What I understand loosely is, executive orders sound great, but largely are just a wishlist. The volume of orders signed in recent months says to me it would take forever to get everything in place. I think it will come down to what the government sees as a priorty. If the "English only" order gets up, I imagine groups like Entravision and SBS will either have to fight it, adjust their programming to conform or exit.
-
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
Avoiding Spanish-language radio
- Thread starter Mark Roberts
- Start date
- Status
What I understand loosely is, executive orders sound great, but largely are just a wishlist. The volume of orders signed in recent months says to me it would take forever to get everything in place. I think it will come down to what the government sees as a priorty. If the "English only" order gets up, I imagine groups like Entravision and SBS will either have to fight it, adjust their programming to conform or exit.
They don't have the power of law. But they do instruct agencies in the executive branch. That includes the FCC. Brendan Carr has launched several investigations based on the executive order regarding DEI. He sees his role as carrying out the president's agenda. So one would think he could also apply this one to his agency, if so ordered. If DHS were to say that radio stations broadcasting in Spanish are providing ICE information to illegals, he would have to rectify that. He currently has an investigation into KCBS broadcasting ICE information in English.
Most of my work has been in Latin America and the Caribbean, with a few projects in places like Pakistan and sub-Saharan Africa. In all that experience, including programming in 17 countries and territories in Latin America, there has been no real restriction on language usage. Bolivia has three principal languages, all used freely on radio with no permit. Same with both indigenous languages and Spanish in Peru and Ecuador as well as Guatemala and Honduras.
I had a station of my own in Ecuador that did Quechua from 4 AM to 6 AM daily, and Spanish with occasional Quechua messages the rest of the day. I needed no permit. Today, there is radio in about 6 different languages in Ecuador (ignoring, of course, the 20 or so languages once used by now-gone HCJB on short wave. Even Haiti has had stations in both French and Kreyol .
At most, the government might require that a form or document state the language or languages used by stations.
But Mexico has long allowed border stations to opt for English language programming, and there are dozens of stations in some of the 100+ indigenous languages and dialects.
That order states, "Agency heads are not required to amend, remove, or otherwise stop production of documents, products, or other services prepared or offered in languages other than English. "
So, as needed, any agency can produce documents and content in any language they want.
There is no restriction on what private enterprise does.
The United States has long... even before becoming a nation... had traditions of integrating groups that spoke both Native American languages as well as French, Dutch, Spanish and even Tagalog and all the other tongues of the Philippines when that nation was a U.S. territory.
The KCBS case is not as simple as that. It is based on the historical precedent of not permitting the broadcast of strategic information until authorized. The issue here is whether KCBS broadcast information about an INS operation before that action took place, revealing its existence and endangering its officers. When the embedded press in WW II or Korea or Vietnam knew of an action or offensive, they were told not to release the information until the operation was initiated.
Everything I have seen shows that KCBS acted accordingly, but the government has the right to investigate if they believe confidentiality of operation plans was violated.
Yes I know.
Except when they use federally licensed public airwaves.
I understand all that. The FCC became aware of it because the station was broadcasting in English. Most people don't know what Spanish radio stations are saying because they don't speak the language. It's very possible for the FCC to claim national security in requiring licensed stations to broadcast in English to follow the president's EO.
The United States has a long history of media in languages other than English. It is very unlikely that they would do something to offend groups that voted for the current President in very significant percentages. Without entering into partisan political points, if one looks at Hispanics who actually voted, the attitude toward the current administration is high, so I doubt the government would regulate language on radio and TV; this would be unfavorable among their own voters and certainly violate freedom of expression principles.
In other words, thinking that the FCC might restrict foreign language programming is not a valid point.
About one in five legal Americans today is Hispanic/Latino. Most know at least some Spanish and the majority know both English and Spanish.
And, of course, we have Puerto Rico, USA, where the vastly dominant language is Spanish (three radio stations in English out of 120) and at least one state, New Mexico, where English and Spanish are official languages... due in a great part to historical reasons.
We can go to extremes: San Diego would be Saint Jacob, LA would be The Angels, Indio, CA, would be "Indian" and the Rio Grande would be The Big River. "Colorado" would be "Red" and "Nevada" becomes "Snowy". Best of all, "Los Feliz", a neighborhood north of Hollywood Boulevard, would be "The Happies".
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
To be blunt and 100% political:
Donald Trump does not care about history. He cares about enabling his vision of the country, and Spanish speakers are not part of his vision.
He also doesn't care who he made promises to in order to get their votes. Everyone who offends his personal sensibilities is a target.
And Brendan Carr has proven his willingness to do anything and everything at the FCC to impose that vision.
Sorry, mi amigo, but that is the truth.
The United States has had a long history of a lot of things that are being upended by this current administration. Some decisions are being made by ideologues who aren't consulting with the political people. There are a lot of things in the new budget bill that will hurt millions of people who voted for the current president. He is rescinding federal money that mainly benefits red states. Anything is possible and everything is on the table.
They're currently looking into placing additional restrictions on foreign ownership. The president is using national security to justify a lot of things, and the immigration issue is one of those things. I'm not saying it will happen, but it IS a very valid point.
Which is why such a rule wouldn't affect legal Hispanics. They've already assimilated, which was the purpose of the EO,
Legal Hispanics might even welcome such a rule.
Assimilation generally occurs in the second generation. While many immigrants learn adequate or even good English, you will find their media usage, music preferences, language spoken in the household and the like remain for their entire life.
In my home and with family, we speak Spanish. Yet we are all very good to excellent English speakers. But English does not reflect our emotions, culture and feelings as well as Spanish.
No, because most legal first generation Hispanics use Spanish language media and prefer Spanish among themselves.
It took three generations for Jennifer Lopez to grow up not knowing other than "Kitchen Spanish"; she had to be taught the language to do the Selena movie!
The story in the OP of this thread was picked up by lots of news organizations. So radio usage by illegals is now well known. I expect the article is being discussed at DHS, ICE, and the white house. The crackdown is aiming at illegals, but a lot of legal immigrants are getting caught in the net. If radio stations are providing assistance in any way to illegals, they are breaking the law. But the only way law enforcement would know is if the information was in English. So it's not out of the realm of possibility that the FCC would make such a requirement. It would be challenged in court, perhaps on first amendment grounds. But it's possible.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
Forgive me for being skeptical, but given recent Supreme Court decisions, I wouldn't expect that challenge to succeed.
Radio usage by "people" is well known. Nothing new here.
I thoroughly doubt it. There have been meetings by Trump family and advisors with executives from TelevisaUnivision; that organization made a major purge of the most extreme liberal news hosts, such as Jorge Ramos. There are commentaries that the Televisa home office is decidedly more conservative than Univision used to be.
And with rare exceptions, are immediately released. The guidance being issued is to "carry your ID".
Where did you even get that idea from? Certainly some talk shows will have discussions, but no station of consequence would think of doing so. Remember, illegal immigrants are not going to carry a PPM, so they are of no direct value to radio stations that broadcast in Spanish.
Most of the ICE agents at the border and in enforcement are Hispanic. It's almost a necessity to control borders and to capture illegal immigrants, nearly none of whom speak English.
It sounds like a dream world to me. Do you think that cabinet members and advisors like Rubio, who has been a frequent guest on TelevisaUnivision, Telemundo and Spanish radio stations, would go along with that?
It is such an obvious restriction of freedom of the press that anyone even mentioning it would be silenced instantly.
Everyone thinks their opinion is the most important. It's not, and putting is all in bold font might be worse than typing it in all caps. Please don't.
You asked, so here you go. A Spanish radio station in Phoenix:
The subversive power of Spanish-language radio - High Country News
For decades, immigrant communities have used the airwaves to educate and protect themselves in times of crisis.
www.hcn.org
I'm not going to waste any more time on speculation. But don't be surprised if this government starts clamping down on Spanish radio.
It doesn't matter if they carry PPM. This is about radio, not the people listening.
That's OK. It will be a regular topic over the next four years. Anyone in radio needs to know that their freedom of the press could be under attack.
Take a look at their recent ratings. They did well several decades back in several markets, but lost it to stations with entertaining talent and researched music.
It would not surprise me if they found Campesina to be violating all kinds of rules and laws and regulations. For decades, none of us reported their blatant disregard for what non-commercial stations could do because we got back-channel noise saying that we would get gatherings in front of the station and in front of City Hall if we did that. They would run the same ads with the same price-item, call to action, comparisons with other advertisers, etc., that a commercial statioin would carry and they were "intimidating" in their sales efforts, too.
However, a commercial station itself does care about the meters or the diaries. They know that undocumented persons will not sign up for anything.
That is your supposition. I don't see any of it, but would welcome enforcement against any station that violates rules like real commercials on a non-commercial station and intimidation of clients. But that is about ethics, not about language usage.
By the way, my wife and I speak Spanish to each other when shopping, dining out and even going to a doctor or exercise session. In the last few months, we have not seen any change in attitude or expression when we speak Spanish to vendors, service providers or the Hispanic pharmacist at CVS. And neither of us have any concern that someone from La Migra might hear us speaking Spanish. And we are in a market that is about 55% Hispanic now.
You keep talking about ratings. That's not what this is about. The government doesn't care about ratings.
They don't like any media. No one is immune. Fox, Audacy, CBS, NPR, Univision. It's all the same to them.
I am talking about ratings of a non-commercial station that depends on public support. The Farm Worker stations lost their "touch" and have limited influence. And if the government does not like them, there are plenty of other reasons to investigate them that have no First Amendment implications.
I don't think so. Look at all the cooperation between Trump delegates and TelevisaUnivison.
And this weekend I watched President Trump for an hour and then Netanyahu for another hour on Fox News. I did not see either of them on CBS, NBC, AC, CNN or MSNBC. They are not all the same "to them".
When I read the above paragraph, alarm bells started ringing in my head. No U.S. President should ever have the authority to tell any U.S. broadcasters which commentators they can or cannot have on staff. If what you said actually took place, it would be a direct violation of the first Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as it would be a direct violation by the U.S. government of the freedom of the press.
Last edited by a moderator:
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
I normally don't. I wanted to make a point this time. Is that okay with you, just this once?
- Status