Re: [IRCA] It's more than IBOC..

["W. Curt Deegan" <WWWR@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you for your views Rick.  You certainly read a lot into what I wrote.

I am aware of what was written at the time the FCC abandoned the 
policy, thanks for asking.  I am also aware the policy was modified 
several times before then as a result of legal opinions.  But that is 
all beside the point.

My point was not the fairness doctrine itself, but what it 
represents, the threat of government oversight of content and the 
potential impact that could have on the viability of AM radio.  If 
you are unconcerned by that, that's your prerogative.

I did not mentioned any particular viewpoint, liberal or 
conservative, though you seem to have some mystical ability to 
ascribe such to me.  It is repression about which I wrote and once it 
starts all viewpoints are threatened.

I'm sure others before were called alarmist and naive, who now wish 
they had shown more concern before their voices were silenced.  But 
if even only some stations find it economically infeasible to face 
the potential losses of revenue added government burdens would 
impose, then that is the concern I was expressing.

I would prefer this not be taken to a personal level, any more than 
it already has.

W. Curt Deegan


At 09:30 PM 10/9/2007, you wrote:
>Curt,
>Sorry, but I think you've been listening to Chicken Licken. I doubt that
>it'll actually happen, but if the fairness doctrine were reestablished
>today, it wouldn't cause radio stations to abandon talk.
>In fact, both liberal and conservative views were on the air while the
>fairness doctrine was in effect.
>You seem to be especially concerned that conservative talk would be
>threatened, but look at history, not propaganda, and you'll find that
>conservative talk radio and the fairness doctrine coexisted well.
>In L.A. alone, (the major market I know best), in the 60s you had Joe Pyne
>Ray Briem and Bob Grant on radio and George Putnam, Sam Yorty, Wally George
>and Bob Dornan were all on TV while the fairness doctrine was in place.
>Programs like Dr. Stewart McBurney's Voice of Americanism and Lifeline, a
>conservatively based religious program funded by, and spreading the views of
>H.L. Hunt also came into being during the fairness-doctrine years.
>Opposing the fairness doctrine is your choice, of course. But when we talk
>about such things, it pays to view a policy in historical context to see if
>dire predictions will really hold up.
>  Every city I can think of had a wide spectrum of opinion on the air, and
>talk was number one in Los Angeles and San Francisco for two decades before
>the abolition of the fairness doctrine.
>This is something you can research for yourself. Whether it comes from the
>left or the right, I think the public is getting tired of apologists on the
>air who don't evaluate leaders and policies objectively. I think that talk
>radio has more to fear from itself than from any outside source. Radio and
>TV aren't the only games in town anymore. I believe that in the coming
>years, if radio continues to emphasize controversy for its own sake and
>employ hosts who never question the politicians and parties they support,
>_that'll( be what marginalizes talk radio as a format.
>--
>Rick


_______________________________________________
IRCA mailing list
IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/irca

Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers

For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org

To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx