Not after they get deported. That's what this thread is about.
-
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
Avoiding Spanish-language radio
- Thread starter Mark Roberts
- Start date
- Status
Not after they get deported. That's what this thread is about.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
My point is that, given the recent attacks by the current administration against Iran and their anti-immigration policy where they don't care how long you've been here (or even check to see if you're legal) they want you to go back to where you came from. And also remember that they want to end birthright citizenship.
What is to stop them from trying to make anyone who descended from those who fled Iran for the U.S. when the Shah's government was toppled go back there because "your grandfather was Persian"?
I used KIRN as an example of a station other than the ubiquitous Spanish-language stations that could be subject to an edict by Brendan Carr's FCC for English-language only programming. I believe you missed my point.
I think everyone is trying to be as polite and civil as possible. This is a highly important topic, and we have some of the brightest lights in broadcasting, some of the best minds here to discuss it. I don’t know how to acknowledge the change in federal govt. attitude towards broadcasting (as evidenced by the investigation of KCBS) unless there is some kind of discussion. I just want to thank everyone for contributing so articulately and thoughtfully; and I ask the administrator’s forbearance. 😊Thank you. - Daryl
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
Not completely, Lance.
I have tried to reference the potential impact on broadcasting against what we have seen for ourselves to be an anti-media bias on the part of the current administration, factoring in the possible consequences of lapdog FCC Chair Brendan Carr doing everything he can to implement that bias.
It is very easy to see the potential FCC-related link to Trump's wanting an English-speaking only America and the reported actions of immigration enforcement agencies. Given that a federal judge just issued an injunction limiting the probable cause factors for those agencies, one must come to the conclusion that, if left unchecked, there is no reason to think those agencies wouldn't use listening to radio stations that broadcast in languages other than English as "proof" of illegal residency.
That's why I used KIRN as an example ... to show that it doesn't necessarily have to be Spanish language broadcasts to be a possible "trigger" for ICE, Border Patrol, et al. Unfortunately, that point was lost among the purely political opinions (or perhaps a wish for rose-colored glasses) but in my analysis, the threat is real, and it would be carried out in part by the Carr-led FCC.
Remember, every successful dictatorship has been rooted in total control of the media ... even taking privately-owned media facilities over to be operated by the state. (Cuba comes to mind.)
You're welcome, Daryl Lynn.
And one more thought directed at the owner of this particular corner of media that we are participating in: Not only is the intertwining of media and political opinion unavoidable, it is the best way for us to share our opinions of what we can do to save media ... before we get taken over ourselves.
Obviously not if they get deported, but isn't this thread actually about how the threat of that is affecting their usage of radio while they're still here?
/Checks first post and OP's follow-up.
I recall some xenophobic types being against non-English radio broadcasts even when Spanish language radio was on the rise because "we don't know if they're being obscene or subversive."
There's not much in current times to suggest to me that that type of thinking doesn't still exist. And of course, others could make the same argument regarding programming in Russian, given the positions of Putin and his actions towards the media and opponents.
There's not much in current times to suggest to me that that type of thinking doesn't still exist. And of course, others could make the same argument regarding programming in Russian, given the positions of Putin and his actions towards the media and opponents.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
A stray thought just occurred to me: If listening to non-English language radio is a "reasonable cause" trigger, then mandating all-English broadcasting would actually go against the administration's intent.
Not that I think Trump or Carr are smart enough to realize that.
Not that I think Trump or Carr are smart enough to realize that.
Exactly.
DaNu radio had to convince people that they had nothing to do with the Russian government, even though it should have been obvious that they're about as pro-Putin as WAQI is pro-Castro.
The use of language by non-English language stations involves the "permanency" of language preferences among first generation immigrants.
Facts:
Second generation immigrants (meaning "born here") use English far more than their parent's language. They are not very useful to non-English language stations.
First generation immigrants that arrive prior to adulthood learn English on the street and in school. Most prefer English.
First generation adult immigrants predominantly keep their birth language as their principal tongue for all their life. Their tastes in music, food and other cultural things remain anchored in the country of birth. There are hundreds of studies available online showing that, after pubescence, becoming bilingual with another new language is harder and harder, becoming very challenging as one approaches adulthood.
Only those who are better educated or who have greater abilities or good opportunities become good English speakers. But most still "think" in their native language and translate mentally before speaking.
So, this is why the Spanish language AM talk stations in Miami still get large 65+ shares: the first generation immigrants do not know English as well as Spanish, and they vastly prefer their own tongue.
There is nothing political about why Spanish language radio... and stations in Farsi, Tagalog, Chinese and other languages endure long after large waves of immigration occur.
Last edited:
I ran a research division for Univision for 20 years. We talked with hundreds of thousands of persons. Illegals don't participate in surveys of any kind, as it could "aid in tracking them".
Advertisers base buys on the stated figures in Nielsen. They do not take into account undocumented listeners or consumers.
The best way to handle this is The Gen-X Way; Whenever you see ICE floating around, just flip it to the local Hispanic music station and just crank it. All windows down. Both middle fingers up.
What do people have to be scared of? And what exactly are these ICE mofos going to do about it? Send us all to South Sudan? For jamming to Julion Alvarez? Really?......Bring. It.
What do people have to be scared of? And what exactly are these ICE mofos going to do about it? Send us all to South Sudan? For jamming to Julion Alvarez? Really?......Bring. It.
First they came for my presets...
I didn't miss your point, but let's get this back to radio.
If the present administration somehow determined that all radio stations in the US should broadcast in English, does anyone here really think that such an edict would actually succeed, especially when considering the considerable number of non-English dominant radio stations in the US (including religious stations), along with the plethora of non-English programs on brokered stations?
In some markets half the AM band would go silent, because those stations serve non-English audiences, who are their bread and butter.
And how would the FCC enforce such an edict -- which would put a LOT of stations off the air? They're going to yank all their licenses? Is the FCC going to want to lose money in all the freedom of speech court cases that would ensue?
The problem with the idea of the FCC stating that broadcasting has to be in all-English is that it would be a First Amendment, speech rights issue. No Federal court in the US is going to allow the Federal government to ban non-English broadcasting in the US. It just won't happen.
The First Amendment states that freedom of speech and freedom of the press shall not be infringed. That includes speech in non-English languages. Freedom of Speech is a fundamental right. It is not taken lightly by courts -- any court.
And being that a lot of Spanish language stations are also religious, you have a Free Exercise clause issue as well.
Carr may try such a foolish edict, but it will lose in court. And probably if he's considered such a regulation the FCC attorneys have already told him that they'll lose in court. But that's a guess.
The fact it would lose in court isn't a guess, though.
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.
I think with the current administration, anything is on the table! Someone needs to leak that list pronto!
That, in so few words, Mr. Box, says so much.
While many here and in other groups, are speculating about putting language restrictions on FCC licensed media, this is a huge First Amendment issue that would not even be tried by the dumbest politicians.
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.
You're writing this as though things are normal. There appear to be priorities above and beyond the economics of private business:
Mass deportations could cost California's economy $275 billion, report says
The Bay Area Council Economic Institute has released some striking data about the potential impact of mass deportations on the state economy.
www.cbsnews.com
Depends.
Bascially, the rules have changed. The question isn't what one of 677 federal district judges will rule. Anything of consequence will go to the U.S. Supreme Court. And so far, that 6-3 conservative majority seems inclined to give the Executive Branch most of what it wants.
Given all that, and the repeal of Roe v. Wade, long thought to be "settled law", is a "re-interpretation of the First Amendment as it applies to government-issued broadcast licenses" really that much of a stretch?
No, "they" are not attempting any restricting freedom of the press.
First, "they" are suggesting or proposing that the Federal Government not provide funding for radio and TV stations or their content. "They" are not proposing the closure of such projects, just removing "the Feds" from any financial backing.
Second, there is a specific case where "they" believe an electronic media news crew has broadcast information that endangered an active law enforcement action, endangering the action itself as well as the government law enforcement agents involved. As mentioned several times by me, this is the moral equivalent of a newscast during WW II announcing the preparations for the Normandy Invasion before it had begun, endangering soldiers, England and "the West".
Third, there is rumbling about a perceived predominance of left-of-center people in all aspects of traditional media news gathering, writing and reporting. Without
He/they did not "challenge their freedom of the press". They sued based on the belief that the CBS editing of an interview created a different impression than the full interview might create. Nobody said/suggested that CBS could not run that interview; the claim was that editing showed favoritism and an effort to change the perception of a candidate and their position.
We all know that this is a slippery slope, as, other than live news coverage, "everyone" edits spot news coverage sound bites, press conferences, etc. Where is it clear to a broad spectrum of Americans that editing is intended to change perceptions rather than to just make the audio "fit" into a newscast or program? Again, this seems to be more a way to try to make Joe and Mary Voter see that some news sources edit and, in some cases, may end up changing the perception of a public figure's statements.
Again, this is a partisan perception. A good portion of the country believes that your belief is not correct, while another agrees with you.
Again, your conclusions based on your particular vision of politics, government and America. Keeping this as a discussion of radio, the issue should be about actions that affect broadcasters. As of this moment, the three cases I outlined don't affect the continued operation of any station or network, but in each there are perspectives from the Left and the Right that are different; some are based in law and others are just that: perspectives.
Restricting or abridging is not the same as closing. ANY abridging or attempt to abridge is unconstitutional. Removing funding affects the hiring of reporters, as one example. The reason they want to cut funding is because they don't like the news reporting. That's what they said. The government is being sued by NPR specifically on this topic, so we should let the lawsuit work its way through the courts. But to say they're not attempting to abridge freedom of the press is simply not true.
It's been 7 months. No action. I think they have realized that this story was reported by every news organization in town.
Once again abridging is not the same as preventing. They want to affect the editing decisions made by journalists. That's abridging their freedom.
But unfortunately they timed things well, caught Paramount at a time when they need government approval, so the company settled.
There's nothing partisan about it. My statement is proven by the number of EOs that have been either stopped or challenged by the courts. The EOs are defended by the DOJ, and the taxpayers pay for that defense. Where is the partisan perception? Show me.
Once again, abridging is not the same thing as shutting them down. You say the government doesn't want to be involved in operation of media. But the fact is they do. They just don't want to pay for it. They want control of the message, and their tactics appear to be working. They obviously worked with the example you gave about Univision. But they weren't running the government so technically it wasn't unconstitutional.
Last edited:
- Status