Pajamas Media

The Talk-O-Sphere: Why the Empire is Striking Back with the Fairness Doctrine

With all the fuss about the power of the blogosphere, influential talk radio hosts and their loyal audiences remain a thorn in the side of the political and media establishment. PJM Washington editor Richard Miniter takes the pulse of talk radio and finds it going strong - too strong for some.

August 1, 2007 - by Richard Miniter

Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers

NEW YORK-It’s pushing 1 a.m. at an East Side smoke-easy called Merchants NY, when Steve Gill tells me why he is delighted that he lost his race for Congress in 1994.

With another 800 votes he would have won, but, he says, Tennessee would have lost. “If I was sitting in Congress right now, Tennessee would have an income tax,” he said.

Gill is now a popular radio talk show host, whose 16 affiliates blanket the Volunteer State. He transformed his popular statewide radio show audience into an activist network that repeatedly ringed the state capitol building with angry voters, protesting the proposed state income tax. Ultimately, Gill’s listener-activists (and those of other Tennessee talk radio shows) blocked the bi-partisan consensus of the state’s governor and legislature to enact the tax, which seemed inevitable only months earlier.

Every major newspaper, civic group and network TV affiliate had supported the income tax, but they were no match for the “people power” which Gill is certain he could never have rallied as a congressman.

Both he and Tennessee are better off when he is on the radio, he concludes.
After Gill was approached about running in 2008, he asked his wife how she would vote. “Undecided,” she said. Why? “Half the pay [of radio] and double the expenses [a house in DC and Tennessee].”

Talk radio is for conservatives what trial lawyers are for liberals: a source of influence, activist ideas and new talent. And, like law, radio pays well too.

While a lot of ink has been spilled about the political power of the Blogosphere-the press has largely ignored the grassroots power of the Talkosphere. Talk radio is now what bloggers may become in 2008-a political force to be reckoned with.

The power of Gill and the hundreds of talk-show hosts across the country like him-hosts with audiences that act like armies-is scaring several elites simultaneously, sending a frisson of fear through the media and political power pyramids. Establishment media-big-city newspapers, public television, network television and national magazines-don’t like the idea of competition. It’s not simply that they fear losing audience or advertising dollars. What annoys editors most is the informed second-guessing and blog-style feedback coming from radio listeners. “Why aren’t you covering this story? Why did you leave out this salient fact?”

How did this scary talk-radio monster emerge? Its “Dr. Frankenstein” was named Mark S. Fowler, President Reagan’s FCC chairman, who led the fight to end the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” a 1967 provision that required radio and TV outlets to provide “equal time” to any “responsible opposing view.”

This historic provision had made it too costly, in terms of lost airtime and ad dollars, to run anything that might trigger a “fairness doctrine” response. So commercial radio became an opinion dead-zone, bland morning chatter on one end and “shock jock” antics at the other.

Didn’t the “fairness doctrine” limit the free speech rights of broadcasters? Of course it did — but back then, the fact that government-licensed broadcasters and spectrum was believed to be limited provided cover for courts to side with the FCC. (Today, of course, digital frequencies are poised to create a spectrum that is practically infinite.)

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the doctrine in a 1969 case (Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC), but later seemed to have second thoughts. Chief Justice Warren Burger, writing a unanimous Supreme Court decision (Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo) in 1974, found “government-enforced right of access inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate.” By 1984, the Supreme Court explicitly backed away from the scarcity of spectrum argument as a rationale for the fairness doctrine, in FCC v. League of Women Voters. The appeals courts and the Fowler FCC began chipping away at the doctrine. By August 1987, the FCC had abolished it-except for two tiny provisions that lingered until 2000, when the courts finished it off.

Congress never liked Fowler’s crusade against the “fairness doctrine.” It tried to head off the FCC’s planned repeal, by passing a measure in June 1987, enshrining the doctrine in law. President Reagan vetoed it. Democrats tried again in 1991, only to be dissuaded by a veto threat from President George H.W. Bush. Following their 2006 triumph, Democrats are once again considering restoring the “fairness doctrine.” Once again, we can expect a Bush veto.

Fowler, in effect, created a market for talk radio-and slowly changed the media climate. In the “fairness doctrine” days, a big-city newspaper editor could sniff and say: “We’re not covering it because no one else is.” Now he has to debate the story on the merits and - horrors! - sometimes cover politically inconvenient news stories.

Public and network news, which largely follow the lead of the front pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post, share, by osmosis, their discomfort with talk radio. (Just ask Dan Rather what he thinks of The Hugh Hewitt Show.)

Two other key members of the media establishment-National Public Radio and Manhattan-based book publishers-are on the fence when it comes to talk radio.

While NPR doesn’t have a “Rush Room” in its sprawling Massachusetts Avenue headquarters and its executives probably don’t drive home listening to Mark Levin or Michael Savage, the network knows that bringing back the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” will not be good for “Morning Edition” and “All Things Considered,” let alone some of its liberal lions like talk show host Diane Rehm. Would NPR really want to air a “responsible opposing view” for every stray comment on its airwaves?

NPR, by the way, is proof that the old saying that “liberals can’t make it on talk radio” is dead wrong. It is just that liberal radio audience already tunes it to NPR; they don’t need another network.

Liberal hosts who manage to attract an audience on commercial radio, like Randi Rhodes, do it by being very, very funny. At Talker’s, a yearly confab for the talk radio industry, she quipped: “I thought it would be just like the old days, with Don Imus working the room… except this time he would be picking up cups and plates.”
For what it’s worth, Air America, the ultimate attempt at lefty talk radio, is against the ‘fairness doctrine.’ Air America Radio personality Thom Hartmann writes in “CTA Aircheck,” an industry publication:

“The “progressive has failed” frame is simply wrong. In just three short years, our format has gone from a small handful of progressive stations to 10% of the talk radio content of this country. If I’d started a soda pop business in my garage and in three years had taken 10% of Coca Cola’s market, my picture would be on the cover of Forbes! Nobody thinks of Apple as a failure, but they only have 4.8% of the U.S. computer market, and that’s taken them 20 years! What if a new music format had taken 10% of the radio market in just three years? Everybody would be talking about it, it’d be moving onto bigger and bigger sticks, and programmers would be figuring out how to clone it in every local market across the country! Conservative Talk radio didn’t catch on instantly, either. We don’t need no stinkin’ Fairness Doctrine, and we don’t need to be lectured by failing talk show hosts. We just need a few more industry pros to take seriously the very real accomplishments and the ongoing potential of this format as it matures. Add to that a few shots at bigger sticks, industry jargon for radio towers dedicated sales forces, and decent imaging and promotion, and maybe we’ll be 20% within the next three years!”

Manhattan-based publishers have a love-hate relationship with talk radio. While the major houses are peopled with liberals who find little to like on the most popular (conservative) radio shows, they know that talk radio alone can transform an also-ran into a bestseller.

Sandy Frazier is a public relations maven who specializes in pushing books to talk radio hosts. “Oh my God! It’s my whole life!” she exclaims, explaining that she has been promoting books for almost a decade. “There is more potential for raising book sales on talk radio than any other media, including cable TV,” she said, “unless your name is Oprah.” She cited one sleeper book, “An Enormous Crime,” about American POWs left behind in Indochina, that debuted at number 34 on The New York Tines best-seller list-without a single TV mention or review in a major publication. “It was all radio,” she said.

Establishment politicians hate talk radio for the same reason they loathe the National Rifle Association; they fear a force that can motivate millions of voters who do not want to compromise on a particular political principle.

At Talkers, there was a lot of debate about just how free free-speech is. Of course, the context was Don Imus.

James Derby, the program manager at KLX, Lars Larson’s home, said the station has two time delays on nationally syndicated series. “How many does Mark Master [president of Talk Radio Network] have on Savage? Four or five?” Master’s response was inaudible, but funny.

Depressingly, Heather Cohen, director of programming of GreenStone Media, seemed to sum up the consensus: “When in doubt, leave it out.” “Employers should leave us to find if Imus did his job,” she said. One common observation from radio personalities in the audience was that Imus was a known quality. He had been a shock jock for decades. In fact he was paid to be edgy.

It wasn’t the advertisers or the executives, or even Al Sharpton, that cost Imus his job. It was political correctness at CBS in New York. Perry Michael Simon, the news/talk editor of All Access, pointed out that CBS employees handed out a book called “Words Can Hurt” and circulated a petition to end Imus’ CBS career. Next they brought in agent provocateur, David Brock and a blogger who has been documenting Imus excesses for over a decade.

Perhaps the strongest voice for Imus and for free speech came from David Bernstein, the vice president of Air America. “I don’t mean to be the contrarian, but the dude got f—–d.” After the session I talked to Bernstein, and he said he was surprised that on a panel of distinguished radio hosts and executives he was the only one to take the free speech position. When I asked him why conservatives weren’t more critical of employees that demanded Imus’ demise, he said “I don’t understand conservatives.” He thought that self-censorship could be as bad as the “fairness doctrine.” If CBS employees have a problem with Imus’ words, “they should leave.”

If it weren’t for the continual spectre of the Fairness Doctrine, the future of talk radio couldn’t be brighter. Satellite radio, iPods and cell phones will soon be the dominant supplier of music. “Music on FM is dead. What happens in three years when every cell phone is a smart iPod?” asks Mark Masters, the chief executive of Talk Radio Network. Or ask the question this way, how many people carry a radio? And how many people carry a cell phone?

The night before Sean Hannity had bought a round of drinks for a clutch of radio superstars and executives, and I tagged along. At that gathering, Masters was even more bullish when we went outside to smoke a cigar. He imagined a day in the next few years, he said, when talk radio is delivered in FM stereo and doesn’t just comment on the news — but drives it.

Only Congress can stop him now. But the truth is that even if they are foolish enough to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine and overcome a presidential veto, such a law couldn’t successfully stem the audience surge towards talk radio. It would merely simply redirect the tide to the Internet, where Congress has next to no power at all.

You can try to fight the future - but you can’t win.

29 Comments

Will:

Liberal talk radio can’t make it on their own,so that makes them whinning babies,saying it’s not fair.

Aug 1, 2007 - 12:21 pm Linda Frank:

Liberal talk radio already exists and is doing just fine. It’s called NPR.

Aug 1, 2007 - 12:28 pm Frank Byrne:

NPR proof that the old saying that “liberals can’t make it on talk radio” is dead wrong? Are you kidding me? At best it is a rather lengthy stretch to consider them a success so long as their existence depends governmrent funding. I seriously doubt they would have the audience they enjoy without it.

Aug 1, 2007 - 3:31 pm Flash Gordon:

Liberal ideas stink so bad they can’t defend them in open debate, so they try to muzzle anyone who disagrees with them. The Democrat party takes offense if not referred to as the “Democratic” party, but why should anyone call them “Democratic” when they are about as undemocratic as they could possibly be.

Aug 1, 2007 - 9:05 pm Uncle Mikey:

Randi Rhodes is about as funny as stepping on a rusty nail. NPR sucks and couldn’t compete in the real world.

Aug 1, 2007 - 10:15 pm Dave:

For 50 years conservatives have had short shrift when it comes to fair representation of their ideas in the media - and you never heard them demand a legislative “fix”. But when they finally make a tiny inroad vis-a-vis talk radio, the liberals want to legislate the conservative voices back into the abyss.

Funny, I thought liberals were all for free speech and open dialogue.

Aug 1, 2007 - 11:28 pm DWPittelli:

Frank Byrne “it is a… stretch to consider [NPR] a success so long as their existence depends governmrent funding. I seriously doubt they would have the audience they enjoy without it.”

Actually, government funding is a pretty small portion of their money (reportedly, 1% for NPR itself; and 15% for its average member station, but up to two-thirds for a few rural stations). Of course, that fact is another reason why the government can and should stop funding them altogether.

Aug 2, 2007 - 3:46 am Larry J:

The Soviets had a saying, “What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is negotiable.”

In TV, liberals already have the news departments of ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, PBS and CNBC. That’s why they can’t stand Fox. They already have most of the newspapers. But the Fairness Doctrine won’t affect TV or the newspaper, only radio. And the only reason why is because they can’t compete on radio.

Aug 2, 2007 - 4:28 am JabbaTheTutt:

I don’t quite understand this point:
“When I asked him why conservatives weren’t more critical of employees that demanded Imus’ demise, he said “I don’t understand conservatives.”"

Rush has been talking about the “Flush Rush” bill for years. Hannity rails against the Fairness Doctrine. Maybe Conservatives didn’t criticize CBS employees more, because one, they didn’t know about it and two, they aren’t surprised that the Stalinists at CBS want to suppress free speech. It would be like criticizing the weather.

Aug 2, 2007 - 5:14 am Rick C:

“Nobody thinks of Apple as a failure, but they only have 4.8% of the U.S. computer market, and that’s taken them 20 years!”

And 10 years ago they had 8% market share, so they’re not exactly a good example.

Aug 2, 2007 - 5:36 am Michael Seifert:

I think the Dems will be shocked when they find that not only the liberals on talk radio will oppose them, but most of the Hollywood writers and producers as well. What would happen to ABC is it were forced to offer large blocks of prime time to allow ‘reasonable response’ to Boston Legal, Brothers & Sisters and others?

So many writers have joined the industry post Fairness Doctrine, that they don’t even realize how carefully older shows avoided political commentary.

Aug 2, 2007 - 5:46 am Jon D.:

10% of the talk radio content means that 10% of the stations that broadcast talk radio are broadcasting liberal content — but that does not mean anyone is listening, as evidenced by their actual listener numbers.

Aug 2, 2007 - 6:09 am Paul B:

Looking at the comments it’s clear that the Right has poor reading comprehension.

The liberal talkers quoted are AGAINST the fairness doctrine - they aren’t “whinning”

As has been pointed out, NPR depends very little on government funds, though it doesn’t follow that this is a reason for cutting those funds. If it’s so small then one could argue with equal merit it doesn’t hurt anything to leave it the way it is. That being said, even if NPR’s finances went to 100% listener supported it would still likely have a huge audience since they are wealthier and better educated than the hayseeds and ham & eggers that listen to Rush or Savage.

Aug 2, 2007 - 7:12 am Jorge:

The quote from the 1974 Miami Herald case should say “variety of public DEBATE,” not “public defense.”

[That’s correct; fixed now. Thanks for alerting — ed.]

Aug 2, 2007 - 7:57 am Frank Byrne:

DWPitelli,

Thank you for the numbers. I was aware of the local percentage but did not know the national was so low. Does that account for subsidies from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting too?

Much of this is moot because where NPR is concerned the amount actually recieved is not nearly as important as the aura it facilitates. The government umbilical cord automatically places NPR firmly and unquestionably in the pro-government camp and by doing so it creates the illusion that they are the defacto “National” house organ. In terms of dollars I stand corrected, they could survive without those amounts. But on the idea their prestige and auhority would be anywhere near where it is without the government umbilical cord I will never be convinced otherwise.

Aug 2, 2007 - 9:10 am DaMav:

The failure to fund NPR is one of the great failures of conservatism in America. And not simply because of its liberal to far left ultra bias. It is an affront that our tax dollars should be used to subsidize a player in such a commercially viable market.

NPR is replete with not only left wing ideology, but self congratulatory phoniness. They are not “non commercial”. Listen to them and you will hear a constant string of 10 and 20 second sound bytes touting their sponsors products and services.

There was a time, not that long ago, when conservative Republicans promised us this would end. What happened?

Aug 2, 2007 - 9:55 am dbjack46:

I truely enjoy the energy and passion of spirited debate between the various elements of informed and cogent viewpoints. Successful talk radio formats that purportedly lean to the right provide that service. Venues such as Air America and MSNBC, on the other hand, rarely broadcast or engage diverse or dissenting opinions from conservatives except to ridicule and demean the opposition.

As a result, the American listening and viewing public, irrespective of their educational achievements, understands this and has given conservative talk and cable TV shows their high ratings.

Aug 2, 2007 - 10:24 am Victor Erimita:

Only a small part of NPR’s funding comes from the federal government. Though the amount is disuputed (some say as high as 15%, others as low as low single digits,) the overwheling majority of NPR funding comes from non-federal sources. I personally object in principle to any public funding for unbalanced ideological content and think federal funding of public broadcasting should end. But saying NPR could not exist without federal funding is just incorrect

They get about half their funding from local affiliates (mostly listener contributions) and most of the rest from foundations. This is a different system of support than the commercial sponsor system found in non-public conservative talk radio. But it is not more than nominally taxpayer-funded either.

Aug 2, 2007 - 10:59 am wayne:

Let’s face it: the whole “Fairness Doctrine crap is not merely a Democrat attack on Conservative talk radio (most specifically Rush Limbaugh).

There are more forces involved in this frey than just one side.This is a matter of “blue-blood” politics verses a very loud and effective populist voice.

The worst possible thing that the “blue-blood” politicians (the old-school gang that runs Congress, i.e. McCain, Kennedy, Reid, etc.) have always feared is that talk radio could motivate the public to revolt against something the ruling elites wanted: in this case unfettered illegal immigration to create a worker/servant class that does not talk back or demand wages and benefitsw.

The story about what they were planning got brought to the public fore and was killed by an outraged AND INFORMED public.

The problem posed by folks like Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O’reilly, and others was shown in glaring clarity when they informed and exhorted their followers to flame blast the Congress to stop the latest amnesty for illegals.

This barrage of annoyance and out right disaffection by the little public serfs is infuriating to the blue-bloods. The public is not supposed to interfere with their plans and when the interference was lead from the thorn in their side of talk radio, it just motivates them all to move to shut up the offenders.

Aug 2, 2007 - 11:16 am Jon12:

Not even getting into the Fairness Doctrine debate, (I really don’t feel that strongly about it) I will stand up for NPR. Considering NPR as some sort of liberal antithesis of FOX talk radio is insane. 95% of NPR is strait, high quality news and human interest stories…in no way can it be compared with either FOX talk or Air Amer. (both of which I regularly listen to as well). So as a person that still values news given without opinionated rants, leave NPR alone. No one that I’ve spoken to who hates NPR for its liberalness has ever spent a good time listening to it. It’s pretty fair and balanced. Really.

Aug 2, 2007 - 1:59 pm Orion:

That comes next.

Aug 2, 2007 - 3:53 pm xoff:

The Fairness Doctrine did not require “equal time”, despite the author putting it in quotes as though that language came from the Fairness Doctrine.

“There are many misconceptions about the Fairness Doctrine. For instance, it did not require that each program be internally balanced, nor did it mandate equal time for opposing points of view. And it didn’t require that the balance of a station’s program lineup be anything like 50/50.” — FAIR

Aug 2, 2007 - 6:18 pm Patrick Villella:

I suggest that the Senate institute the “fairness” doctrine by declaring that no Senator may be interviewed twice before all other Senators are given access to the public airwaves once. There are 100 Senators, but the media only give air time to Schumer or Leahy or some other media hound. Hence, only the most partisan Senators are given a voice and the more circumspect Senators are ignored. Same rule for the House. It seems to be more “fair”.

Aug 3, 2007 - 9:16 am Cato:

[QUOTE]Not even getting into the Fairness Doctrine debate, (I really don’t feel that strongly about it) I will stand up for NPR. Considering NPR as some sort of liberal antithesis of FOX talk radio is insane. 95% of NPR is strait, high quality news and human interest stories…in no way can it be compared with either FOX talk or Air Amer. (both of which I regularly listen to as well). So as a person that still values news given without opinionated rants, leave NPR alone. No one that I’ve spoken to who hates NPR for its liberalness has ever spent a good time listening to it. It’s pretty fair and balanced. Really.
[/quote]

So says the liberals listening to it. I do listen to NPR and it is HORRIBLY liberal. The problem is that most of the hosts, producers, and reports have internalized their bias that they do not even know it is there. People who listen and agree consider themselves to be “middle of the road” only because the liberal media keeps repeating that liberal views are “middle of the road.” “Straight” news is in the eye of the beholder.

I am no “conservative.” I am an American that loves my constitutionally protected liberty and freedom. The debate about the “fairness doctrine” is not about left and right—it is about those in power intent on keeping their power, and the voices of the people.

Both democrats AND republicans support the fairness doctrine. Republicans are still reeling over the Dubai ports deal and are steaming over the failed border bill. Heaven forbid that the people actually organize and make their voices heard.

The people that support the fairness doctrine are the same people that want to stop the ACLU and NRA from running issue ads.

Those that support the “fairness” doctrine are nothing but elitist authoritarians who have nothing but contempt for Jo or Jane blow or their viewpoints. Hell might freeze over if the public is actually informed about the “content” of a bill in Congress (rather than the candy coated packaging as presented by CNN).

Leaders might actually be forced to be accountable to the public if the public is given means to voice their viewpoint. They might even be subject to recall if they vote against the wishes of their constituents and follow the party line.

At the end of the day talk radio (whether left or right) and issue groups such as the ACLU and NRA are the only effective means ordinary citizens have of making their viewpoint known to members of congress and exerting pressure on them.

Those that favor the fairness doctrine do so because “they know better” than the people. How dare the people expect them to listen to their wishes. The ordinary citizen is too stupid to understand the “complexed and nuanced issues” with which Congress has to deal.

They beleive they were elected to decide whats in the best interest of the people rather than represent the people.

Aug 3, 2007 - 1:55 pm PMain:

It is my understanding that NPR does not have to report its numbers & if true, no one can reasonable claim that it could stand on its own. Frankly I doubt very much that it could given the outright failure of Air America.

Aug 3, 2007 - 2:26 pm Mar:

Talk radio is the cornerstone for conservative ideology. Liberal ideology is scattered across the web now with no cornerstone or moral standard. Talk radio will always be a solid base for conservative patriots for many years to come, and liberals will cling to anything that will help them spread their propaganda. ex: YouTube.com. whats next? Nickelodean.com?

For the record, any new cool technological advancement that the internet makes will be surely invaded by liberal propaganda

Aug 3, 2007 - 3:24 pm pete:

I listen to radio a lot. Perhaps 4 hours per day. Percentage wise, I listen to about 75% conservative talk, about 20% music of various variety, and about 5% NPR, mostly on weekends.

I enjoy NPR in general. They have good stories and sometimes very interesting guests, and good music. Balanced? Not in my opinion. I”l listen to Rush for the balance to NPR.

On NPR, I have never heard a good word for Bush. On the contrary. It’s almost a ritual that Bush and his administration must be “bashed” as if it’s a foregone conclusion. Often the rhetoric on NPR reminds me of the rhetoric of SDS (Student For a Democratic Society) from the 60’s and 70’s anti-war movement.

Not that I have anything personal againt communists. I just don’t want to be one.

Aug 4, 2007 - 3:35 pm Mr. Personality:

The Fairness Doctrine is a very bad idea. Both liberals and conservatives should be allowed to voice opinions without government censorship. If nobody listens to liberal talk radio, liberals have no one to blame but themselves for putting forth bankrupt ideas and positions.

Aug 4, 2007 - 7:20 pm James Derby:

Rich,
First off love your work-& your appearances on FOX. I wanted you to know your paraphrase/quote from me at TALKERS is not exactly correct. I said we have “2 delay switches” one for Lars and one for our board op. I just don’t think it’s fair to put the entire load of responsiblity on a board op. The host should (and in Lars’ case-wants to) take some of the responsibility.
Also, you praise Bernstien’s response on the Imus issue and I wish you (and every other first amendment fan) would reconsider what you’re saying/thinking. Two wrongs don’t make a right-and that’s essentially what the PD of Air America was saying: “We should back Imus for his racist and sexist remarks, because we knew what he was about all along”. Ok, that doesn’t make the situation right. My point (on the issue) was that I wouldn’t have tolerated the lame comments years ago, but clearly Imus was working without managment’s input/care. So he shouldn’t of been surprised when they ran away from him and his comments. Thank you for listening.
Sincerely,
James Derby
Program Director
Newsradio 750 KXL

Aug 6, 2007 - 4:02 pm