NERW: The FCC in Authoritarian Times

[fybush]

I don't usually editorialize much in NorthEast Radio Watch, but these are not usual times.

I don't think any of us can afford to look away from what's happening right now in Washington.

(As always, let's please try to keep discussion civil and focused on broadcasting.)

www.fybush.com/nerw-20250210/

 

[TheBigA]

I don't think any of us can afford to look away from what's happening right now in Washington.

Compliments on great observations. The FCC hasn't really begun it's main attack, which is aimed to "rein in big tech." The centerpiece of that will be to either repeal or reinterpret Section 230 of the communications act. This hasn't been an issue since the first administration, when many people got banned from social media sites for posting disinformation. Republicans feel that social media are public forums, not private businesses, and should be regulated like the phone company. Social media companies view their sites as private property, and to be operated like newspapers, with owners having editorial discretion.

The difference between now and 2016 is that the owners of social media are friends with the president, and they hope that will immunize them from this kind of attack. What we've seen in the first few weeks is the members of the administration are acting mainly on their own, with little control from the president. They've already enacted changes in environmental laws that will hurt Tesla sales. So I wouldn't assume that Facebook, Google/YouTube, or Apple will be immune.

It will be interesting to see how the attacks on DEI will affect Hispanic broadcasting. The extreme right would like to make English the official language of the country, and many in that group would like to see changes in Spanish language broadcasting. Of course Hispanics were big republican supporters in the last election. In the past, its' been easy to get a foreign ownership waiver. That's how the Mexican broadcaster Televisa was able to buy 100% of Univision. It may become more difficult to get that kind of waiver in an administration aiming for America First.

One other observation is that this current FCC chairman is seeking to expand the purview of the agency beyond areas specified in the act. The role of the FCC and the internet has been a subject argued by several administrations. The issue of Net Neutrality has gone back and forth depending on the political party in charge. Democrats favor net neutrality, republicans don't. One of Carr's first acts was to repeal net neutrality rules. In 2016, republicans moved responsibility for the internet to the commerce department. I don't know where it is now. But clearly, Carr hopes to be able to include the internet in his regulatory responsibilities.

 

[Delete My Account]

Just remember, a lot of this started when they let an Australian immigrant control an American television network.

They were fine with that.

 

[TheBigA]

Just remember, a lot of this started when they let an Australian immigrant control an American television network.

They were fine with that.

Well, not exactly. He was forced to renounce his Australian citizenship and re-launch his company as a US based media company. The FCC has since changed its rules, and foreign ownership is OK if approved by the FCC.

 

[fybush]

Well, not exactly. He was forced to renounce his Australian citizenship and re-launch his company as a US based media company. The FCC has since changed its rules, and foreign ownership is OK if approved by the FCC.

Worth noting that, at least when things are functioning normally, the approval process isn't just at the FCC. It involves the State Department and a lot of background checking.

But again, that presumes a stable, predictable administrative system is in control.

 

[TheBigA]

Worth noting that, at least when things are functioning normally, the approval process isn't just at the FCC. It involves the State Department and a lot of background checking.

The main thrust of Brent Bozell's challenge to the Audacy bankruptcy had to do with security issues around the foreign ownership waiver. Audacy sought to forego that waiver because they determined their foreign ownership was under 25%. That allowed them to get quicker FCC approval. However, in order to satisfy criticism by republicans, they applied for the waiver a few months ago. It will likely take 7-8 months for approval. As part of that process, they will open for public comments. That ought to be interesting.

Audacy: Concerns Over Foreign Ownership Are Moot - Radio World

Audacy says challenges to its emergence from bankruptcy should be dismissed because its level of foreign ownership is now below the FCC’s threshold.

www.radioworld.com

Of course the chairman has now found a new reason to challenge Audacy's bankruptcy: KCBS.

 

[Weiserguy]

Just remember, a lot of this started when they let an Australian immigrant control an American television network.

They were fine with that.

In fairness, that Aussie immigrant created said network (Fox Television). It didn't exist before Rupert. (Though he had bought 20th Century Fox previously.) What he acquired was a chain of major market TV stations (that had previously been Metromedia) from John Kluge, who himself was an immigrant from Germany.

 

[Weiserguy]

Well, not exactly. He was forced to renounce his Australian citizenship and re-launch his company as a US based media company. The FCC has since changed its rules, and foreign ownership is OK if approved by the FCC.

He may have had to renounce his Australian citizenship, but was he required to divest from his Australian or British media holdings? Or his various real estate holdings in those countries? We can all guess that answer. The color of a passport is a small nit for someone like Rupert.

 

[Weiserguy]

Worth noting that, at least when things are functioning normally, the approval process isn't just at the FCC. It involves the State Department and a lot of background checking.

But again, that presumes a stable, predictable administrative system is in control.

Can I sample a bit of what you're smoking, Scott?

 

[TheBigA]

He may have had to renounce his Australian citizenship, but was he required to divest from his Australian or British media holdings? Or his various real estate holdings in those countries? We can all guess that answer. The color of a passport is a small nit for someone like Rupert.

My understanding is that he had to reincorporate NewsCorp as a US company. This meant redesignation of the NewsCorp stock.

This is a bit above my knowledge of the SEC and what's required there. But all this was done over 30 years ago.

 

[Weiserguy]

My understanding is that he had to reincorporate NewsCorp as a US company. This meant redesignation of the NewsCorp stock.

This is a bit above my knowledge of the SEC and what's required there. But all this was done over 30 years ago.

By now, closer to 40.

 

[TheBigA]

By now, closer to 40.

The challenge to Murdoch's corporate ownership came in the 90s. The TV stations were originally owned by an American subsidiary. That came under fire in the 90s, even though Murdoch changed his own citizenship.

 

[fybush]

Can I sample a bit of what you're smoking, Scott?

I prefer edibles, actually. But my basis of experience is watching the process Ricki Lee and his wife had to go through to gain permission to buy a few small stations in northern New York.

It took many months and a LOT of paperwork. You can argue that it was too much, or too little, but it was a very thorough review.

 

[leethalweapon]

He may have had to renounce his Australian citizenship, but was he required to divest from his Australian or British media holdings? Or his various real estate holdings in those countries? We can all guess that answer. The color of a passport is a small nit for someone like Rupert.

Murdoch through various subsidary companies own somewhere around 76% of the mastheads in Australia, to this day. News Ltd (Newscorp, Australian arm) recently sold it's stake in Cable/Pay TV provider FOXTEL

 

[davideduardo]

As someone who has actually owned, run, managed and programmed radio stations in over 20 other countries, I have a different opinion.

Whether it was in Argentina, Ecuador, Mexico, the Dominican Republic or even nations like Pakistan where there are radically different cultural and social values... and even, sometimes, moral values, I find the de-radicalization of media in the U.S. to be healthy.

And like most "pendulum swings" in American government, things will go back to the mid-range after a bit of "excitement" by the current conquerors of the White House.

I see American journalism totally dominated by the liberal or left attitude. I've been following the elections (yesterday, in fact) with my daughter in Ecuador where the son of a friend seems about to win a second term; the press (online, on the air and print) has just as big a conservative voice as the socialist and liberals do. I saw that in my decade of dealing with the Peronistas and their opposition in Argentina, and over the last 40 years with the totally #1 all-news-talk morning show, "El Gobierno de la Mañana" in the Dominican Republic.

But I do not see that here. In fact, as a conservative living in California, I found it frightening for others to learn my position; friends and I registered as "Independent" to avoid criticism or even being fired. I've never seen anyplace in the world where thinking differently from the majority was actually dangerous.

To clarify, when I had to leave Ecuador and my dozen or so stations it was because of an extremist government, not an elected one. And my "partner" at our associated newspaper was disappeared (yes, in some countries that is a verb) and never seen again.

As to comparing the current U.S. government positions with Hitler, the Nazis and Germany in the 1930's, I call foul. Without revealing too much even now, in the 60's I worked with Israeli intelligence to help find Nazis hidden in Ecuador under new identities. One of my engineers had been in the French Resistance and another has lost all his family when he fled Czechoslovakia; along with an undercover Mossad operative we tried to see if local German businessmen were contacts for Martin Bormann, supposedly living at the Brazil-Ecuador-Peru junction in the Amazon Basin.

I heard more real Nazi stories from survivors than can be imagined. None sound anything like what I am seeing today. None.

Sure, there will be excesses. But I welcome a sense of conscience being forced on CBS, NBC and ABC. I can not watch news on any of those networks, and have not been able to for over a decade. Having programmed the most listened to news and talk station in all the Americas, as well as two all news station in Puerto Rico and the totally dominant news talk station in the Dominican Republic, I know about "flavoring" news stories; the use of biased or jaded adjectives or references to totally unrelated news items are two common methods used by much of the U.S. media today.

 

[TheBigA]

You can argue that it was too much, or too little, but it was a very thorough review.

I think the process of broadcast ownership is easier in some European countries, where Clear Channel at one time owned radio stations. Maybe it'll be easier when Canada is the 51st state.

The question isn't necessarily that laws are now being enforced. We're not going to suggest that the FCC shouldn't enforce its laws. The issue is about HOW the targets are chosen, and how fairly or unfairly it's being done. So when a right wing influencer makes some unsubstantiated charges that a radio station is endangering the lives of law enforcement, when it was documented that many other stations reported the exact same things from the exact same source, you have to ask how is this FCC making its decisions. If the only sources they respond to are from one political party, and the only people they target are in the other political party, then perhaps it's more about politics than law enforcement.

 

[davideduardo]

He may have had to renounce his Australian citizenship, but was he required to divest from his Australian or British media holdings? Or his various real estate holdings in those countries? We can all guess that answer. The color of a passport is a small nit for someone like Rupert.

But the real point is that Australian law and British law allowed him to continue to own shares in those companies.

When I was in Ecuador, the law stated that the owner of a radio stations had to be either an Ecuadorian citizen or a company incorporated in Ecuador under Ecuadorian law. I formed a company, and bought or was granted a lot of stations, all legally.

I started my first station with $15,000. Not Rupert's level at all. Yet I was allowed to be a foreigner with a bunch of stations in a different country because I conformed with existing laws; they did not make those laws for me.

 

[davideduardo]

I think the process of broadcast ownership is easier in some European countries, where Clear Channel at one time owned radio stations. Maybe it'll be easier when Canada is the 51st state.

In most of those nations, ownership had to be shared with nationals of each nation. Metromedia owned stations in Germany and Russia. Emmis had stations in Hungary and Argentina. I believe it was Saga that even had a station in Iceland. Spain's SER owns, partially owns or manages stations in Mexico, Costa Rica, Colombia, Chile, Argentina and several other nations.

The question isn't necessarily that laws are now being enforced. We're not going to suggest that the FCC shouldn't enforce its laws. The issue is about HOW the targets are chosen, and how fairly or unfairly it's being done. So when a right wing influencer makes some unsubstantiated charges that a radio station is endangering the lives of law enforcement, when it was documented that many other stations reported the exact same things from the exact same source, you have to ask how is this FCC making its decisions. If the only sources they respond to are from one political party, and the only people they target are in the other political party, then perhaps it's more about politics than law enforcement.

In this case, I see varied opinions or reports on how tactical information that put law enforcement lives at risk was revealed. There is a gray area where newspeople are aware of something but should wait a prudent amount of time to report on that "thing" so as not to reveal strategic data. There are many good examples of this during WW II where the press was "sworn to secrecy" and did not publicize events when doing so would jeopardize allied actions. For example, the press might see a huge movement of troops, machines, planes and ships but would not report on them until the action was underway.

 

[TheBigA]

And like most "pendulum swings" in American government, things will go back to the mid-range after a bit of "excitement" by the current conquerors of the White House.

Maybe. The point of what the FCC is doing is to silence criticism. If you control the media, you control the narrative. So if the narrative only covers one side of the story, then the other side doesn't exist, and the pendulum doesn't swing back. We haven't seen an FCC go to this extreme before, including during Nixon. We haven't seen a government throw out reporters from specific targeted media outlets, while granting favors to others. Reporters are not only being prevented from covering stories, but when they do, they are targeted by the enforcement division of the FCC.

I welcome a sense of conscience being forced on CBS, NBC and ABC. I can not watch news on any of those networks, and have not been able to for over a decade.

That's not the problem. That "conscience" is selectively being forced on one group, while there is no reciprocity being done at the other side, in broadcast or online. In fact the goal seems to be for all forms of media to strictly report one side, that of the party in power, with no variation allowed.

 

[TheBigA]

In this case, I see varied opinions or reports on how tactical information that put law enforcement lives at risk was revealed.

Once again, the same story was reported in the same way from the same sources in many media outlets. Only one has been the target of an investigation. The reason this one was chosen was because one of the investors is a well known democrat. By the time the story was reported, the operation was in full swing and was reported that way. They didn't blow the cover of an operation. KCBS had no reporters on scene. The anchor was reading a prepared story, not done in real time. The purpose of the investigation is to give the FCC reason to deny the company's bankruptcy plan. No other reason.