are support Israel ads on the radio legal?

[BOZ Profit]

I just want to jump in to say that you all need to keep the political opinions relevant to the radio discussion.

I left the thread up because I believed it was a legitimate question, with some misinformation attached. I was right in my belief that some members would answer the question appropriately and correct the misinformation.

If the thread continues to turn into an Israel/Palestine argument, then we will close it.

SOT.

 

[FredLeonard]

Fair enough:

Let me sum up.

Are support whatever (Israel or anything else) ads on the radio legal? Probably so.
Are stations required to sell ads in opposition to said ads? Probably not.
Is this fair? Depends on whom you ask.
Will this practice continue? Probably so. Talk stations need the money. Except when the owners'/managers' own predispositions trump immediate revenue.

 

[TheBigA]

Except when the owners'/managers' own predispositions trump immediate revenue.

Except that if you or anyone else have examples where that has happened, you can file a complaint with the FCC and take the station or company to court.

This has happened, although not with this particular issue.

 

[davideduardo]

Fair enough:

Are stations required to sell ads in opposition to said ads? Probably not.

If you sell time to Ford, you can't deny a sale to Dodge.

If you sell time to one candidate for city council, you must sell to any other candidate for that position.

If you sell time to legitimate representatives of one side of a position, you must sell to the other.

 

[JeffM]

If you sell time to Ford, you can't deny a sale to Dodge.

If you sell time to one candidate for city council, you must sell to any other candidate for that position.

If you sell time to legitimate representatives of one side of a position, you must sell to the other.

Well, not necessarily. Right now the Hubbard stations, whose owners both endorse and financially support Stewart Mills' congressional campaign in Minnesota, are refusing to sell air time to a PAC opposed to Mills. (All the better, I suppose, for competing stations in those markets!)

 

[BOZ Profit]

We are aware that this is a law:

If you sell time to one candidate for city council, you must sell to any other candidate for that position.

However, for these examples:

If you sell time to Ford, you can't deny a sale to Dodge.
...
If you sell time to legitimate representatives of one side of a position, you must sell to the other.

Please provide a reference to any law that states this. Thanks!

 

[FredLeonard]

And we are talking about issue advocacy advertising, not product advertising. Funny how broadcasters can consider one side of an issue "controversial" (as a basis to refuse to sell time) while the other side is not.

Often ad time is sold to dealers (or dealer associations), not manufacturers. And broadcasters with an ownership link to dealerships have somehow avoid running spots for competitors. And in Flint, essentially a company town for GM, for a long time you didn't hear non-GM spots.

 

[davideduardo]

We are aware that this is a law:

There is no FCC regulation on cause advertising. The rules fall under restraint of trade, often today called competition law.

Of course, an unfavorable ruling in a restraint of trade situation would be relevant to the FCC under "fitness as a licensee".

However, for these examples:
Please provide a reference to any law that states this. Thanks!

These examples fall under restraint of trade. You can not restrict advertising to one product in a sector without allowing all products in a sector. Doing so could result in a civil suit by the affected party(ies) or by any government watchdog agency who too an interest, whether state, local or even the DOJ.

If you accept any shampoo advertising, you must accept advertising from all products in the category. You can not discriminate against a particular entrant in a category without being subject to legal action.

This does not eliminate any other equally applied rules, such as copy restrictions or prepayment in certain categories as long as such are applied according to a uniform standard.

 

[davideduardo]

And we are talking about issue advocacy advertising, not product advertising. Funny how broadcasters can consider one side of an issue "controversial" (as a basis to refuse to sell time) while the other side is not.

There is nothing in section 73 of the rules about special treatment for advocacy advertising. It is viewed with the same eyes as ads for pet food.

Often ad time is sold to dealers (or dealer associations), not manufacturers.

So?

And broadcasters with an ownership link to dealerships have somehow avoid running spots for competitors.

It's just as likely that other dealers don't want to give money to their competitor. But if the broadcast station which owns a dealership does not accept ads for other dealers or marques, then it can be sued for discriminatory trade practices.

And in Flint, essentially a company town for GM, for a long time you didn't hear non-GM spots.

Perhaps those dealers simply did not want to wave a red cape in such a market, believing that the national campaigns for the cars would suffice.

Unless you can present us with actual cases of advertising being refused, we'll have to assume that you just witnessed market forces at work.

 

[davideduardo]

Well, not necessarily. Right now the Hubbard stations, whose owners both endorse and financially support Stewart Mills' congressional campaign in Minnesota, are refusing to sell air time to a PAC opposed to Mills. (All the better, I suppose, for competing stations in those markets!)

They may have a regulation regarding PAC advertising. In that case, they would have to limit all PAC advertising for that particular race.

This is similar to stations that will take beer and wine, but still do not take hard liquor advertising. As long as they apply this standard uniformly, they are proceeding legally.

The FCC rules principally apply to very specific races and are focused on the lowest unit rate aspect of the rules. A station can restrict generic party advertising, advertising for non-FCC-specified races and PACs.

As a manager, I have done this to avoid political clutter at election time. My solution was to cap the buys for every specific race and to not accept generic party ads or what was then the equivalent of PACs.

 

[TheBigA]

Apparently there are accusations in the PAC ad that are questionable, at least according to this blog story.:

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/...tewart_mills_attack_ad_sparks_controversy.php

 

[FredLeonard]

Unless you can present us with actual cases of advertising being refused, we'll have to assume that you just witnessed market forces at work.

Always convenient assumption for management and one-percenters alike.

 

[TheBigA]

Always convenient assumption for management and one-percenters alike.

Just as convenient as it is to make an accusation without specifics.