Agreed too on this its a case of we saw a dog whistle pointing one way and it turns out to be crazier than what we thought it was about.
-
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
Congressman Calls for the FCC to investigate Super Bowl Show by going after NFL and NBC Sports
- Thread starter Y2kTheNewOldies
- Start date
- Status
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
In a thread like this, where political interference with broadcasting is the topic, I think Lance is more forgiving about discussing the underlying politics ... provided it connects to the topic logically.
Lance, in my view, is more concerned about threads becoming political and straying from radio/television as the focal points.
The discussions are also very civil. No personal insults or attacks.
I fully expect the FCC to at least investigate the complaints. As we've often said, all it takes is one complaint for the FCC to open an investigation. They did it to Howard Stern and many others. But with the courts rejecting most of the FCC's obscenity fines, and even questioning the FCC's ability to levy any fines at all, we can expect this to go nowhere.
FCC v. Fox: Defining Broadcast Indecency Standards
An analysis of FCC v. Fox, where the Supreme Court’s decision on broadcast indecency ultimately turned on procedural fairness and constitutional fair notice.
legalclarity.org
Supreme Court deals 'earth-shattering' blow to federal agencies' administrative powers
The court's majority said allowing agencies to enforce laws with fines adjudicated in-house improperly concentrates power within the executive branch. Its minority warned of "momentous consequences."
www.govexec.com
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
In an attempt to keep this thread on-topic, let me divert that thought into this direction, if I may:
If we cannot properly push back against conservative ideologues on matters such as the one the Congressman with the oddly inappropriate name is making such a big deal about, then Carrtune and his sidekick Olivia Trust-me will see a void that they can use to force any programming content their political masters don't like off the air. And by the time challenging that makes its way to the legal system, radio and television will have lost the listeners who don't agree with the conservative viewpoint to the unregulated platforms.
That is the battle we cannot afford to lose.
That said, what would delight me would be some MAGA-leaning conservative coming out against some FCC edict pushed through by the puppet chairman which ran contrary to his own personal tastes. Maybe we can convince Carr that the lyrics to "Sweet Home Alabama" have hidden pornographic meaning, he'll try to ban Classic Rock on the airwaves, and the good ol' boys in the South will want to lynch him for it.
D
Deleted member 108832
Guest
So, when exactly did "idiot-in-chief" become a complimentary title for our sitting President? I am a fan of K.M., for the biggest part, but if I were to call Barack Obama, say, the "traitor-in-chief", that simply wouldn't fly around here. Now would it?
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
Sorry we aren't being as clear as we should.
Lance doesn't like people here on RD insulting and attacking each other. Government officials are still open season.
I think if anyone made that crack about former President Obama here, the outcry would be so great the poster would end up having to self-ban. We are under a uniquely terrible situation with the current administration, and so those comments don't tend to offend anyone here (including Lance ... provided the comment had to do with another proposed attack on the media).
You should see what I call the current POTUS when texting friends. Even Lance would disapprove.
Lance doesn't like people here on RD insulting and attacking each other. Government officials are still open season.
I think if anyone made that crack about former President Obama here, the outcry would be so great the poster would end up having to self-ban. We are under a uniquely terrible situation with the current administration, and so those comments don't tend to offend anyone here (including Lance ... provided the comment had to do with another proposed attack on the media).
You should see what I call the current POTUS when texting friends. Even Lance would disapprove.
Expanding on K.M.'s comment, "idiot" is an opinion, and impossible to prove statistically, despite any amount (including an overwhelming amount) of empirical evidence.
"Traitor" is a very serious, very specific charge, one that carries with it a possible death sentence. So anyone tossing that around has to meet the absolute highest burden of proof.
"Traitor" is a very serious, very specific charge, one that carries with it a possible death sentence. So anyone tossing that around has to meet the absolute highest burden of proof.
D
Deleted member 108832
Guest
I'll call bull. I have, personally, been contacted through private message by Scott Fybush, in his moderator role, for speaking up against the Democratic party. Same holds true with Lance.
It seems all fine and good for those of you who are like-minded and gleefully await the day that Trump is out of office and a person with a political bent such as a Gavin Newsom, or a Hakeem Jefferies is sitting in the Oval Office.
As a person who no longer has a name listed on either major party's roll call, it's unnecessary to come here and see someone of your caliber, and I don't mean to single you out, K.M., lower yourself to using nasty names about the person who is in charge of this country that my father, brother, uncle, and grandfather all went to war to serve.
Some people here just aren't any better than having to stoop to that nasty level.
You are, K.M. You most certainly are.
I'd be content with anyone who doesn't attack media or broadcasting on a daily basis, regardless of party. The current president is unlawfully using our government, that we all pay for, to attack my line of work. I find that unconstitutional.
D
Deleted member 108832
Guest
1.7 billion dollars to Iran, shortly before he left office prior to Trump's first term.
I don't know what else you would call it.
D
Deleted member 108832
Guest
It's mine too. But I'd rather deal with his silly ignorance than some of the pure hogwash being promoted by his opposition.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
Sorry, but where the current POTUS is concerned, yeah ... I do.
This is the first time where the holder of that office has destroyed the credibility of that office -- indeed, our nation ... the one everyone's father, brother, uncle, and grandfather all went to war to serve -- with most of the rest of the world.
I have disagreed with some of the previous POTUSes during my lifetime (and there have been 13 of them in my lifetime), but never has my level of disagreement sunk as low as it has with the current one. And what BigA wrote while I was working on this rebuttal clinches it.
Even I have my limits. Sorry.
Last edited:
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
As I understand it, after doing several minutes of research after you said that, the $1.7 billion was a legal settlement of a decades‑old arbitration award tied to a failed arms deal prior to 1979, under the Shah of Iran's administration. Iran was an ally then, and Obama wasn't even 18 when that deal fizzled.
Please do a little more research before making statements like that. Otherwise, you'll sound as bad as you accuse me of being.
(P. S. : That's "what else I would call it", based on the facts.)
Last edited:
And a countless number of Spanish radio stations.
I don't care about the president. He has a 1st amendment freedom to say whatever he wants.
My problem is with all the people he brought with him, such as Brendan Carr, Russell Vought, and Steven Miller. None of them got elected, none could ever get elected to anything, yet they determine a lot of policy. Vought shut down CPB.
Last edited:
Another member of Congress Rep Mark Alford joins Reps Ogle and Fine to get the FCC to investigate NFL, Bad Bunny and NBC over the Super Bowl concert. Hope the main offices for NBC at 30 Rock in New York and Universal City respond to the allegations these members of Congress is going.
The GM/President of KNTV San Jose cannot respond to this FCC threat alone. The local GM/President from KNTV have to report to Valari Staab The Chairperson for NBC Owned TV Stations when a local station is hit with an FCC threat also Rick Cordella of NBC Sports have to respond to the same stuff given that they are the ones that signed the NFL broadcast contract.
Valari Dobson Staab
Valari Dobson Staab serves as Chairman of NBCUniversal Local. In this role, she oversees more than 50 local, regional and national media properties, including
Rick Cordella
Rick Cordella is President, NBC Sports. He assumed the role in September 2023, and oversees all aspects of NBC Sports’ collection of brands and platforms, which
Are the Bad Bunny songs containing the lyrics these lawmakers object to played regularly on FM and AM stations? I'm wondering if this campaign might expand into an effort to drive large numbers of Spanish-language broadcasters out of business -- or to switch to programming more favorable to the current administration -- through threats of lawsuits and exorbitant fines.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
If someone will post the titles, I can check Mediabase ...
Why would we assume those stations aren’t playing radio edits, especially now that we’ve established that NBC bleeped legally problematic words in the Super Bowl performance?
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
Because Carrtoon and the Congresscritters will make that assumption?
- Status