WaPo Piece on Brendan Carr

[TheBigA]

Here's a lengthy article by the Washington Post about new FCC Chair Brendan Carr. It has a wide range of commentary from people on all sides of the political spectrum.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/11/22/brendan-carr-fcc-trump-social-media-musk/

MSN

The one quote that stood out to me was that Carr really doesn't understand the FCC's role in the Audacy bankruptcy agreement. He believes the company was sold to George Soros. That's absolutely not true. However, even if it was, so what? There's no law preventing any US citizen from buying radio stations. And no law preventing Elon Musk or any person from the right from outbidding Soros for the same position with the company. It's a free and open marketplace.

“If you look back at the last couple of years, there’s no question in my mind that your last name dictated how the government treated you,” Carr said. “A Soros-backed group got an unprecedented shortcut from the FCC to buy 200-plus radio stations, and nobody had any sort of curiosity or interest about how close Soros was with different people in the government.”

Meanwhile, he's friends with Elon Musk, who makes billions of dollars in government contracts. He doesn't see a problem there at all.

 

[TexasTom]

That comment about an "unprecedented shortcut" suggests that Carr really doesn't understand how the agency he will be leading actually works. Because there was nothing unprecedented about it, and as a commissioner he has access to the information and people that could have told him that.

 

[TheBigA]

More intrigue at the FCC, as a rumor surfaces that Commissioner Geoffrey Starkes wants to leave:

More Changes Could Be In Works At FCC With Reports Of Potential Starks Exit.

The incoming Trump administration may bring more than just a new chairman of the FCC with the promotion of Brendan Carr to the top spot. Washington chatter is that Commissioner

www.insideradio.com

 

[BamaTX]

He believes the company was sold to George Soros. That's absolutely not true.

He didn't say it was sold to George Soros. He said it was sold to a George Soros backed group;

Carr said. "A Soros-backed group..."

I believe it would be an accurate description that has been acknowledged by at least one mod on here.

However, even if it was, so what?

The issue is that some people believe that certain procedures were bypassed by the FCC during the process. I don't know why anyone would be against an investigation to see if favoritism was indeed given.

 

[BamaTX]

Because there was nothing unprecedented about it, and as a commissioner he has access to the information and people that could have told him that.

Unprecedented? No. But politically motivated? That's an interesting question that I think is fair to bring up with everything that has happened under the current administration. Especially given with the unrelated pardons that happened over the weekend.

 

[TheBigA]

He didn't say it was sold to George Soros. He said it was sold to a George Soros backed group;

But that's also not true. The Soros backed group bought $400 million in debt. They didn't "buy 200 radio stations." That gives them a portion of the new ownership, which has many other stakeholders. His equity in the company as well as any seats on the board won't take effect until after the Foreign Ownership review. The main advantage is the company has his money and they can exit bankruptcy. It's all financial, not political.

The issue is that some people believe that certain procedures were bypassed by the FCC during the process. I don't know why anyone would be against an investigation to see if favoritism was indeed given.

What happened is that a Senator in August made the unprecedented move to take this away from the media bureau and have it decided by the commissioners. That hadn't happened with any other bankruptcy plan.

Unprecedented? No. But politically motivated? That's an interesting question that I think is fair to bring up with everything that has happened under the current administration. Especially given with the unrelated pardons that happened over the weekend.

Their whole point is that Soros will use these stations to affect the election. That didn't happen. Carr's side won. The FCC had the opportunity to speak up when they received the paperwork in the spring. They waited until a month before the election. The political motivation charge could be made to both sides. However, there's nothing wrong with him using radio stations to promote an agenda. Other companies do it all the time. Carr wants only one side to have that advantage.

 

[BamaTX]

But that's also not true. The Soros backed group bought $400 million in debt. They didn't "buy 200 radio stations." That gives them a portion of the new ownership, which has many other stakeholders. His equity in the company as well as any seats on the board won't take effect until after the Foreign Ownership review. The main advantage is the company has his money and they can exit bankruptcy.

Semantics.

There's no need to play disingenuous mental gymnastics. Yes, Soros' organization doesn't own all of Audacy. But they are the largest shareholder now and hold 57% controlling stake. Whether Soros' name is directly on the licenses is irrelevant and unnecessarily pedantic.

Furthermore, the quote you posted isn't even a concern about Soros' ability to own Audacy. It is about how the process of approval was handled.

It's all financial, not political.

We don't know that for sure. But given the history of that man, I'd wager that this is a long term political and financial move.

There are two sure facts about old people: they vote more than any other demographic and they still use the AM/FM dial more than young people. Politically speaking, it just makes sense to use the little influence terrestrial radio still has to push agendas. There will probably be a ton of downsizing, voice tracking, and automation in order to make the company profitable. I wouldn't be surprised if all on-air content is centralized to corporate facilities while local offices are downsized to just sales staff and a few marketing/engineering positions. Making money and spreading political influence is Soros' forte after all.

 

[lanceventa]

Unprecedented? No. But politically motivated? That's an interesting question that I think is fair to bring up with everything that has happened under the current administration. Especially given with the unrelated pardons that happened over the weekend.

You're using personal political opinion to discuss facts.

There are two sure facts about old people: they vote more than any other demographic and they still use the AM/FM dial more than young people. Politically speaking, it just makes sense to use the little influence terrestrial radio still has to push agendas. There will probably be a ton of downsizing, voice tracking, and automation in order to make the company profitable. I wouldn't be surprised if all on-air content is centralized to corporate facilities while local offices are downsized to just sales staff and a few marketing/engineering positions. Making money and spreading political influence is Soros' forte after all.

It is proven fact that there was nothing different about the Audacy bankruptcy and other recent bankruptcy restructurings other than the fact that it included a name that is used as a political boogeyman because he backs what so few other billionaires back. Had Mitt Romney's Bain Capital acquired Audacy it would've been handled exactly the same as it was when Romney's group bought Clear Channel.

Look through the investments the fund has. (Soros Fund Management Portfolio | George Soros 13F Holdings & Trades). They're made because of the ROI attached, not for political gain.


Admin reminder: There are dozens of political forums out there. If you cannot discuss these topics without getting into personal political debates, they will be closed.

 

[TheBigA]

Whether Soros' name is directly on the licenses is irrelevant and unnecessarily pedantic.

I agree. That's why I don't understand why Carr cares. He's the one who brought it up.

Furthermore, the quote you posted isn't even a concern about Soros' ability to own Audacy. It is about how the process of approval was handled.

Everything about the process was public and by the book. It took the exact same time as other similar bankruptcies. Everything was going just fine until two months before the election.

I wouldn't be surprised if all on-air content is centralized to corporate facilities while local offices are downsized to just sales staff and a few marketing/engineering positions.

Nothing improper about any of that. A lot of religious broadcasters have been operating that way for years. It has nothing to do with this situation.

 

[boombox4]

Semantics.

There's no need to play disingenuous mental gymnastics. Yes, Soros' organization doesn't own all of Audacy. But they are the largest shareholder now and hold 57% controlling stake. Whether Soros' name is directly on the licenses is irrelevant and unnecessarily pedantic.

Furthermore, the quote you posted isn't even a concern about Soros' ability to own Audacy. It is about how the process of approval was handled.

We don't know that for sure. But given the history of that man, I'd wager that this is a long term political and financial move.

There are two sure facts about old people: they vote more than any other demographic and they still use the AM/FM dial more than young people. Politically speaking, it just makes sense to use the little influence terrestrial radio still has to push agendas. There will probably be a ton of downsizing, voice tracking, and automation in order to make the company profitable. I wouldn't be surprised if all on-air content is centralized to corporate facilities while local offices are downsized to just sales staff and a few marketing/engineering positions. Making money and spreading political influence is Soros' forte after all.

The downsizing, voice tracking, centralization et al started before Soros showed any interest in Audacy. IHeart stated, during their big RIF at the start of 2020, that centralization was one of their plans. And we've seen the downsizing, centralization, voice tracking trend going on in various guises probably since the late 1970's when satellite radio formats were hitting the airwaves.

While it's possible that Soros could conceivably exert some political influence on the talk stations, what is he going to do about them? Replace conservative hosts with Air America types and then lose money? Highly doubtful. The guy likes to make money. Conservative talk may be aging out but it still makes more money than Air America / progressive talk radio ever did.

Chances are pretty high he'll just leave the programming to the people who are in charge of it right now.

 

[BamaTX]

You're using personal political opinion to discuss facts.

Saying that it is fair to have a discussion on that matter isn't a problematic or even a one sided political opinion. As far as the political context is concerned, I only offered it to show why I think the discussion is justifiable. The context wasn't offered for or as part of a debate (nor should it be tbh).

The only deviation away from the subject and into politics was technically OP who brought up Elon Musk and mentioned the "right" wing. I'm not sure why that's ok but talking about whether a discussion is fair is scrutinized.

It is proven fact that there was nothing different about the Audacy bankruptcy and other recent bankruptcy restructurings

That's not the point I was making with what you quoted.

I was simply laying out a framework as to how this move can be both financially and politically motivated. One is not exclusive to the other.

I agree. That's why I don't understand why Carr cares. He's the one who brought it up.

With all due respect, you were the one who took issue with his description of "ownership". It is the basis for your OP.

The downsizing, voice tracking, centralization et al started before Soros showed any interest in Audacy. IHeart stated, during their big RIF at the start of 2020, that centralization was one of their plans.

Not to the extent I'm taking about.

There is still a lot of opportunity for automation and downsizing available. The possibility to strip down stations to become glorified iPod shuffles is now a reality and something probably long overdue. With AI and voice tracking, we no longer need on-air personalities, Program Directors, board operators, or even general managers in each market. Radio purists say this isn't feasble and that ratings will suffer. But I think the savings will overshadow the number of listeners lost in the grand scheme of things.

Soros consolidating the operations of every Audacy radio station into Audacy's HQ in Philadelphia is a possibility. And if it does happen, it will permanently change the industry as we know it.

While it's possible that Soros could conceivably exert some political influence on the talk stations, what is he going to do about them? Replace conservative hosts with Air America types and then lose money?

The possibilities and tactics are endless. But that's for a different discussion best left for Twitter or Reddit.

Highly doubtful. The guy likes to make money.

He likes to do two things; make money and influence politics. Audacy gives him the opportunity to do both simultaneously.

Now will he choose one over another or both? That remains to be seen.

 

[b-turner]

Here's my take: Soros has a team that manages his money and places it at the best places they know to continue to grow his wealth. It is likely this management group saw this opportunity and the potential to grow his fortune and made the deal. It was a Soros backed group, not Soros personally. It might be Soros backed but every time you involve other people you give up a little power no matter your position.

This is not unlike iHeart and other who have foreign stockholders that at times have owned substantial portions of public traded companies.

If Soros personally wanted to play the political card there are many more cost effective options where one would exercise full control over the destiny of the entity. Like any other person with money, you have a system to make more as you dole out cash. So, not all 'investments' are politically motivated.

 

[TheBigA]

Soros consolidating the operations of every Audacy radio station into Audacy's HQ in Philadelphia is a possibility. And if it does happen, it will permanently change the industry as we know it.

First of all, this isn't in the Audacy bankruptcy proposal. There's nothing in the FCC rules that would make this improper. Soros already funded the Latino Media Network two years ago, approved by the same FCC, and he hasn't done that (or anything) to that operation. In fact the Audacy investor you should be more concerned about if you're worried about that kind of operation is Manoj Bhargava. He's the one who is proposing a merger of Audacy and Cumulus. Yet no one is focused on him at all. And that proposal isn't part of the Audacy bankruptcy, it's not among any of Carr's objections, and it's also not improper given the FCC's ownership rules. Neither Soros nor his fund can do anything, because their equity hasn't been granted. Soros has no power to do anything, he has no seats on the Audacy board, he is not the Audacy CEO or in any management position. All of that was clearly stated in the bankruptcy proposal.

Once again, this is a bankruptcy plan, not a sale. It's no different than the process Cumulus and iHeart went through. Each of them took about 9 months. That's how long this approval took. There was no shortcut. That was made up. The goal of doing a pre-packaged bankruptcy, which is what all three radio companies have done, is to get them approved quickly and get back into normal operation. That's what all three companies did. There is nothing wrong here.

 

[TheBigA]

This is not unlike iHeart and other who have foreign stockholders that at times have owned substantial portions of public traded companies.

Audacy has already addressed this issue. The foreign ownership now is under 25%. On the other hand, Univision is 100% foreign owned, and no one objected to that sale.

 

[BamaTX]

First of all, this isn't in the Audacy bankruptcy proposal.

It doesn't have to be for it to be an option down the road. Bigger and more prominent companies outside of radio have said one thing to get approval and ended up doing something else to the irk of the FCC, DOJ, and other agencies.

Cost cutting is the future of radio as it reaches its twilight era. Terrestrial Radio as we used to know it is wasteful in an era where automation is a viable possibility.

There's nothing in the FCC rules that would make this improper.

I didn't say this.

Soros already funded the Latino Media Network two years ago, approved by the same FCC, and he hasn't done that (or anything) to that operation.

LMN is already running some of their stations from outside of their markets. KXTN comes to mind.

The future of LMN is probably worthy of its own thread. Audacy bringing in those properties under their wing is a possibility.

In fact the Audacy investor you should be more concerned about if you're worried about that kind of operation is Manoj Bhargava. He's the one who is proposing a merger of Audacy and Cumulus. Yet no one is focused on him at all.

Why would that be a concern?

Once again, this is a bankruptcy plan, not a sale.

Again, you're flirting with unnecessary semantics.

 

[TheBigA]

It doesn't have to be for it to be an option down the road.

Flipping all of their stations to paid or brokered content is also an option. Totally irrelevant to this discussion.

Why would that be a concern?

Because you're basing everything on this fake idea of "Soros consolidating operations." There's no evidence of it, and it has nothing to do with this discussion. He can't make any changes because neither he nor his funds have any equity or any power to do anything.

 

[Bill Betten]

He didn't say it was sold to George Soros. He said it was sold to a George Soros backed group;

I believe it would be an accurate description that has been acknowledged by at least one mod on here.

The issue is that some people believe that certain procedures were bypassed by the FCC during the process. I don't know why anyone would be against an investigation to see if favoritism was indeed given.

Because they hate Brendan Carr, Elon Musk & Donald J. Trump,,,changes are happening & they are stressed.

 

[TheBigA]

Because they hate Brendan Carr, Elon Musk & Donald J. Trump,,,changes are happening & they are stressed.

Nobody “hates” anybody. That’s not what this is about.

 

[davideduardo]

The one quote that stood out to me was that Carr really doesn't understand the FCC's role in the Audacy bankruptcy agreement. He believes the company was sold to George Soros. That's absolutely not true. However, even if it was, so what? There's no law preventing any US citizen from buying radio stations. And no law preventing Elon Musk or any person from the right from outbidding Soros for the same position with the company. It's a free and open marketplace.

However, Audacy is not being sold to George Soros. It is being sold to an investment company he controls, but does not fully own. The issues here involve the rather recent (last few decades) prevalence of shares in publicly traded companies being held under "street names" rather than being directly owned in nominative shares.

When I bought my first publicly traded shares around 1955, I actually got a stock certificate in the mail. To sell, I had to take it to by broker and hand it over. A lengthy process. Today's share may trade several times each via "day trading" and nobody knows whether the owner is in the U.S. or even in an enemy nation.

 

[BamaTX]

Flipping all of their stations to paid or brokered content is also an option. Totally irrelevant to this discussion.

If that is how you feel, then why bring up the "Audacy bankruptcy proposal"? I simply pointed out how Soros could financially come out on top given the current market of terrestrial radio.

Because you're basing everything on this fake idea of "Soros consolidating operations."

Just to be clear, you're the one who brought up the possibility of a merger. No one on here, or at the government level, has shown any concern in that regard.

There's no evidence of it, and it has nothing to do with this discussion.

I'd like to point out that LMN is technically doing this in a few markets to some extent.

He can't make any changes because neither he nor his funds have any equity or any power to do anything.

He has majority control. He can do or not do whatever he wants if he chooses to. Ultimately, we don't know what his plans are.

You're getting worked up and being extremely defensive for no reason at all.