Radio Survivor

Blaming its demise on a decline in radio industry ad revenue for ten consecutive quarters, Air America Media has decided to file under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, effectively ending its six-year broadcasting run as of 9PM EST tomorrow. Created as a liberal / progressive radio response to conservative talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Air America has hosted a number of relatively prominent liberals, such as now United States Senator Al Franken (D-Minnesota) and Rachel Maddow (MS-NBC).

So how have people taken the news? Like any decent blogger, I turned to the Internet to find out.

The fall of Air America Radio is being hailed as a triumph for conservatives, wrapping up a two-day series of unfortunate events for American liberals, including the loss of Senator Ted Kennedy’s seat to Republican Scott Brown and a recent decision by the Supreme Court to essentially destroy all limitations on corporate contributions to political campaigns. Transforming the downfall of Air America Media into a political issue, many conservatives seem to be attempting to use the company’s situation as a symbol for the general decline and failure of liberal talk shows, often citing pay discrepancies and total number of listeners as evidence.

Mark Krikorian, a blogger for the National Review, even went as far as stating, “Air America and Camelot snuffed out in the same week! So maybe the work does not go on, the cause does not endure, the hope does not live, and the dream really can die.”

Are these individuals on to something? Does the fall of Air America symbolize the dominance of conservative talk show hosts over broadcasting? To be honest, I’m not sure, although I’m certain that many individuals disagree with the aforementioned arguments. Regardless, one thing that people seem to agree on is that the fall of Air America was no surprise, particularly with the company’s highly publicized decision to apply for bankruptcy protection in 2006. In 2009 revenue for radio dropped by about 21%.

So, what now? Dana Loesch, a conservative talk show host from St. Louis, seems to believe that liberals will use this event as motivation to renew the Fairness Doctrine. Only time will tell, but it should be interesting.

#8 in our series on radio trends of the decade

It was the summer of 2007. Not moments after the Republican far right triumphed over President Bush’s hated immigration reform law than Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana, introduced a rider to a budgetary bill in the House that would forbid funding for the Federal Communications Commission to enforce the Fairness Doctrine.

The bill overwhelmingly passed the House on Thursday, June 26. This was odd, because the FCC hadn’t enforced the policy in 20 years.

Broadcaster freedom

The Fairness Doctrine was a regulation tailored to the mid-20th century’s Internetless, cable TV-less, three network video broadcasting world. It required license owners to present opposing viewpoints on issues of public importance. In the 1980s the FCC began to pull back from the rule, issuing a “Fairness Doctrine Report” in 1985 that suggested that the policy inhibited rather than encouraged controversial dialog over the air waves.

(more…)

Mark Lloyd

The Federal Communications Commission’s Diversity Officer defended himself this morning from the veritable avalanche of attacks he has sustained since he took his job. Speaking at a Washington, D.C. conference, Mark Lloyd asked to be allowed to “clear away some mud:”

“I am not a Czar appointed by President Obama. I am not at the FCC to restore the Fairness Doctrine through the front door or the back door, or to carry out a secret plot funded by George Soros to get rid of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or any other conservative talk show host. I am not at the FCC to remove anybody, whatever their color, from power. I am not a supporter of Hugo Chavez. The right wing smear campaign has been, in a word – incredible, generating hate mail and death threats. It is the price we pay for freedom of speech. And I do support free speech.”

We’ve been following this story here for a while. The sheer level of hysteria that has followed Lloyd’s tenure has made it all but impossible to have a reasonable debate about his ideas, some of which I agree with, particularly rules encouraging more local media—although I don’t want them in order to ensure more “balance” in programming. (more…)

FCC Fairness Doctrine enforcer, back in the Bad Old Days

Federal Communications Commission Chair Julius Genachowski is in hot water with the right wing talk radio crowd. They’ve discovered that his Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer, Mark Lloyd, is a co-author of that noted and/or notorious study, The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio. So Senator Charles Grassley, Republican of Iowa, has written Genachowski an open letter, expressing worry that Lloyd’s presence at the FCC may signal a return to [insert Vampire flick music here] the Fairness Doctrine, which Genachowski has promised not to bring back.

“I am concerned that despite his statements that the Fairness Doctrine is unnecessary, Mr. Lloyd supports a backdoor method of furthering the goals of the Fairness Doctrine by other means,” Grassley wrote.

This missive was quickly followed by the usual alarmist headlines: New FCC Chief Supports the Fairness Doctrine . . . Fairness Doctrine Raises Its Ugly Head Under New FCC ‘Diversity Czar’ . . . Mark Lloyd: FCC Chief Diversity Officer Seeks to Punish Conservative Broadcasters.

You don’t even have to read these articles to get the idea. Hopefully people will eventually calm down about this stuff. Here’s my attempt at rational thinking on the matter.

Not shutting down perspectives

The FCC upheld the Fairness Doctrine for almost 40 years. It required radio and television stations to provide reasonable access to contrasting points of view. The Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality in 1969. Liberals blame the rightward drift of media on its abandonment by the Commission in 1987. Conservatives says its return would kill free speech—theirs’ in particular (and isn’t that what usually matters most). (more…)

Everybody and their mother who watches Federal Communications Commission politics wrote up pretty much everything proposed FCC Chair Julius Genachowski said at his Senate Commerce Committee nomination hearing on Tuesday. But a lot less got written about the comments of the other nominee: Republican Robert M. McDowell, he up for a reappointment. And even less words appeared about some of the noteworthy things McDowell didn’t say—particularly about the Fairness Doctrine.

“First of all,” began Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas as soon as it was time for questioning McDowell, “on the Fairness Doctrine, that is something that is very important to many people. . . ”

Ban all unbanning

Robert M. McDowell at his senate confirmation hearing

Now, before we continue with Hutchison’s question, let’s step back and make an observation. The fact that the Fairness Doctrine is “very important to many people” is a curiosity to many other people, including me. This FCC rule, which required radio and television stations to offer “reasonable access” to opposing points of view, has been deservedly extinct for 21 years. The President of the United States says he opposes its return. Michael Copps, current Chair of the FCC opposes its return. Genachowski said he won’t bring it back. A few Democrats say they favor it, but there is no bill in the House or Senate calling for its restoration, although an amendment has passed the Senate which would forever ban its being unbanned in the unlikely event somebody actually wanted to unban it, said unbanning the present and future Chairs of the FCC promising not to do (as has already been noted).

(more…)