After hearing, on multiple occasions, one of the LA Pacifica station's Spanish language shows advocating the assassination of the elected president of Honduras, they are deserving of nothing less than license revocation.
-
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 Investigating WBAI
- Thread starter TheBigA
- Start date
Many of us have similar sentiments toward hate-peddling rightwing talk hosts. But as you have repeated many times on this site, David, the FCC does not regulate content unless it falls within its limited scope of indecency, obscenity, sponsorship rules, etc.
WBAI has famously crossed some of those lines, both now and in the past. This is the station that was instrumental in defining the FCC's current definitions of profanity, indecency and obscenity. However, for better or worse, the speech you and I dislike for different reasons doesn't fall into those categories.
Last edited:
PDF of dead schedule grid is gone....
....However current grid is missing a swath of both Saturday and Sunday: WBAI Radio - NYC
WBAI always lives "on the edge" but somehow always survives.
This organization is so inept that they will finally agree to sell or trade the station when FM's will have lost most of their value in about 20 years instead of cashing in now while the frequency is still worth something.
But who would get the cash? It's a ",non profit".
The Foundation. Although there would likely be a legal battle between the foundation and the WBAI board.
But based on what we saw a few years ago, the Foundation is powerless against the WBAI board.
Non-profits can have a cash reserve. What is not allowed is the distribution of any excess to "owners" as a non-profit has directors but no owners.
Reserves can be kept for "rainy day" provisioning, expansion of activities, or any other purpose. They don't have to be used instantly by the non-profit entity.
So basically the lawyers will get the money if the foundation and WBIA board start sueing each other.
That is an inequity which should not exist. I believe WBAI's broadcast license (and those of the other stations) is (are) held directly by the Pacifica Foundation and not the local station board(s). So in the end, the Foundation will have the last word.
Last edited:
Depends on who you ask. The FCC holds the Foundation responsible. The state courts say the local board has jurisdiction.
... after considerable conflict and litigation.
What I do not understand is that nearly everything on Pacifica is much more appropriate as a podcast than as a broadcast. If you look at any of the Pacifica station schedules, they are impossible to follow by the average listener who does not use radio on a program basis as they might do for TV.
"Nobody" listens to radio the way they program it.
Many programs are preceded by or followed by content that is totally unrelated and not "sequential" in a program sense. They should really use the FMs to further extended news shows which they already do in a manner appropriate for their concept and philosophy. Within that content, they can promote an infinite number of podcasts; they could even relate news coverage to podcasts about the same subject or content material.
And the lawyers are the only ones making any money!
Quite frankly, I don't think the FCC pays that much attention to Spanish (or other foreign language) radio. I remember Bill Handel (KFI, Los Angeles) saying something to that effect one morning. The Spanish-language stations in LA, according to him, got away with a lot more sexual innuendos and other questionable content than the English-language stations did.
Besides, for the FCC to do much,
a. Someone would have to go to the trouble to make a complaint
b. The FCC would have to tune in and hear the content for themselves, and
c. Care enough to warn, fine, or otherwise sanction the station
The FCC acts on complaints. What makes you think they are any less likely to act if the complaint is against a Spanish language station? Do you think no one at the FCC can understand Spanish? Or do you think that the FCC subjects Spanish language broadcasters to a different set of rules? That makes no sense.
- Status