It's now six. One of those words has come to be used constantly without any real objection.
-
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
The Trump Administration rants about ABC News And NBC, Says They Should Lose FCC Licenses
- Thread starter Y2kTheNewOldies
- Start date
MAD, as in the magazine of years gone by? Please clarify.
NAB criticizes FCC for calling in ABC television licenses early
The organization said the FCC's broadcast license renewal process must be rooted in predictability.
thedesk.net
Here is more on the NAB response to the FCC going after Disney owned ABC affiliates over the White House going after Kimmel.
Anybody believe this is not about Kimmle.
deadline.com
ABC License Renewals Probe All About DEI, Not Kimmel, FCC Chair Insists Amid Claims Of Political Vengeance; NBC Could Be Next For Review
FCC's Brendan Carr insists the suspicious license renewal review of ABC after another fracas between Trump & Jimmy Kimmel has nothing to do with free speech
deadline.com
Anybody believe this is not about Kimmle.
ABC License Renewals Probe All About DEI, Not Kimmel, FCC Chair Insists Amid Claims Of Political Vengeance; NBC Could Be Next For Review
FCC's Brendan Carr insists the suspicious license renewal review of ABC after another fracas between Trump & Jimmy Kimmel has nothing to do with free speech
Mr. Carr should have stuck with his first excuse. Making it all about DEI makes this issue look even more toxic for this administration.
The part about this however is that the administration has made a crime out of DEI, which is an extension of Equal Opportunity rules. For example, if you apply for a job at an ABC TV station, there is this disclaimer at the bottom of the job listing:
On the surface that looks fine. But this administration doesn't like the last two categories, even though they are part of the law.
He says the station can't discriminate on the basis of race or gender. What he means by the is the station can't hire blacks or gays. But that's not what the law says. This is a case where the administration is pushing its own agenda without actually having a legal basis. ABC doesn't have a director of DEI and they don't use DEI in hiring. They're simply following EOE rules. But Carr wants to make a big deal out of nothing, and he's managed to do that here.
DEI itself isn't illegal, and the government admits that. However, following the president's EO, government agencies, including the FCC and even EEOC have policies about how DEI can be done:
EEOC and Justice Department Warn Against Unlawful DEI-Related Discrimination
WASHINGTON -- Today, the U.S.
This gets into that area of interpreting vague rules by agencies. This is about using civil rights laws to benefit white people. So far none of these agency campaigns against DEI have been challenged in the courts. Perhaps this time it will. We know under the Chevron decision, they will lose in court.
Which one? I'm fairly certain I've heard 2 of the 7 on air lol
From the linked article above:
The thing to note is that even if they determine there is "invidious forms of DEI," they can't revoke a license over it. In fact we're not even sure that they can even levy a fine. The policy that I linked from EOE doesn't provide any penalties. They would probably have to be decided by the courts, not the FCC.
What attracts my attention is the companies they choose to investigate about DEI. Not Fox News, not Nexstar, not Sinclair. Why is that, I wonder? It gets to the selective enforcement situation I've brought up. If they want to do this in a fair, non-partisan way, they should put everyone through the same procedure, not just the ones they want to harass. In that way, they're causing their own form of government discrimination targeting only their enemies.
The thing to note is that even if they determine there is "invidious forms of DEI," they can't revoke a license over it. In fact we're not even sure that they can even levy a fine. The policy that I linked from EOE doesn't provide any penalties. They would probably have to be decided by the courts, not the FCC.
What attracts my attention is the companies they choose to investigate about DEI. Not Fox News, not Nexstar, not Sinclair. Why is that, I wonder? It gets to the selective enforcement situation I've brought up. If they want to do this in a fair, non-partisan way, they should put everyone through the same procedure, not just the ones they want to harass. In that way, they're causing their own form of government discrimination targeting only their enemies.
There is a second one that makes it to the air much less often.
Synonyms are urinate and breast.
Aw, come on! One thing is joking about one's own mortality and another is predicting the death of someone else
Neither statement is a threat. Neither causes anyone to take action. Neither one is illegal. Both were said in jest. Both are protected speech.
Carr has given more details about his investigation, and he says it's not based on what Kimmel said. So that's irrelevant.
Brendan Carr insists early ABC license review not about Jimmy Kimmel
Brendan Carr has tied the early license review for eight ABC TV stations to discrimination reviews.
www.newsweek.com
As employed, DEI is not an extension of EEO rules. It encourages the favoring of non-whites in employment, and has been use to suggest that companies and organizations might "compensate" for lack of past opportunities. s
In this case, they are saying that non-minorities are being excluded with the purpose of righting a past wrong. I personally see this as someone who was a minority in every radio position I ever had and who was required to prove value at each step despite being a minority.
I see the opposition to DEI as seeking to keep the playing field as level as the courts and legal system can... despite prejudices, bigotry and racism. I just don't see the need for a vague concept when EEO is in place and, perhaps, needs better regulation and enforcement.
Those who object to Kimmel's original "joke" see it as a call to action... an invitation... and (as I have said before) similar to calling "fire" in a packed theater. You may find the "joke" amusing; I find it disgusting and perilous at a time when the two major political parties are so polarized.
So let it continue. If there are significant findings, there will be a court case and the opportunity to present them to a judge and jury.
That's how some groups interpret it. That's why Project 2025 aimed at eliminating it, and Carr is an active member of that group.
They're saying it without any facts or proof. History has shown that both forms of discrimination are very difficult to prove.
If you read the link I posted detailing EEOC policy for DEI, you will see it is more "vague concepts." What there is a need for is tolerance and understanding, and constantly attacking the media or minorities or forcing political agendas isn't a way to do that.
"Those" as in you. You're the one objecting to it. And that was already obvious three threads ago.
I have received several dozen direct emails objecting to the one-sided position of "it's just a joke" and who find such comments to be the opposite of humor... and even an encouragement for real actions.
As someone who went to school with, worked with and even dated survivors and who knew real Third Reich nazi's, I find the use of many terms in broadcast dialogs to be both inaccurate and very harmful.
It's fine to have that opinion, and nobody is saying you can't have that opinion. The difference here is taking that opinion and then using a position as an official in the government to target other people for what they said and demanding they get fired. I think Carr has realized he can't in fact do what the president wants him to do, but he can make business more difficult for Kimmel's employer. In its own way, that is an invidious form of discrimination. Because it's only being used on the companies the president has identified.
I believe DEI also covers disability discrimination as well. I am blind, sso it covers me as well in that respect.
I think he is now making that excuse because Ted Cruz got mad att him again.Neither statement is a threat. Neither causes anyone to take action. Neither one is illegal. Both were said in jest. Both are protected speech.
Carr has given more details about his investigation, and he says it's not based on what Kimmel said. So that's irrelevant.
Brendan Carr insists early ABC license review not about Jimmy Kimmel
Brendan Carr has tied the early license review for eight ABC TV stations to discrimination reviews.
Ted Cruz Rips FCC Over ABC Broadcast License Review Following Kimmel Joke: ‘It Is Not Government’s Job to Censor Speech’
Ted Cruz thinks the FCC stepped over the line in ordering Disney's ABC to file for an accelerated renewal of broadcast licenses of its eight local TV stations -- seemingly in response to a joke Jimmy Kimmel told about Melania Trump on late-night television.
variety.com