I encourage Hartmann, Miller, and Schultz to keep working hard for ratings success, but they are nothing compared to Rush, Sean, Levin, Savage, Beck, or many other conservative talkers. There is only one reason to take talk off the air....and no broadcaster takes successful talk off the air - only if it does not commercially succeed. As a radio programmer, my job is to build ratings. You don't take ratings success off the air.

You fail to understand that the FCC is proposing programming advisory boards for radio stations so they can try to force more diversity of opinion onto conservative stations. If that isn't big brother, then I don't know what is. We already have our advisors....listeners. If we have enough, we succeed as conservative talk radio has. If we don't the programming goes away. Air America. Rather than force the FD, this is the new FD they are forcing.....to achieve the same results. No brainer.

If you were really familiar with talk radio, you would know there is no political payola. Republicans don't pay talk stations to air Rush, Sean, Levin, Savage, Beck, and others. Unreal. Advertisers pay and they pay for large audience appeal. Same in music radio. If there is no audience, it goes away. What school did you get this from? I've been in talk radio for 40 years and programmed on the national level. Political payola...wow. Stay on the music side and on the internet.

CMB - you are naive. When the Fairness Doctrine was enforced, there were only 125 talk stations in America. Today, there are 2000. Applying the FD to open up other forms of speech is un-necessary - the liberal point of view is seen and heard in all other forms of media and conservative talk is only a very small piece of the overall media pie. It is the balance. And, there is only one form of valid censorship - the right of the individual to self - censor not government.

Exactly. If they truly believed in no speech regulation of the airwaves, they would have voted on it. To do otherwise, sends the opposite message and is un-American. It's a no brainer if you believe in the First Amendment. As for Democrats who favor the Fairness Doctrine, try these: Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Charles Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Maurice Hinchey, Louise Slaughter, Diane Feinstein, Richard Durbin, Jeff Bingaman, Henry Waxman, Tom Harkin, Debbie Stabenow. That's just starters and it's time to label them as they are - tyrants. For a further explanation of what this is all about, here's this link:

http://www.ntsmediaonline.com/?p=7934&utm_sou...

If you have suspicions about the wealthy and powerful interests that dominate the AM band, know the only reason they broadcast conservative talk is because it works. Liberal talk hasn't. We are in business to make money and therefore we broadcast what works. What works is determined by the self-censorship of the individual. If he/she doesn't like it, they turn it off. We are responding to what people want to hear. If a product doesn't sell, we take it off the shelves. Otherwise we give them what they want.

Fair question. This amendment along with the previous Broadcaster Freedom Act would ban any restoration of the Fairness Doctrine and any "stealth" measures (sons of the FD) that would impact free speech. To that end, there are proposals such as required "localism" and "community advisory boards" for radio stations now supported by the FCC. Radio professionals are totally against requiring advisory boards because they represent big brother looking over their shoulder and would have alot of weight when license renwals are up for review. That is censorship in a stealth manner and it accomplishes the goal of the Fairness Doctrine. While the Democrats say they don't favor the Fairness Doctrine, they have dressed it in new clothes - localism and advisory boards, and tougher license renewal definitions. I hope this helps. Thank you.

I believe they will try to shorten the term of a broadcast license, provide tax incentives to broadcasters to release some of their stations for minorities, and perhaps consider localism quotas - although I think the diversity of ownership issue is the key one. Bottom line: Redistributes the media...common theme, huh?

You are right and I know better. Thank you.

Wouldn't it be simple of the Supreme Court stated that any content regulation is unconstitutional. Then, they FCC's mission would be simply defined and where it should be. Great explanation and analysis on your part. Thank you.