originally the post is about whether we should have poltical candidates having their own dang news show on the airwaves when they're running a campaign or in office.

Ethically, I think it's wrong, no matter the party. Can we escape bias in news reporting? Of course not. But we can strive to have news departments function apart from other management. We can have bi-partisan editorial boards and editors. We can have a real commitment to journalistic ethics and all the facts--pretty or not.

Of course, market forces have little to do with ethics. Market forces make well-financed campaigns win. Market forces have consolidated media outlets under mostly conservative corporations. Market forces have no doubt reduced the amount of trustworthy news available to the average American--from all political sides.

If you believe this consolidation is right, then by all means, continue on about your business. It's mighty successful, apparently. But if you believe that maybe we've lost a chunk of who we are because there's ultimately fewer and fewer people making decisions about what kind of "mainstream" news we get, then let's talk more.

Dave Ross shouldn't get to tout himself for free on the radio either. This isn't a game of "gotcha".

Re: Arguably, this is a First Amendment issue where citizens have a RIGHT to access a broad spectrum of opinion and information. Obviously, the station owner has a right to free speech, but as long as he uses the public airwaves he's also obligated to protect the rights of the citizenry.

There may be many thing wrong with this paragraph, but advocate for CENSORSHIP it does not. Censorship: the act of suppressing or deleting anything considered objectionable.

I'm advocating for the complete opposite.

The whole point of the First Amendment is Brandeis' point, that the solution to speech you disagree with is more speech. The government has no role whatsoever. When you start limiting what people can say, or requiring "alternative" viewpoints, you are limiting speech, which is the exact opposite of what should happen. Why should the government get involved? What's wrong with an all-Lars-all-the-time station if people listen and if someone wants to own and operate that station? There is no way for government to effectively regulate these issues, and I certainly don't want to pay for it to try.

Pliny,

I agree on the format point. Eventually this argument should fall to the wayside as new technologies eliminate entry barriers to radio. More choices will emerge, but I predict conservative talk will continue to dominate the medium.

As to the other point, FEC vs. Moore: I hadn't forgotten, that was my point. The FEC did take an interest in Moore's movie, but I didn't see any support of it among the conservative bloggers (other than a little "hoisted on their on petard" kind of snickering).

This is because (I believe) conservatives are less inclined to use the force of government against political speech they disagree with than the left (of course, pornography is a different story).