Audacy Bankruptcy Goes To FCC

[TheBigA]

While you are correct as far as you go, there are some countries, including the two I cited in my last comment, where private citizens, if they are wealthy, must follow the government propaganda line, making it very dangerous for us if we allow those private individuals to own a U.S.-based radio or television station.

Which is why the foreign ownership review process at the FCC is done in part by the State Department, where they investigate the individuals involved, and make sure it doesn't conflict with US foreign policy. It's an established process known as "team telecom."

 

[Bongwater]

Foreign ownership doesn't mean they'd be owned by foreign governments. It means owned by foreign people or companies. For example, Bob Dylan's and Bruce Springsteen's music is owned by Sony in Japan. So we already have foreign ownership of our music.

But that's not a national security issue (except for Dylan and Springsteen fans.) Their music isn't foreign propaganda, nor does it interfere with anything diplomatically the way radio itself can.

To think of radio strictly as a commodity like hot dogs, is missing the critical details of a significantly larger picture than that. Nor is foreign investment a sign of a healthy industry and no amount of it can disguise that when the only reason it's on the table now in the first place is to prop this business up because it's getting really hard to find sane, financially endowed buyers stateside with enough instantly disposable cash on hand to buy entire groups or even market clusters of radio stations.

And if you're a rich foreign citizen with stations here and your government gave you some "news" for your American audience, what are the chances that person is going to stand up and say "You can't do that"? With their fortunes and national reputations. Including other family members, friends, associates, etc. at home at stake?

In spite of the gift packaging, it's still a can of worms.

 

[TheBigA]

But that's not a national security issue (except for Dylan and Springsteen fans.) Their music isn't foreign propaganda, nor does it interfere with anything diplomatically the way radio itself can.

Really? You think music can't be used as propaganda? I'm not just talking about old music. The current music being played every day comes from record labels owned by companies in France, Germany, and Japan. A lot of American culture has been sold to foreign companies. None of it required any kind of government approval.

And if you're a rich foreign citizen with stations here and your government gave you some "news" for your American audience, what are the chances that person is going to stand up and say "You can't do that"? With their fortunes and national reputations. Including other family members, friends, associates, etc. at home at stake?

You don't have to be foreign to be accused of that. Right now, the head of the FCC is looking to cancel a deal that put the son of George Soros as an investor in Audacy. Soros is a US citizen, and his company is based in the US. There is no foreign ownership issue. They just don't like Soros politics.

As I said in post 241, all foreign ownership applications get reviewed by the state department to check for any issues about potential propaganda. But as we know, propaganda isn't limited to foreign owners.

 

[Bongwater]

Which is why the foreign ownership review process at the FCC is done in part by the State Department, where they investigate the individuals involved, and make sure it doesn't conflict with US foreign policy. It's an established process known as "team telecom."

Historically, this would have been an acceptable process. We now realize that's only as good as who you have in the White House. And in these times especially, I see foreign US terrestrial radio station ownership not only as a serious, but dangerous vulnerability. And any retired, experienced State Department official today would completely have my back on that. It's just asking for it.

 

[Bongwater]

But then again, when the very FCC chairman himself wears crap like this, it's hard to say who would be worse....

(And it is real.....)

 

[TheBigA]

I see foreign ownership not only as a serious, but dangerous vulnerability. And any retired, experienced State Department official today would completely have my back on that. It's just asking for it.

Meanwhile we have newspapers, book publishers, social media sites, Spotify, Budweiser, Chrysler, Univision, TikTok all foreign owned companies. The only reason anyone is challenging TikTok is because it's owned by the Chinese government. But it's been operating in this country since 2016.

 

[Rusty Muck]

But then again, when the very FCC chairman himself wears crap like this, it's hard to say who would be worse....

(And it is real.....)

It's goofy and garish, totally on-brand for Trump. And at least it's not a U.S. flag lapel or that Punisher skull lapel Hannity has worn in the past.