I have been noticing that on many talkers, for example, WPHT, WOR, WABC and others, they have been running ads, urging listeners to support Israel financially, in this new war. Is this legal to take sides, I realize most stations are Jewish owned and operated but don't you think they should have ads supporting the Palistinians who have been brutalized and misplaced, that need aid more than Israel, I have not heard one ad the other way. I am not taking sides, whats fair is fair, but it seems like all these stations are one sided, a human being is a human being no matter what religion.
-
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
are support Israel ads on the radio legal?
- Thread starter hangman
- Start date
F
FredLeonard
Guest
Yes, it's legal. These are not political ads, so stations can refuse to sell time to the group behind the ads but these are right-wing talk stations and their programs tend to be pro-Zionist anyway. Besides, given the current audience numbers, they need all the advertisers they can get. If they were to refuse to sell air time to pro-Palestinian groups (while running pro-Zionist spots), they could probably get away with that, too.
In any case, stations regularly sell air time for advocacy advertising.
When it comes to political advertising, the politicians have given themselves special privileges. If a station accepts any political advertising, it has to accept all. The ads can not be edited and the campaigns get preferred ad rates. Talk radio would probably have gone out of business already if it weren't for political ads.
U
Unregistered
Guest
Whether you agree with it our not, the Fairness Doctrine hasn't been law of the land in more than a quarter century. Certainly, a case could be made both for its re-establishment as well as for keeping it off the books.
If you exclude any advocacy ad, you have to exclude all ads in that category. Otherwise, it is discriminatory. A non-issue example would be excluding rum ads but taking vodka ads. If you take any hard liquor ads, you have to take all of them. However, you can have certain standards as to the copy points, but, again, it must be applied evenly.
And you can refuse some political ads. Many elective positions do not fall under the lowest minimum rate / usage regulations and a station that does not want to be filled with political ads can either refuse to take the ones that are not mandated or set a maximum number per campaign. I've done it, and the policy was filed at the FCC by what was, at the time, Koteen & Burt, a major communications law firm.
Unless one of them violated an established set of copy rules, they can't take one side and limit the other.
As mentioned above, stations can limit ads for certain kinds of races and the lowest unit rate rules only apply to covered races and when usage is employed. PAC advertising does not fall under lowest unit rate, IIRC.
That qualifies for the Pinocchio of the Week.
Most of the biggest radio broadcast companies are publicly held and the shareholders mirror the composition of the nation, with huge positions in most being held by mutual funds and private equity funds in trust accounts.
But, in any case, what is the problem with having some stations Jewish owned or managed? Under law, if they run pro-Israel ads they have to take pro-Palestine ads as well.
My mind, of course, boggles at the thought of Pro-Hamas ads... "Your $19 a month can dig 20 feet of reinforced tunnel or enough fuel for 5 rockets."
Last edited:
F
FredLeonard
Guest
Owning and operating a two different things. Yes, these are publicly traded companies but most publicly traded companies have different classes of stock which put voting power in the hands of relatively few shareholders. And, as a practical matter, shareholders generally send in their proxies and vote the way management tells them, too, and the elect the board management nominates. Boards generally defer to management as long as the numbers look good. Even more than individual investors, fund managers are even more obsessed with numbers and less concerned with policy.
Yes, there was a time when major broadcasting organizations were controlled by Jews. Goldenson, Paley, Sarnoff. All Jews and all from the same region around Minsk. The major movie studios in Hollywood's "golden age" with one exception were controlled by Jews (see Neal Gabler's "An Empire of their Own"). And a number of major newspapers including the New York Times, although the concentration of Jews in newspapers was not as great.
Today: CBS - Sumner Redstone and Les Moonvies are Jewish. ABC - Robert Iger, Disney CEO, is Jewish. NBC - Comcast CEO Brian L. Roberts is Jewish. That leaves Fox (Rupert Murdoch), Clear Channel (Bob Pittman) and Cumulus, which owns WABC (Lew Dickey) in the hands of goyim. Control of the latter two rests with institutional investors.
Also keep in mind, many American Jews do not hold or even support the positions expressed in this ad.
Not true. While there are some smaller companies (and that includes some of the radio pure plays) it is not very common to have a super voting share class. Exxon has none, McDonalds has none, Boeing has none, Ford has none.
No, they don't. The important voting blocks are the mutual funds and pension funds and private bank holdings, where a few less than happy major investors can definitely affect the board elections.
They are obsessed with preservation of capital, income, growth and the general outlook for a company. They frequently exert pressure on boards if they feel opportunities are being missed. However, shareholders don't vote on format changes for radio, menu changes at McDonalds or the number of seats on a 787 at Boeing.
Yeah, 50 years ago and more when radio networks were important. Station ownership was never, however concentrated by any religious group beyond that group's participation in the overall economy.
The majority of the stock of all of those, from Disney to Townsquare, is in the hands of non-management investors including individual investors, mutual funds, pension plans and such. CBS, product of a spin-off of Redstone's Viacom, is 80% voting controlled by National Amusements which is owned by the Redstone family; it's an exception as is Comquest. Disney is 0.12% held by insiders, with 60% held by mutual funds and institutions ranging from Vanguard to State Farm Insurance to Black Rock.
However, badly managed companies with "pocket boards" are punished by the market. The ultimate sanction on a poorly managed company is a reduction in share price, which effects everyone from employees with stock options or company shares in their 401k to institutions to individual investors.
Last edited:
F
FredLeonard
Guest
Mr. Eduardo: Silence implies consent. However, in keeping with the new board policies, I'll just say that we must agree to disagree.
U
Unregistered
Guest
Isn't it fair to say that factual matters are not, by definition, opinion? "Disagreeing" about factual issues, therefore, doesn't seem to mean much, in the face of actual facts.
So you disagree with fact?
If Pinocchio wore a bomb vest, perhaps. I think it was blatantly anti-Semitic.
F
FredLeonard
Guest
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan
That, too. It should not make any difference.
U
Unregistered
Guest
A sentiment not widely adhered to on many a message board.
These ads were advocating something within the USA: the continued military and political support of Israel.
Good point. I haven't heard any of these ads, but if that's the case then I assume they would follow the normal rules.
I would be interested in hearing the opposition ads, though. See how dishonest they would be and how well they'd veil their hatred of Jews. Seems like a lot of people aren't even pretending to not be anti-Semitic anymore. It's almost "cool" to hate Israel and the Jewish people now.
Well, it would be interesting to hear these ads, and what they ask people to support and what action they ask people to take.
Your post seems to presume that if one if not 100% FOR whatever Israel is doing, then one is anti-semitic. There are people in this country who are Palestinian Arabs by birth. (I have a friend who matches that description.)
After WW II, The "Western Nations" did something pretty drastic. They said: You folks here in Palestine. Move out of this part of the land... it is now a Jewish state. "Well, gee, what are we supposed to do. We and our ancestors have lived here for hundreds of years and you tell us: move over, move out." No, We are setting up some space for you. We call it Palestine. It is your land. We call that over there Israel. It is their land.
For a little over 70 years now, these two peoples and these two nations have been like kids in the back seat of a car on a trip. Argue. Bicker. Fight.
One can be "Jewish Friendly" and not be anti-Semitic just because you say to the Jews: "Hey, that was a little heavy-handed what you just did to the other kid in the back seat." One can be "Palestine Friendly" at the same time and still say to the Palestinians... "Hey that was a little heavy-handed what you just did to the other kid in the back seat."
They are two nations that both need our support, our advice, and our money. We and our European friends created this awkward relationship, and now we own the opportunity and responsibility to help them learn to live as neighbors.
Those two things do seem to go hand in hand. All one has to do is look anywhere this story is being discussed. It's not uncommon to see the old blood libel myth being rekindled, as well as the most vile language you could imagine.
You can't treat both sides as "equals" in this conflict. One side is being run by people who have it in their very charter that their goal is the destruction of Israel. There is no negotiating with Hamas. I'm sure a lot of people in the USA supported the Germans and Japanese during World War II, but we didn't give them prominent places in the media, because we knew the difference between right and wrong.
This modern idea of "Palestine" is nothing but a front for terror organizations.
Last edited:
- Status