• 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

Prepare for new FCC rules…

That would make an interesting legal argument, wouldn't it?

The ever-loyal Chairman Carr probably hasn't thought of that yet. And if such a challenge were to happen, a complaint to be filed with the Commission the first time a conservative operation refused equal time to the terrorists ... er ... liberals, then Carr would have to either rule in favor of them, or try to argue that the "equal" part of the rule only applied to one side of the equation.

Either way, he loses. Rule for the liberals, then the conservatives will want him out. Yesterday. Rule for his lords and masters and he creates proof that the FCC has no interest in the "public interest", therefore destroying its credibility. Either way, half of the population decides the Commission has no standing to enforce any kind of regulatory power.

This may be the best idea I have heard come from you, A.
 
That would make an interesting legal argument, wouldn't it?

It's really not that complicated. Same with Fox News. Is it really news or is it entertainment? Sean Hannity says it's entertainment. Why do they only push one side? It shouldn't be exempt from equal time either. They never think about their "new rules": being applied to them because nobody ever challenges them. So Carr is only investigating the mainstream media, and Fox News gets away with total murder. People need to be willing to challenge them on these things.
 
It's really not that complicated. Same with Fox News. Is it really news or is it entertainment? Sean Hannity says it's entertainment.

Somewhere in my archives I have an aircheck from my brief tenure in morning drive at then-KWNK/670, rimshotting L.A. from Simi Valley. It was early 1989, we had just gone Talk, and were carrying Rush Limbaugh because KFI had passed on him (he was still quite not a name yet).

Rush did his show from the WABC studios in New York; 10am to noon local, then noon to 2pm on the satellite. That put him right after my show at 9am Pacific, and we arranged for a live interview at 6:40am our time, which was just right for him to talk with me for ten minutes and still have a breather before he went on the air on 770.

At one point, he answered one of my questions with "K.M., you have to remember that this is show business. What I do is just an act."

I always wondered, after his act went hyper-conservative, how much I could have gotten from him in exchange for that tape.
 
Here's the wording of the FCC rule:

"Under section 315, if a broadcast station permits any legally qualified candidate for public office to use its facilities, it shall provide an equal opportunity to all other legally qualified candidates for that office," the FCC wrote in a press release.

Clearly that also applies to conservative talk radio. This article agrees:


Some on the left also see the FCC policy benefiting them, by applying the same rules to conservative talk radio shows as TV programs. While the end of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 paved the way for radio shows to offer just one viewpoint, the equal opportunity rule could be used during campaign season. Progressives suggest talk radio shows that frequently feature Republican candidates could be forced to offer airtime to Democrats.
 
Last edited:
One might ask why these new guidelines wouldn't also apply to conservative talk radio.

Maybe force them to invite some people from another party. The one they consider a terrorist group.
If the host just screams over the representative of the "terrorist party" does it count?
 
If the host just screams over the representative of the "terrorist party" does it count?

What I find is that a lot of these hosts are very brave when they're just in the studio alone. They become a lot more diplomatic when they're face to face with someone they attack every day.

But we know that Brendan Carr won't enforce his new guidance on anyone he agrees with. What they do is OK with him. We see that already in his other "investigations." So I'm pretty sure he'll find a way to be selective in the way he enforces his rules. He's not the only one who does selective enforcement.
 
But we know that Brendan Carr won't enforce his new guidance on anyone he agrees with. What they do is OK with him. We see that already in his other "investigations." So I'm pretty sure he'll find a way to be selective in the way he enforces his rules. He's not the only one who does selective enforcement.

Seems to me that the first time he does ignore a violation from his side of the party divide, the lawyers will start billing hours. For all I know, the legal counsel under retainer at the major broadcast groups may have already been tasked with creating boilerplate language for anything they may get dragged into under this latest bit of fascism ... all it takes to deflect a "violation" is proving the rule isn't being applied equally and fairly.

This may well become a case of "be careful what you ask for because you might get it" for the right-wingers.
 
Seems to me that the first time he does ignore a violation from his side of the party divide,

There already have been violations. In the recent governor's races in NJ and VA, conservative talk stations in those states only interviewed and promoted candidates from one party. There was no equal time.
 
This may be the best idea I have heard come from you, A.

Thanks, and it's always reassuring when I make a statement here, and then I see an authoritative publication saying the same thing.

Progressives suggest talk radio shows that frequently feature Republican candidates could be forced to offer airtime to Democrats.

We're saying that because that's how the law works. The phrase stands above the entrance to the Supreme Court: Equal Justice Under Law.
 
It's really not that complicated. Same with Fox News. Is it really news or is it entertainment? Sean Hannity says it's entertainment. Why do they only push one side? It shouldn't be exempt from equal time either. They never think about their "new rules": being applied to them because nobody ever challenges them. So Carr is only investigating the mainstream media, and Fox News gets away with total murder. People need to be willing to challenge them on these things.
FNC is a paid cable channel like PMSNOW or CNN or HBO...not affected by the FCC
 
FNC is a paid cable channel like PMSNOW or CNN or HBO...not affected by the FCC

Just because BigA used that as an example of "news vs. entertainment" does not mean that he -- or any of us professionals here -- don't already know that the FCC has no jurisdiction over cable content.

You must think we are idiots.
 


Back
Top Bottom