Posted on 11/13/2008 10:19:41 AM PST by NCjim
The DC Examiner has a troubling editorial today on a new rule being proposed by Bush's FCC that would represent a threat to the unfettered marketplace of ideas on talk radio while in practice, giving power to anti-free speech elements to dictate what can be broadcast.
As free speech advocates gear up to oppose revival of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” another Orwellian-named government effort to dictate the content of radio and TV news and opinion has been hatched by the Bush administration’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC). So far, there’s been much less focus on the “localism rule” – even though it would have a similar chilling effect on First Amendment rights.
Under the FCC’s proposed regulations, owners of radio and TV stations would become subject to permanent advisory boards whose members – aka “community organizers” - would be chosen according to politically correct multi-cultural nostrums requiring representation of all “stakeholders.” These boards would be empowered by the FCC to decide if stations were airing a “sufficient amount of community-responsive programming”- with neither “sufficient” nor “responsive” defined. A negative advisory board finding could mean loss of a station owner’s broadcasting license.
The proposed regulations would also require broadcasters to maintain a 24/7 physical presence at broadcasting facilities, limit their use of celebrity “voice tracking” and network programming, require them to fund journalism schools, and give their music playlists to the FCC. Whatever else might be the FCC’s intention with this proposal, it is clear its application would vastly increase the cost of operating a station, while reducing the economic and editorial freedom of the owner. To what end? Experts warn that such rules will kill talk radio – one of the few mass media that favors conservatives. But more is at stake here than protecting the right of 12 million Americans to continue tuning in to Rush Limbaugh on the radio.
Indeed, the chances are very good that these "stakeholders" who would oversee the political content on radio stations could fairly easily call into question a broadcaster's commitment to a “sufficient amount of community-responsive programming" by urging some of their allies to complain to Big Brother at the FCC. It is likely that some stations would drop talk radio altogether rather than risk the hassle of dealing with an FCC challenge to their programming content.
In the end, the effect would be exactly the same as the Fairness Doctrine; conservative talk radio would end up subsidizing liberal programming due to the left's inability to develop mass market appeal in the medium.
The FCC can read the election returns as well as anybody. No doubt some of those folks want to keep their jobs after Obama takes office. Is this rule an effort to pander to the new administration? If so, it doesn't bode well for the future of free speech under Obama.
Ok, I see your point that local community news wouldn’t normally heavily weigh very conservative or liberal, but how do you keep that advisory board from using their power to silence programming that has nothing to do with the local community like talk radio.
Once they have the power to pull the plug, a broadcaster would be beholden to everything they request, whether it has to do with local programming or not. All they have to do is drop a few hints that limbaugh could be replaced by more local programming. And the radio station knows they have to drop talk radio or face charges.
It seems to me that if they go down this road at all, they need to define what constitutes local community programming and how much is required, and what documentation is required. And they need an appeal process in the event of unfavorable board rulings.
I asked once before... why can’t a station do the conserv/lib balanced format but supplement advertising dollars with donations/fund raisers so that they can afford to stay on the air? I know I would donate. Run the lib garbage in the off hours with conserv talk on from 6 am to 6pm. Or is there more regulation than equal time?
I am slight confused. I understand the concept of a radio station having to work more towards the people in it’s listening reach, but how does that apply to a Christian radio?
Would they be required to play country if they are in a more rural area, or rap/hip-hop if they are broadcast in a more urban area?
I am slightly confused because most Christian radio stations are based in one area and broadcast in others where they are not of the same listen audience.
There are not votes in the FCC, which is an independent agency, to pass the Fairness Doctrine..however Obama just said he would appoint a former FCC man who would be the deciding vote to get censorship, by either the Fairness Doctrine or another method..that has nothing to do with Bush.
I get your point as well. I mean there is some chance that it could be abused, but doubt it. Also, there will be an appeals process. If one isn’t provided through the FCC (there will be) then you can go directly to Federal District Court.
Not saying it couldn’t be abused, but the point of it is very different than the Fairness Doctrine.
It used to be that when an applicant filed for a license or license renewal, that they used to have to file an attachment demonstrating how they served the local community. I don’t think they have to do that anymore; I do know that it got to where it wasn’t very important anymore. This Board seems to be in response to local stations (since they really aren’t owned locally anymore) have gotten away from local community issues.
Here is ONE of the FR posts on Obama’s FCC appointment,,there are others..just type in FCC at top and using keywords it will get you the others.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2130537/posts
Bush is NOT your problem, it’s Obama.
I was with the 2ID at TDC. I think those rules were established by MG Emerson when he got there in 1973. We were supposed to check other things like sanitation, VD card, etc., but the big thing was the playlist.
This has nothing to do with Bush...check out the actual culprit is Obama..and stop listening to the ‘COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA’..IT’S BEEN GOING ON FOR 4 YRS..THE NUMBER OF SUCKERS ON FR IS TERRIBLE...HERE IS LINK TO TRUTH:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2130537/posts
Get real...The news broke yesterday on Obama’s appointment to FCC, when he’s inaugerated...here’s link:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2130537/posts
You are an idiot..first of all the FCC is an independent agency, and only a new appointment, done by Obama will make the vote needed to restore the UNFAIR fairness doctrine or another type of censorship doctrine...here is news discussed yesterday link on FR:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2130537/posts
There have been 4 yrs of communist propaganda pushing Bush Bashing everywhere, it was an election tactic by the democrats, and it’s sad so many conservatives fell for it...There will be 4 more years trying to smear other so there will be a new win for Obama in 2012, you need to learn the tactics of marxists/communists or you will end up one.
The rules haven’t been written and published yet.
Anti illegal immigration (Bush is anti worker driving down wagers of lower income class).
Anti Religion of Peace (this term made my head spin).
Anti corporate welfare (no prescription benefits for elderly, psychopharmaceuticals for children, or aids drugs for Africa).
anti social security (broken promise).
Anti war reconstruction (no one came and rebuilt the trade center).
Anti Imperialism (we now occupy two more worthless countries that drain our wealth).
Anti welfare for the corporate elite (Billions go to corporations without accountability)
What team are you on?
Also, and this is besides the point, Obama can just as effectively silence Right Talk through administrative maneuvers without the heavy-handed passage of a FD.
LOL. I hope you have your chin guard for what you can do to me. Let me be more explicit. You can suck em both.
LOL! Too bad we didn’t do any of those things when the Rs were in power. So many chances to make things better, so many missed opportunities.
**first of all the FCC is an independent agency,**
If that is true, then Hitler was a COMMUNITY ORGANIZER
Your stupidity and “vulgar mouth” are not impressive, and “violate the rules of FR”. Read and learn:
http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html
What “local thing legislation Bush is responsible for”...link please. Here is link for you, to learn about FCC:
http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html
I wrote about this issue awhile back in a letter to the editor. This issue doesn't just affect talk radio. It also effects christian radio stations.
First off the argument about public airwaves is moot becuase that was made when there was only AM and FM. Since then there is now also Internet, cable TV and various other communications platforms.
If a station like KLOVE for example wanted to play only christian music, (KLOVE is a listener supported radio network) then they should be able to. Under these new regulations however if some goofball on a community advisory board watned to he or she could also force the station to play Tupac Shakur or music of that kind.
I can tell you that is not what the listeners who donated to that station made the donation for.
And, I can also tell you that if you said otherwise you'd get your butt run out of my town. KLOVE is a popular radio station here in my town. One of the local businesses in fact is corporate donor to that station.
I would suggest before anyone comes in and spouts off about how we need this and these radio stations like KLOVE need to be bossed around that they look at this proposed rule and realize the ramifications of it. When you go and speak out in favor of it, it makes you look like you're one of those Obamabots.
As I've been saying, it seems like have some Obamabots masquerading as "conservatives" here at FR.
Regards........
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.