More on the FD

['iraapple']

All other arguments aside, it never was a matter of EQUAL TIME. That is
another canard by the extreme right.  

EQUAL TIME was only for political candidates. It was never part of the FD.
Yet this item about EQUAL TIME keeps showing up in arguments against the FD
as a method to alarm anyone with sense who would know that insisting on
equal time against every opinion would be impossible.

There are legitimate arguments against the FD, but EQUAL TIME is not one of
them.

Ira Apple




-----Original Message-----
From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org
[mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf Of
Bob Nelson
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 11:00 AM
To: radiojunkie3@yahoo.com; Sid Schweiger; A. Joseph Ross
Cc: boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org
Subject: RE: More on the FD

Peter wrote:

>>It's something (the FD) who's time has come and gone. 
Good riddance! There are so many new avenues today for expressing 
differing opinions including the Internet and stations like WBAI, 
KPFA, WWCR and more, that the need for a so-called "Fairness 
Doctrine" is pretty much moot.  

Exactly! And Rush is indeed doing it, as you say, for the ratings and to get
his name
in the news once again.

>>there is NO need to insist that 
every single media outlet (including radio or TV stations) have to 
provide "equal time" to every "Tom, Dick, Jane or Harry". 

Picture a liberal talk station being told to give equal time to
conservatives. How about public radio, too? A few years ago the NPR
morning show, IIRC, decided to have a conservative on for seven
minutes once a week, I believe. They were bombarded with complaints from
listeners (how DARE they!) SEVEN MINUTES! Now imagine if conservative
opinions got even
more time from NPR. Imagine your Joe Sixpack right wing host suddenly
showing up on WBUR to lambaste illegal immigration, waste and
corruption in government, gay marriage, et al. HORRORS!!
But hey, let them run what they want. (How would people feel if their
donations to their NPR station were suddenly paying for...a host not
much different than Michael Savage?)

Let the free market decide. Radio can't help it if people didn't want to
flock to what one _liberal_ on a messageboard once called "the
molasses-dripped
voice of Al Franken". What works, works! I'd hope program directors, etc.,
would be willing to give talk hosts of any stripe a chance but the
government shouldn't force it.

>> For the 
most part, many stations DO provide for opposite opinions, already. 
It's part the free enterprise system, and it works.... pretty damn 
well. 

There's a little something called callers, who hopefully will make
it past the call screener. A good example is the left-leaning
"Steve from Montreal" on Howie's show, though admittedly Howie
has said he might make his show a "Steve-free zone" the rest of
the week. (But he was allowed on the air numerous times. I think
he calls every day!) Heard some of the callers when Avi Nelson filled in for
Howie,
disputing him?

Other opinions ARE heard on talk radio. They may be shouted down
or made fun of but could you imagine how dull a show would be if
all you had was a host and callers who agree on every...single...issue?

So the government has someone in the control room with a stop watch.
"OK, cut off that caller. He's had three minutes. Now put on a liberal
caller, line three. We have to give equal time to everybody."

Would a religious radio station be forced to air opinions from
atheists (or a religion besides their own?) How about the government
stipulating "The KKK Hour" air on WILD?

>>NOW, 
it's President Obama's turn to show what HE is made of. Give the 
guy (and his cabinet) a chance to do the job.  If he DOESN'T, 
there's ALWAYS a ballot box in 2012.  I hope he succeeds.

Agreed!--Bob