Avoiding Spanish-language radio

[michael hagerty]

So, my opinion is that, until any legislation, proclamation, edict or command to restrict non-English language broadcasting is actually attempted, we should keep our conversations to actual facts.

Because waiting until it actually happens and there's not much you can do about it is exactly what professional broadcasters concerned about the future of the medium and the First Amendment should do, right?

C'mon.

 

[davideduardo]

Because waiting until it actually happens and there's not much you can do about it is exactly what professional broadcasters concerned about the future of the medium and the First Amendment should do, right?

C'mon.

The concern among operators of Spanish language stations is the effect of the more recent ICE arrests and deportations on listening and advertising.

TelevisaUnivision reported about 5% lower first quarter revenue.

The first round of the latest PPM cycle yesterday showed almost every significant Spanish language station to be off its normal share levels. The SBS stations in New York City were the exception, but in LA, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, and San Francisco we saw significant lower numbers for stations that are generally over a 2-share average.

Today we see PHX, SD and Miami. I doubt Miami will have much change, as the majority of Hispanics there are legal and documented. But in markets where "everyone" has a family member or friend who is not documented, there is considerable apprehension. Heck, even my daughter who lives in Houston and was born in the U.S. of citizen parents has asked me for photocopies of my passport and birth certificate!

But among friends who are "in the business" of Spanish language radio and TV, there is no concern about their content being restricted. The real concern is about revenue and ratings.

 

[Identnut]

Today we see PHX, SD and Miami. I doubt Miami will have much change, as the majority of Hispanics there are legal and documented. But in markets where "everyone" has a family member or friend who is not documented, there is considerable apprehension. Heck, even my daughter who lives in Houston and was born in the U.S. of citizen parents has asked me for photocopies of my passport and birth certificate!

If I, god forbid, get involved with ICE business, my plan is to belt out "La Borinqueña." Not the revolutionary version, the one that's recognized as the state anthem.

 

[davideduardo]

If I, god forbid, get involved with ICE business, my plan is to belt out "La Borinqueña." Not the revolutionary version, the one that's recognized as the state anthem.

Not always effective. When registering my youngest daughter for school in LA in 1992, I was told to bring her birth certificate and school records. When the admissions person saw that she was born in Puerto Rico, I was told that I needed a "green card" or other documents showing she was in the country legally. According to her, anyone born in a foreign country must do the same; trying to explain that Puerto Rico is an American territory had no effect or impact.

 

[boombox4]

You mean like this current supreme court?

Right now the administration is attempting to abridge freedom of the press by several companies, including NPR. The president filed a lawsuit against CBS News and 60 Minutes that challenged their freedom of the press and the company settled rather than go through a lengthy trial. If this administration has the desire to force broadcasting to do something, whatever it is, it won't let the law stop it. There's no penalty for them to sign an executive order and defend it in court. The taxpayers have to pay for their court costs. They have no reason not to try. If they win, then what?

Think of it from the president's perspective: What's the worst that can happen? Impeachment? By this congress? Or Hispanics will vote against him in the next election? He can't run again. He has no reason not to do it.

This president also said he was going to 'pull the licenses' of cable news networks he didn't agree with.

They're still broadcasting.

NPR has no inalienable right to use Federal money to broadcast on the airwaves, any more than the stations or radio companies you work for have some right to Federal funding.

I say this as someone who detests the attacks on public radio. But it's just fact -- NPR stations do not have some sort of inalienable right to get Federal funding. No radio station does.

Do you really think that NPR and other public radio stations have some sort of Contitutional 'right' to get Federal funding? Where is it in the Constitution?

After all, we're talking Constitutional Law here.

Personally, I think NPR and CPB should be funded. We apparently just jacked up the military budget to over a trillion. Some of that money could better go to back up SomeRadioGuy's station in Alaska, where it serves people who need it, or the stations in rural Oregon that serve people who don't have any other news radio available.

But, like I said, no radio station or company has an inalienable, Constitutional right to Federal money. We may wish it to be that way, but it just isn't reality. And that's the problem.

 

[TheBigA]

Do you really think that NPR and other public radio stations have some sort of Contitutional 'right' to get Federal funding? Where is it in the Constitution?

Of course not. No one has ever said that. It's not in the constitution, but congress passed a law, and this is a way around that law. This is his way of "pulling the licenses" of NPR. He can't pull their license. He can't fire their staff. But he can pull their federal funding. And he's not done after he pulls funding. He has his FCC doing an investigation on their corporate funding too. Then he's going to look at tax-exempt status as he has with major universities.

They may not have a constitutional right to funding, but they have other constitutional rights, and they're being messed with. The reason he's pulling the funding is because of their constitutional right of the free press. He said so in the letter to congress. This is his way of having an affect on that right. It's all interconnected.

There are ways the government has of doing what it wants. Al Capone found that out.

 

[ted chittenden]

This president also said he was going to 'pull the licenses' of cable news networks he didn't agree with.

They're still broadcasting.

NPR has no inalienable right to use Federal money to broadcast on the airwaves, any more than the stations or radio companies you work for have some right to Federal funding.

I say this as someone who detests the attacks on public radio. But it's just fact -- NPR stations do not have some sort of inalienable right to get Federal funding. No radio station does.

Do you really think that NPR and other public radio stations have some sort of Contitutional 'right' to get Federal funding? Where is it in the Constitution?

After all, we're talking Constitutional Law here.

Personally, I think NPR and CPB should be funded. We apparently just jacked up the military budget to over a trillion. Some of that money could better go to back up SomeRadioGuy's station in Alaska, where it serves people who need it, or the stations in rural Oregon that serve people who don't have any other news radio available.

But, like I said, no radio station or company has an inalienable, Constitutional right to Federal money. We may wish it to be that way, but it just isn't reality. And that's the problem.

The reason that the President hasn't gone after cable network licenses (though he wanted to) is that there is no Federal licensing for such stations.

 

[lanceventa]

This thread has completely gone political and is now closed.