• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

FCC Denies Free Press Petition

T

TheBigA

This is one of these issues that I find fascinating, and has come up a couple times here on this board. FreePress.org filed a petition with the FCC to investigate radio stations that air the daily White House press briefings. The organization takes the view that by airing these briefings live, the radio stations are knowingly airing false statements or misinformation. First of all, here's a link to the FCC's announcement:

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-363545A1.pdf

Here is the response from FreePress.org:

https://www.freepress.net/news/pres...ponds-trump-fccs-politically-motivated-attack

For the past few weeks we've talked about radio stations that have decided not to air the briefings. One station in Seattle made a very public announcement. Others simply went back to regular programming. The issue is where to draw the line between airing false information, and censorship of duly elected public officials. The petition wants to make the radio stations responsible for airing the comments of the president. To me, it's similar to the lawsuits aimed at newspapers and TV networks for airing or publishing opinions. When something is marked as opinion, that's what it is.

When the president is asked a question, and he's not quoting policy, then it's usually his opinion, and it should be treated as such. He obviously has opinions that don't reflect his administration or the rest of the government. His representatives defend that he has the right to his opinions. He's also a candidate for office, and sometimes uses these briefings for campaigning. Radio stations that air these briefings shouldn't be held responsible for what is said during them, and perhaps it would be useful to air a disclaimer to say that the radio station isn't responsible for what you're about to hear.

But to have the FCC step in and regulate the airing of government briefings would be taking a bad step, and I agree with the FCC's decision. The people not only hear the president's opinions, but they hear reporters questioning him about those opinions and statements. Then they hear how he responds. They get the full context this way and can decide if their president is lying to them, or unfairly attacking the media. The FCC is acting as I expect the courts to act when the lawsuits are brought about misinformation in opinions. The courts should step out of the way and not get involved. At some point the people will have to decide if this is really what they want from their elected officials.

Here's coverage from RadioInk:

https://radioink.com/2020/04/07/first-amendment-win/
 
TheBigA said:
This is one of these issues that I find fascinating, and has come up a couple times here on this board. FreePress.org filed a petition with the FCC to investigate radio stations that air the daily White House press briefings. The organization takes the view that by airing these briefings live, the radio stations are knowingly airing false statements or misinformation.
Click to expand...

I have an opinion... perhaps, redundantly, an opinionated one, that there are all too often lawsuits and protests that seem to assume that the average American is so stupid... and they are so smart... that the citizens need those smart people to show them the way. Always. In all areas.

That's because we, the citizenry, are ignorant and easily confused and can't tell opinion form proven facts. We can't distinguish between hyperbole and statistics. Yes, we are so dumb that we need self proclaimed brilliant analysts to guide us.

My favorite is the labeling of some laundry detergents so that people who are tempted to eat them will refrain. The extreme case, which I saw recently, was a package of some food product that had a bilingual note telling people to eat the contents but not the box. Duh!

Note: Many talk radio "hosts" seem to think we don't understand politics and can't form our own opinions without their help.
 
DavidEduardo said:
I have an opinion... perhaps, redundantly, an opinionated one, that there are all too often lawsuits and protests that seem to assume that the average American is so stupid... and they are so smart... that the citizens need those smart people to show them the way.
Click to expand...

Because quite often ignorance is used as a defense. How often have you been pulled over for speeding and get asked "Do you know the speed limit" or "do you know how fast you were going," and you hear yourself saying "Why, no, I don't." Ignorance is no defense. But sometimes you need to present a disclaimer. The reason McDonalds prints the words "Hot Liquid" on its coffee cups is because someone sued and won. Ignorance is no defense. But now there's a disclaimer. So in case you didn't know, coffee is hot. An opinion does not have to be based in fact. To say a radio station "knowingly" aired misinformation when it broadcast a press briefing assumes anyone really knows what the president is going to say. No one knows, including his own staff. So there's no way that a radio station knows. To make them responsible for knowing the unknowable is unfair.
 
I have a very simple principle here.

If an elected official, including state and local-level officials, or other notable official such as a cabinet secretary or other department head (e.g. the Surgeon General), says something, it shall be permissible to air that on any broadcast station no matter how wrong-headed or vulgar.

I do not believe that such a broad exemption should apply to those who are not holding elective office.

If Larry King had gone on the air one day in the 80s and told his audience that Pres. Reagan had declared war on the USSR, he and his stations should be liable for that. Note that's a different thing than advocating for an attack on the USSR, which should be permissible.
If Pres. Reagan had done so (and he did in jest in a famous 'hot mic' moment), there should be no repercussion on broadcasters for telling the people what their President had said.
 
PTBoardOp94 said:
If Larry King had gone on the air one day in the 80s and told his audience that Pres. Reagan had declared war on the USSR, he and his stations should be liable for that.
Click to expand...

Brings to mind the famous CBS broadcast of the War Of The Worlds. As Orson Welles once pointed out, CBS legal required him to put a disclaimer on the show saying it was the performance of a work of fiction.
 
What is interesting is the Free Press article was not so unlike the complaint itself. Like all groups with an agenda, the slant used allowed for misrepresenting the actual wording of the FCC opinion. The way I read the decision was: we aren't touching this with a ten foot poll because it involves regulating free speech. The article didn't seem to say that. I recall what my Dad said: Be careful about what you ask for. It might be much more than you realized and come back to bite you.
 
b-turner said:
Like all groups with an agenda, the slant used allowed for misrepresenting the actual wording of the FCC opinion.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind they were the plaintiff, not just a group with an agenda. You don't expect unbiased commentary when you speak to the plaintiff.

But it points out the struggle when you have rules that say "knowingly present false or misleading information." These briefings do that.
 
PTBoardOp94 said:
If an elected official, including state and local-level officials, or other notable official such as a cabinet secretary or other department head (e.g. the Surgeon General), says something, it shall be permissible to air that on any broadcast station no matter how wrong-headed or vulgar.
Click to expand...

Here is a link to the FCC rule:

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/broadcasting-false-information

FCC rules specifically say that "the public harm: must begin immediately and cause direct and actual damage to property or the health or safety of the general public; or divert law enforcement or public health and safety authorities from their duties."
Click to expand...

So what happens when the false information is given in the presence of heath & safety authorities? Especially when they do nothing?
 
Like I said, nothing.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom