Religious Radio Organization Cheers Upcoming Opportunities to Acquire More Signals

[K.M. Richards]

If I were the owner/operator of a public radio station reeling from the loss of CPB funding, and EMF/K-Love, VCY or the like were attempting a hostile takeover of my station, I would rather take it dark permanently and surrender the license than let the likes of them have it.

They have plenty of signals already. Why do they need more?

While I certainly support the sentiment, it wouldn't stop them. In the NCE part of the FM band, you don't have to wait for a filing window or auction. They could file for a new station the instant you surrendered the license.

 

[cc333]

While I certainly support the sentiment, it wouldn't stop them. In the NCE part of the FM band, you don't have to wait for a filing window or auction. They could file for a new station the instant you surrendered the license.

I know, but I would do it as a protest because I could.

c

 

[fybush]

While I certainly support the sentiment, it wouldn't stop them. In the NCE part of the FM band, you don't have to wait for a filing window or auction. They could file for a new station the instant you surrendered the license.

That is not factual.

You need to wait for a filing window to apply for a new station, whether NCE or commercial.

 

[b-turner]

Why not use the word Trump versus Orange Taco. That's his name. Intentionally disrespectful and lowers respect in the poster's direction. Simply put, showing respect earns respect according to my mom.

Nobody is trying to pry these stations away. That's just nonsensical. When you have a license, it doesn't get any better or higher up the radio food chain. You cannot have a hostile takeover. That's not how radio works. All sales are scrutinized by the FCC by a specific set of rules. A hostile takeover would not happen.

Here's what amazes me: of all the posters defending public radio, I have yet to see a post with a promise to help, ideas of how these stations can find those dollars elsewhere. In other words, anything that might benefit public radio. All I'm seeing is hate for he president, republicans in general, christians in general as if none of you have any inkling of how you might help and seemingly resolute on just blaming it on any convenient group as the bad guy. Our president attacked a segment of radio when both commercial and non-commercial stations have been diminished revenue. It should not have happened at this point.

I personally don't think public radio should be funded by government dollars except in certain cases. Public radio is not the entity it was 40+ years ago. Most public stations are running formats such as News/Talk and are cookie cutter formatics (Morning Ediion; All Things Considered among others). The reasoning is this maximizes underwriting and donations and ability to get grants to maximize the operating budget. Ratings show many such stations are major contenders in their market. I would say it is all about maximizing the listener base. That does not diminish content. In other words, if it's a money loser or can't do well, it goes away. My point is public radio has become an entity unlike the station that needed financial help in Reagan's day. With that said, I strongly disagree with the knee-jerk reaction of cutting off everything. I would support a plan of weaning off the fund over, say, a decade to allow stations to make a more comfortable transition.

 

[TheBigA]

Public radio is not the entity it was 40+ years ago. Most public stations are running formats such as News/Talk and are cookie cutter formatics (Morning Ediion; All Things Considered among others).

That's a mischaracterization of what public radio does. They didn't receive the federal dollars because of the format. The funding that was cut affects a wide range of formats that aren't available in most places because of the demographics. The news they cover is a wider range than typically covered by commercial stations. The way the stations are programmed is done locally. Not like EMF. The station decides if it even wants to carry NPR. That's not a requirement. In some cases, the programming decisions are made by employees of state governments. Yes, public radio improved the service it provided to the public. It changed as the rest of radio changed. That's what it's supposed to do. They applied for the funding every year, and it was granted. Until now. The idea was for public radio to be an alternative, and it still is. But it doesn't matter anymore.

 

[K.M. Richards]

That is not factual.

You need to wait for a filing window to apply for a new station, whether NCE or commercial.

I stand corrected.

 

[Mediafrog+]

Why not use the word Trump versus Orange Taco. That's his name. Intentionally disrespectful and lowers respect in the poster's direction.

I didn’t invent the term. But others are already making money off of it:

Amazon.com: Uh-oh Taco's Mad! - Orange Faced Trump Taco T-Shirt : Clothing, Shoes & Jewelry

Buy Uh-oh Taco's Mad! - Orange Faced Trump Taco T-Shirt: Shop top fashion brands T-Shirts at Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY and Returns possible on eligible purchases

www.amazon.com

Trump should take your advice, as he has never had any shortage of endless vitriol aimed at anyone who dares to oppose him or refused to bow down at his feet.

Having said that, I am done with this particular thread. Not worth the headache.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

That is not factual.

You need to wait for a filing window to apply for a new station, whether NCE or commercial.

I stand corrected.

and because I like being the special pedantic outlier in almost every case.. that's not exactly true here in Alaska

You can file for Class D Non Commercial Stations 88 to 108 anywhere here in Alaska year round without a filing window.

Now, except for established stations, I don't think anyone is doing that anymore these days. But thats how stations like KSKO, KOTZ and KYUK have grown over the years

 

[Bongwater]

You can file for Class D Non Commercial Stations 88 to 108 anywhere here in Alaska year round without a filing window.

Really? I thought they did away with Class D (are they still little 10 watt things?) One could probably cover a tiny village with that. Though the donations I expect would be mighty slim...

 

[gr8oldies]

That's a mischaracterization of what public radio does. They didn't receive the federal dollars because of the format. The funding that was cut affects a wide range of formats that aren't available in most places because of the demographics. The news they cover is a wider range than typically covered by commercial stations. The way the stations are programmed is done locally. Not like EMF. The station decides if it even wants to carry NPR. That's not a requirement. In some cases, the programming decisions are made by employees of state governments. Yes, public radio improved the service it provided to the public. It changed as the rest of radio changed. That's what it's supposed to do. They applied for the funding every year, and it was granted. Until now. The idea was for public radio to be an alternative, and it still is. But it doesn't matter anymore.

Among those losing funding is local Americana station WDVX, Knoxville. No news or politics, and a good share of their audience is conservative. It could end up costing their daily lunchtime concerts, "The Blue Plate Special". We'll see if their audience is willing to pony up more.

 

[davideduardo]

It will say people can only be nickel and dimed so much while the cost of mere survival is getting crazy expensive. Or lose their jobs.

And that has what to do with any variety of non-profit radio except to make fund raising that much harder?

It's not public broadcasting's fault. But it's not the middle/lower class listeners fault either (and WHAT middle class do I even speak of these days?) They can only do so much.

That's a political discussion, and involves analyzing the export of much of our manufacturing to SE Asia and China specifically. It's not a radio issue.

But Christian broadcasters are being handed everything they've ever wanted on a silver platter.

What has changed insofar as the rules, regulations or costs of operation? For example, the venerable Moody organization decided to centralize programming and suspend some services, like Spanish formats; that is hardly "being handed" anything except a list of due bills!

Their listeners don't have to pay for anything. The regime is literally throwing taxpayer money at Christian broadcasters at the expense of CPB/NPR and public media.

There is no money being given to Christian or any religious broadcasters by the government. They are exempt from some taxes, just like a physical church is... or your local Red Cross office.

That, is the difference.

What difference?

 

[CTListener]

And that has what to do with any variety of non-profit radio except to make fund raising that much harder?

That's a political discussion, and involves analyzing the export of much of our manufacturing to SE Asia and China specifically. It's not a radio issue.

What has changed insofar as the rules, regulations or costs of operation? For example, the venerable Moody organization decided to centralize programming and suspend some services, like Spanish formats; that is hardly "being handed" anything except a list of due bills!

There is no money being given to Christian or any religious broadcasters by the government. They are exempt from some taxes, just like a physical church is... or your local Red Cross office.

What difference?

The difference is that the Red Cross offers much needed, actual, physical help to ALL those who need it. Godcasters offer intangible assistance only to those who buy into Christianity's basic tenets, including the divinity and special powers of a man who is not a major deity in any other of the world's faiths. To others, the Godcasters are either irrelevant, annoying or downright insulting in their insistence that their religion is the only way to a happy afterlife. Got it?

 

[Cold Coffee]

Uh, it was Christians during the Age of Enlightenment who took a stand against slavery on this planet.

 

[CTListener]

Uh, it was Christians during the Age of Enlightenment who took a stand against slavery on this planet.

"Been there, done that," said Moses, a Jew.

 

[davideduardo]

The difference is that the Red Cross offers much needed, actual, physical help to ALL those who need it. Godcasters offer intangible assistance only to those who buy into Christianity's basic tenets, including the divinity and special powers of a man who is not a major deity in any other of the world's faiths. To others, the Godcasters are either irrelevant, annoying or downright insulting in their insistence that their religion is the only way to a happy afterlife. Got it?

No, I do not get it.

Religious broadcasters... and, in fact the major "western" religion of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have a basic set of values, exemplified by the Ten Commandments. Their teachings, whether the Old or New Testaments or the Koran, give guidance about how people can live respectfully with each other.

What you call "Godsters" are actually teachers of how people can all answer the question of "why can't we all be friends". While each has different tenets and interpretations, if we go right to the basics of the Ten Commandments we have pretty much a viable and valid structure for humanity.

Yes, there have been some bad steps such as the Crusades and the Inquisition. There have been incidents of intolerance, such as the rejection of about two billion Muslims because of a smaller number of fanatics; in general the underlying principles of each faith don't support those acts just as our civil laws don't support theft and murder.

I see no difference between the Red Cross helping after a disaster and a church giving counseling to people with life issues.

 

[Delete My Account]

I'm not against the existence of religious broadcasting of any kind.

A lot of what's being discussed here is the methods of some of the larger broadcasters in that sector, and how they've behaved over time. The basics or ideals of a given faith are one thing. The methods of those claiming those beliefs in the broadcast sector and how they do the "business" of it is where much of the tension stems from on this thread.

Are they ministers or moneychangers? It varies by organization, leadership and legal counsel. But keep in mind, just because something is legal in the context of secular law doesn't make it ethical.

I would argue that some of the practices, such as filing for thousands of translators with no fees (an option open to them as non-profits) is not in the spirit of their beliefs. Pleading poverty to avoid local presence when that was a requirement generally was another case in point. Filing for things not needed that were redundant to crowd differing views or cultures off the airwaves, another example.

So I don't blame people for being skeptical. Power and money corrupt, and that's just as true on the religious right as anywhere else. And a lot of people can justify a lot of things in the name of belief. Even if it's not in the spirit of the law or the regulations or the actual reading of their own holy writ.

 

[davideduardo]

I would argue that some of the practices, such as filing for thousands of translators with no fees (an option open to them as non-profits) is not in the spirit of their beliefs.

I agree there, in part. When that window opened, if they wanted all those facilities, they were not encumbered in asking for them. So it is more the fault of regulators who let it happen.

Pleading poverty to avoid local presence when that was a requirement generally was another case in point.

The local presence rule is one that came out of the severe political flavoring of the FRC and FCC in its early years. For example, U.S. radio power was restricted to the low 50 kw so that stations could not be regional influencers; politicians feared stations that could cover vast areas and be more influential that even the biggest newspapers.

Similarly, ownership was limited to keep station groups small. And local origination prevented full 100% networking... and not changed for decades despite the majority of nations allowing national service with no local offices or studios.

Filing for things not needed that were redundant to crowd differing views or cultures off the airwaves, another example.

I don't follow this; examples?

So I don't blame people for being skeptical. Power and money corrupt, and that's just as true on the religious right as anywhere else. And a lot of people can justify a lot of things in the name of belief. Even if it's not in the spirit of the law or the regulations or the actual reading of their own holy writ.

We can find power and corruption at all levels. My favorite case is the American car manufacturers who sustained the "it falls apart after three years" of planned obsolescence. Yet only when VW and the Japanese brands showed that cars could last a decade if maintained, did U.S. makers gradually change their practices.

 

[TheBigA]

There is no money being given to Christian or any religious broadcasters by the government.

Correct. However, there is money being taken AWAY from other non-coms. Money that was appropriated 4 months ago, and budgeted for by these stations, and has now been taken away. In some cases, it may be enough to cause some colleges to consider selling. That's the topic of this thread. Religious radio is likely to be a beneficiary of government policy.

As I've been saying, this is bad for radio in general because a lot of these stations were playing music that is unprofitable for commercial radio. Their listeners will be forced to use subscription services because their free public radio station was sold to a religious operator. It's something that's already been happening for the past 5 years.

 

[davideduardo]

Correct. However, there is money being taken AWAY from other non-coms. Money that was appropriated 4 months ago, and budgeted for by these stations, and has now been taken away. In some cases, it may be enough to cause some colleges to consider selling. That's the topic of this thread. Religious radio is likely to be a beneficiary of government policy.

And that is all less and less relevant as more and more people do not depend on broadcast radio and TV.

Sort of like being granted farming rights in a desert.

 

[TheBigA]

And that is all less and less relevant as more and more people do not depend on broadcast radio and TV.

The people who depend on these types of stations, the ones that specialize in jazz, classical, and AAA, are in the demo that grew up with radio. They're more likely to remain loyal to broadcast radio that programs what they want.