Audacy Bankruptcy Goes To FCC

[Theater of My Mind]

Example: they came out about getting the FCC to sanction the CBS Television Network over the editing of an interview. Of course, the FCC does not regulate networks. And, of course, they don't regulate content except for the vague obscenity and indecency areas.

So, more recently, they focused only on CBS owned and operated TV stations, and changed the issue to one that is not about content but about a "deceptive" process of doctoring via editing an interview.

They act like they've never heard of the First Amendment even as they present themselves as defenders of it at AM Talk radio and now at X. Everything is a stunt for them.

Frankly, I would love to see the FCC take up the issue, even though we know they won't. Then we could talk about which network actually admitted to lying and which ones have paid multimillion dollar civil settlements for doing so, and which ones have not.

 

[K.M. Richards]

They act like they've never heard of the First Amendment even as they present themselves as defenders of it at AM Talk radio and now at X. Everything is a stunt for them.

Frankly, I would love to see the FCC take up the issue, even though we know they won't. Then we could talk about which network actually admitted to lying and which ones have paid multimillion dollar civil settlements for doing so, and which ones have not.

I would like to know under what misconception you are laboring in apparently thinking the FCC has regulatory authority over Elon Musk's plaything (the social media company previously known as Twitter).

 

[davideduardo]

They act like they've never heard of the First Amendment even as they present themselves as defenders of it at AM Talk radio and now at X. Everything is a stunt for them.

Frankly, I would love to see the FCC take up the issue, even though we know they won't. Then we could talk about which network actually admitted to lying and which ones have paid multimillion dollar civil settlements for doing so, and which ones have not.

Remember, there are only a few "Networks" that link terrestrial stations to a central program source: ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, Univision, Telemundo are the significant ones. Fox News, MSNBC and the like are not networks, they are cable channels.

 

[Theater of My Mind]

I would like to know under what misconception you are laboring in apparently thinking the FCC has regulatory authority over Elon Musk's plaything (the social media company previously known as Twitter).

Reading comprehension is apparently not your strong suit. Where did I say anything about the FCC regulating that?

 

[BruceB]

Just asking. Does the FCC have any authority over cable networks like CNN, Fox News or MsNBC? I notice they all bleep out profanity from interviews.
Is this just self censorship and network standards?

 

[davideduardo]

Reading comprehension is apparently not your strong suit. Where did I say anything about the FCC regulating that?

MODERATOR COMMENT: Let's not get snarky with an insult where one is not needed. I also read your confusing sentence the same way that K.M. did.

 

[K.M. Richards]

Just asking. Does the FCC have any authority over cable networks like CNN, Fox News or MsNBC? I notice they all bleep out profanity from interviews.
Is this just self censorship and network standards?

The simple answer to your first question is no. But that doesn't mean those networks don't have internal policies about that. News networks are especially sensitive to that ... entertainment-oriented cable networks generally have much more tolerance.

So the answer to your second question is decidely yes.

 

[Daryl Lynn L.A.]

You mean "The Rush Limbaugh Empowerment Act" of 1987?

"The Rush Limbaugh Empowerment Act" and literally thousands of his imitators in every part of the country, from tiny hamlets to huge cities. AKA the "Outrage Farming" Act of 1987. Yelling and anger attract listeners and ratings.
KFWB went to all news in 1968 and used to have a slogan: "You give us 22 minutes, and we'll give you the news." (they meant factual news, not some blowhard at the top of his voice).
I always thought that "anger-tainment" talk shows should have the motto "Listen to us yell for 3 minutes, and we'll raise your blood pressure somewhere above 200, not to mention your heart rate." Rage farming creates big audiences and big numbers.

 

[TheBigA]

Example: they came out about getting the FCC to sanction the CBS Television Network over the editing of an interview. Of course, the FCC does not regulate networks. And, of course, they don't regulate content except for the vague obscenity and indecency areas.

In addition, anyone who has ever watched 60 Minutes knows their interviews are edited. They have been since the show began. It wouldn't surprise me if all subjects sign a release approving that editing. This is a made-up issue, just like the Audacy bankruptcy story is a made up issue. They caused this approval to go before the full commission, then ask why it went before the full commission. Answer: Because you demanded it. The approval process took 6 months, not 48 hours. Foreign ownership waiver goes through a different department, not the FCC.

It's too bad that people who work in government don't know how the government works. It ends up wasting a lot of time, and time costs taxpayer money.

To make this observation about radio and TV, the issue here is: "where does the editing of sound bites change the sentiment and meaning of the original statement(s)?

It depends on the person doing the editing. Typically the goal is not to change the sentiment and meaning. Just to abridge it for time. But it depends on the situation. What 60 Minutes tends to do is provide unedited interviews at their website.

 

[TheBigA]

Everything is a stunt for them.

Because they're mainly entertainers, not public servants.

 

[TheBigA]

The FCC Chairman has responded to a second house committee, the one that oversees the FCC, regarding the Audacy bankruptcy approval. This one appears to be more detailed than the previous letter.

Rosenworcel: Politics Not Behind FCC Decision To Approve Audacy Bankruptcy Restructuring.

In an election year, it’s said that everything in Washington is political. But the decision to approve Audacy’s bankruptcy reorganization can be left off that list according to FCC Chair

www.insideradio.com

BTW The house is currently not in session, as all members are running for re-election. They won't return until after the election. The concern by house members was that Audacy stations would change programming in order to influence the election. So far, we have seen no indication that such a thing has happened.

 

[K.M. Richards]

BTW The house is currently not in session, as all members are running for re-election. They won't return until after the election. The concern by house members was that Audacy stations would change programming in order to influence the election. So far, we have seen no indication that such a thing has happened.

Without going so deeply political as to upset the moderators, it is natural to worry about behaviors on the part of others which you yourself are already indulging in, and part of your professed concern then becomes deflecting attention so you yourself aren't noticed doing the exact same thing.

 

[TheBigA]

Without going so deeply political as to upset the moderators, it is natural to worry about behaviors on the part of others which you yourself are already indulging in, and part of your professed concern then becomes deflecting attention so you yourself aren't noticed doing the exact same thing.

Politicians tend to use their position, whatever it is, to their own advantage. Even if that means making unsubstantiated charges. They want to protect their advantages, while denying those advantages to others. Because the house is not in session, it's doubtful this will go any further.

 

[BruceB]

Without going so deeply political as to upset the moderators, it is natural to worry about behaviors on the part of others which you yourself are already indulging in, and part of your professed concern then becomes deflecting attention so you yourself aren't noticed doing the exact same thing.

The real question should be why would Mr. Soros invest his money in a chain of radio stations?
Not like him to make investments in dying industries.

 

[TheBigA]

The real question should be why would Mr. Soros invest his money in a chain of radio stations?
Not like him to make investments in dying industries.

Two years ago, he made a $60 million investment in Latino Media Networks, a company that bought about 20 radio stations from Univision. So he's done this before.

Keep in mind that what Soros bought was debt. As part of the bankruptcy plan, they took the company private. There won't be public stock that will be open to the ups & downs of the stock market. So his investment will remain fairly consistent.

But we've seen a lot of billionaire boomers investing in radio and other traditional media. Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post. Warren Buffett invested in Sirius and Paramount. 5 Hour Energy founder Manoj Bhargava is the other big investor in Audacy, and he also owns a 10% stake in Cumulus. John Catsimatidis owns WABC.

 

[Kent]

The real question should be why would Mr. Soros invest his money in a chain of radio stations?
Not like him to make investments in dying industries.

The answer is most likely that, despite its well-known issues and current decline, radio can still make good money. Who knows? Maybe he has an idea to expand the industry's appeal and provide content to an audience that isn't currently using the medium. I'll grant you that I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen, but, if I could predict the next successful company and/or industry, I probably wouldn't be posting here right now.

 

[Delete My Account]

Just asking. Does the FCC have any authority over cable networks like CNN, Fox News or MsNBC? I notice they all bleep out profanity from interviews.
Is this just self censorship and network standards?

I'm not an expert on the expletives, but I suppose in theory, the FCC could take actions on the licensed satellite uplinks if any of them were owned by the channels in question or their parent companies. They (and someone should inform one of the presidential candidates) can't "revoke" the "license" of say, MSNBC, because there isn't one for a cable channel.

 

[fybush]

I'm not an expert on the expletives, but I suppose in theory, the FCC could take actions on the licensed satellite uplinks if any of them were owned by the channels in question or their parent companies. They (and someone should inform one of the presidential candidates) can't "revoke" the "license" of say, MSNBC, because there isn't one for a cable channel.

The satellite uplinks aren't broadcast services. There's no restriction on content. Think about it - they're used all the time to uplink adult channels to cable companies (or were before most of that business went to fiber.)

 

[gr8oldies]

I'm not an expert on the expletives, but I suppose in theory, the FCC could take actions on the licensed satellite uplinks if any of them were owned by the channels in question or their parent companies. They (and someone should inform one of the presidential candidates) can't "revoke" the "license" of say, MSNBC, because there isn't one for a cable channel.

I don't know how many times I've heard "Fox News is licensed as entertainment, not news" Of course there's no such legal designation

 

[TheBigA]

New petition to reconsider the FCC approval of the Audacy bankruptcy plan from Brent Bozell:

Conservative Group Petitions FCC To Rollback Approval Of Audacy Reorganization.

Brent Bozell’s Media Research Center, the conservative group that unsuccessfully tried to convince the FCC to reject Audacy’s bankruptcy reorganization plan, is not yet giving up. The group has filed

www.insideradio.com

He claims there was no assessment that the plan was in the "public interest." He also continues the debunked claim that the foreign ownership waiver has anything to do with Soros.

He says to grant a waiver from the legally-required foreign ownership review process, the Commission’s own rules require it to demonstrate that an acquisition serves the public interest—and that didn’t happen in the case of Audacy. “The Commission’s decision contained no public interest analysis specific to the Audacy acquisition,” he says.