Does anybody on this forum know if it's permissable to broadcast interviews with political candidates that include talking about their experience/qualifications, their campaign, and allowing them to ask listeners to vote for them?
-
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
Can We Ask For Votes In A Campign Broadcast?
- Thread starter Desert Ear
- Start date
Provided that the candidate is not paying for the privilege and that an offer of equal time is made to his/her opponents, then there would be no problem with interviewing a political candidate. If the candidate is paying, you're over the line.
Re: Can We Ask For Votes In A Campaign Broadcast?
It could be a one-on-one interview, chit-chat show.
It could be a one-on-one interview, chit-chat show.
Be afraid, be very afraid, of the equal-time rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule
Depending on your market, your listenership, and the election in question...this rule can easily lead to a slew of crackpots demanding airtime on your station, and you will be legally obligated to give it. If you are conducting a bona fide news interview, the equal-time rule does not apply. But I'd be wary about allowing a candidate to talk much about "their experience/qualifications, their campaign, and...ask(ing) listeners to vote for them." Maybe if that's part of an overall larger interview, you could allow it. But when it comes to being a bona fide news interview, the old phrase "just the facts, ma'am" applies well. Focus on asking the candidate about the issues and you should steer clear of any problems. And make sure whoever you've got interviewing them is skilled enough to prevent the candidate from turning the interview into a stump speech; most politicians are skilled enough to talk about how great they are, for hours on end, without interruption. Your interviewer needs to nip that in bud each time it's tried.
Depending on your market, your listenership, and the election in question...this rule can easily lead to a slew of crackpots demanding airtime on your station, and you will be legally obligated to give it. If you are conducting a bona fide news interview, the equal-time rule does not apply. But I'd be wary about allowing a candidate to talk much about "their experience/qualifications, their campaign, and...ask(ing) listeners to vote for them." Maybe if that's part of an overall larger interview, you could allow it. But when it comes to being a bona fide news interview, the old phrase "just the facts, ma'am" applies well. Focus on asking the candidate about the issues and you should steer clear of any problems. And make sure whoever you've got interviewing them is skilled enough to prevent the candidate from turning the interview into a stump speech; most politicians are skilled enough to talk about how great they are, for hours on end, without interruption. Your interviewer needs to nip that in bud each time it's tried.
Re: Can We Ask For Votes In A Campaign Broadcast?
I found this under Title 47, Part 73.503c. Apparently we can charge for the cost to produce such live shows:
(c) A noncommercial educational FM broadcast station may broadcast
programs produced by, or at the expense of, or furnished by persons
other than the licensee, if no other consideration than the furnishing
of the program and the costs incidental to its production and broadcast
are received by the licensee. The payment of line charges by another
station network, or someone other than the licensee of a noncommercial
educational FM broadcast station, or general contributions to the
operating costs of a station, shall not be considered as being
prohibited by this paragraph.
I found this under Title 47, Part 73.503c. Apparently we can charge for the cost to produce such live shows:
(c) A noncommercial educational FM broadcast station may broadcast
programs produced by, or at the expense of, or furnished by persons
other than the licensee, if no other consideration than the furnishing
of the program and the costs incidental to its production and broadcast
are received by the licensee. The payment of line charges by another
station network, or someone other than the licensee of a noncommercial
educational FM broadcast station, or general contributions to the
operating costs of a station, shall not be considered as being
prohibited by this paragraph.
Re: Can We Ask For Votes In A Campaign Broadcast?
I'm trying to find out details about the equal time rule. All I could find out is that it was abolished in 1987.
Is this correct, or has it been reinstated?
I'm trying to find out details about the equal time rule. All I could find out is that it was abolished in 1987.
Is this correct, or has it been reinstated?
Re: Can We Ask For Votes In A Campaign Broadcast?
That was the Fairness Doctrine. A completely different thing.
It would help if you said explicitly what you want to do here. It sounds like you are seeking justification for letting one (or some) candidate for a given office come on and make a campaign pitch but not others. Also would this be a real news interview or more like an infomercial interview in which the "interviewer" essentially serves as shill or straight man (these are often heard on local Sunday morning "public service" programs - "if people want to make a contribution, what number should they call?").
I have to say, whatever the letter of the law, it sounds somewhat questionable.
Desert Ear said:
That was the Fairness Doctrine. A completely different thing.
It would help if you said explicitly what you want to do here. It sounds like you are seeking justification for letting one (or some) candidate for a given office come on and make a campaign pitch but not others. Also would this be a real news interview or more like an infomercial interview in which the "interviewer" essentially serves as shill or straight man (these are often heard on local Sunday morning "public service" programs - "if people want to make a contribution, what number should they call?").
I have to say, whatever the letter of the law, it sounds somewhat questionable.
Re: Can We Ask For Votes In A Campaign Broadcast?
It might also make a difference whether you are asking about the traditional NCE... or the newer "still trying to find the meaning of life" LPFM.
For an LPFM, I would suggest that maybe you could turn your phrase upside down. It's the letter of the law that can bite you.... but the legislative/regulative history behind LPFM seems to open a slot big enough to drive a truck through.
The 'die-hard" supporters of the LPFM category of stations did not hide their bias for what we can without malice call "progressive action" opportunities for support and action. They argued that certain communities needed a voice, a platform to where community important issues could be expressed. One of the stations often cited as a "poster child" of the LPFM movement is the one in Florida that serves the community of Immokalee people that make up the bulk of the tomato picking workers. Though I have not listened to the station, it appears they are rather blatantly political is some of their air time.
I have listened to WRFN in the Nashville area (Pasquo) and with RFN equating to Radio Free Nashville, they are also an example of politically active radio. I don't know if it continues but one of their weekly programs as of a year ago or so was produced by organized labor (unions) in Kansas City which was not bashful about political views.
It would appear that for an LPFM, "the letter of the law" would be critical in deciding what could/should be broadcast by or about a candidate for office.
When you state: "I have to say, whatever the letter of the law, it sounds somewhat questionable." would really come into play in the case of NCE stations of the NPR type where some Federal funding dollars find their way into the budget. The same would be true of statewide networks of NCEs that are a branch of state government or the state university system.
Maybe the larger worry than any FCC "letter of the law" rigid interpretations would be what the IRS might say. In the case of both the full-powered NCEs and the LPFMs operated by churches, there is a lot of sensitivity about political action in violation of 501(c)3 regulations.
There is a (purposely?) built in tension when you are a station licensed to meet not the commercial and entertainment wants of a community, but the organic dynamics within a community that cannot be addressed without addressing the political forces causing community issues, and the political forces that can solve community issues.... but don't let us catch you being political!
MattParker said:
It might also make a difference whether you are asking about the traditional NCE... or the newer "still trying to find the meaning of life" LPFM.
For an LPFM, I would suggest that maybe you could turn your phrase upside down. It's the letter of the law that can bite you.... but the legislative/regulative history behind LPFM seems to open a slot big enough to drive a truck through.
The 'die-hard" supporters of the LPFM category of stations did not hide their bias for what we can without malice call "progressive action" opportunities for support and action. They argued that certain communities needed a voice, a platform to where community important issues could be expressed. One of the stations often cited as a "poster child" of the LPFM movement is the one in Florida that serves the community of Immokalee people that make up the bulk of the tomato picking workers. Though I have not listened to the station, it appears they are rather blatantly political is some of their air time.
I have listened to WRFN in the Nashville area (Pasquo) and with RFN equating to Radio Free Nashville, they are also an example of politically active radio. I don't know if it continues but one of their weekly programs as of a year ago or so was produced by organized labor (unions) in Kansas City which was not bashful about political views.
It would appear that for an LPFM, "the letter of the law" would be critical in deciding what could/should be broadcast by or about a candidate for office.
When you state: "I have to say, whatever the letter of the law, it sounds somewhat questionable." would really come into play in the case of NCE stations of the NPR type where some Federal funding dollars find their way into the budget. The same would be true of statewide networks of NCEs that are a branch of state government or the state university system.
Maybe the larger worry than any FCC "letter of the law" rigid interpretations would be what the IRS might say. In the case of both the full-powered NCEs and the LPFMs operated by churches, there is a lot of sensitivity about political action in violation of 501(c)3 regulations.
There is a (purposely?) built in tension when you are a station licensed to meet not the commercial and entertainment wants of a community, but the organic dynamics within a community that cannot be addressed without addressing the political forces causing community issues, and the political forces that can solve community issues.... but don't let us catch you being political!
Re: Can We Ask For Votes In A Campaign Broadcast?
I should have been clearer. My last question about equal time was for a different reason:
Several people I know are running for political office. They are routinely denied time on our two local (LPTV) TV stations. However, the two stations give gobs of air time in the form of interviews, call-in shows- you name it- to the TV station's favorite candidates.
Can the ignored candidates demand equal time (under FCC law/rules)?
Or, are there no longer any rules?
I should have been clearer. My last question about equal time was for a different reason:
Several people I know are running for political office. They are routinely denied time on our two local (LPTV) TV stations. However, the two stations give gobs of air time in the form of interviews, call-in shows- you name it- to the TV station's favorite candidates.
Can the ignored candidates demand equal time (under FCC law/rules)?
Or, are there no longer any rules?
Re: Can We Ask For Votes In A Campaign Broadcast?
Oh, I forgot to mention that the only radio station in our town (commercial, full-power) refuses air time of any kind, to the new candidates, also. The manager will not even quote a price to those candidates seeking to answer campaign statements broadcast against them by the "good ol' boy" incumbents.
Can anything be done?
Oh, I forgot to mention that the only radio station in our town (commercial, full-power) refuses air time of any kind, to the new candidates, also. The manager will not even quote a price to those candidates seeking to answer campaign statements broadcast against them by the "good ol' boy" incumbents.
Can anything be done?
Maybe. But it may cost too much and take too long.
You are raising legal issues and you really should be talking to a lawyer. Given the issues you are raising, you may find a lawyer or organization willing to help pro bono. We don't have and objective and factual view of the details of the situation and whether you have a valid case or complaint will depend on the details.
You are raising legal issues and you really should be talking to a lawyer. Given the issues you are raising, you may find a lawyer or organization willing to help pro bono. We don't have and objective and factual view of the details of the situation and whether you have a valid case or complaint will depend on the details.
Equal Time Provision
It's really not that complicated. Either there's an FCC rule, or there isn't. I was hoping someone on this forum would know.
If I find one on the FCC web site, I'll post it. Of course, that site is so large, it'll take me some time to search through it!
It's really not that complicated. Either there's an FCC rule, or there isn't. I was hoping someone on this forum would know.
If I find one on the FCC web site, I'll post it. Of course, that site is so large, it'll take me some time to search through it!
Re: Equal Time Provision
Law and regulation in this nation tends to be a living organism. If you will follow some legal struggles to their ultimate conclusion, you will find that sometimes when an issue gets to the appeals courts and even the Supreme Court, a successful argument can be made that inspite of what a law seems to say in black and white, that an examination of the committee hearings and testimony in Congress indicates that the INTENT of the congress was to say something different than actually ended up in the law book. It's rare. But it does happen.
I am NOT a lawyer, I DON'T play one on television, and I DID NOT sleep at Holiday Inn Express last night, but I predict we are going to see some very interesting court rulings in the next few years on what the law says and does not say about political advertising.
If I were running an LPFM today, I would ask my attorney to "hold my hand" and help me keep my balance as I make the argument: LPFM is an experimental form of broadcasting, a laboratory where both governement and communications professionals can watch as new concepts are thrown into the soup pot at the community level. I would argue that the FCC and the courts must grant LPFM operators who demonstrate good faith and accurately document what they are doing some "wiggle room" to carve out new directions.
As to your local commercial broadcaster..... he may be out of wiggle room if a candidate decides to go after him. I think from what I remember a broadcaster could choose to turn down ALL political advertising. But. Once he accepts an ad schedule from one candidate, he is skating on very thin ice to turn down competing candidates. And when it comes to Federal candidates, I think I also remember some rules that dictate the pricing of political candidate advertising.
Please don't lecture us for not giving you a black-and-white take-it-to-the-bank answer when it comes to issues of the law. There is a reason we are belly-button-deep in lawyers in this country. The law has lots of shades of gray and other "mid-tones" as we photographers call them.
Desert Ear said:
Law and regulation in this nation tends to be a living organism. If you will follow some legal struggles to their ultimate conclusion, you will find that sometimes when an issue gets to the appeals courts and even the Supreme Court, a successful argument can be made that inspite of what a law seems to say in black and white, that an examination of the committee hearings and testimony in Congress indicates that the INTENT of the congress was to say something different than actually ended up in the law book. It's rare. But it does happen.
I am NOT a lawyer, I DON'T play one on television, and I DID NOT sleep at Holiday Inn Express last night, but I predict we are going to see some very interesting court rulings in the next few years on what the law says and does not say about political advertising.
If I were running an LPFM today, I would ask my attorney to "hold my hand" and help me keep my balance as I make the argument: LPFM is an experimental form of broadcasting, a laboratory where both governement and communications professionals can watch as new concepts are thrown into the soup pot at the community level. I would argue that the FCC and the courts must grant LPFM operators who demonstrate good faith and accurately document what they are doing some "wiggle room" to carve out new directions.
As to your local commercial broadcaster..... he may be out of wiggle room if a candidate decides to go after him. I think from what I remember a broadcaster could choose to turn down ALL political advertising. But. Once he accepts an ad schedule from one candidate, he is skating on very thin ice to turn down competing candidates. And when it comes to Federal candidates, I think I also remember some rules that dictate the pricing of political candidate advertising.
Please don't lecture us for not giving you a black-and-white take-it-to-the-bank answer when it comes to issues of the law. There is a reason we are belly-button-deep in lawyers in this country. The law has lots of shades of gray and other "mid-tones" as we photographers call them.
I've re-read Desert Ear's posts here and it's not clear to me that he is asking about an LPFM station, or what his role in this situation is exactly. I also do not see why it is necessary for him to include a solicitation for votes in these "interviews." It also sounds like he only wants to air interviews with certain candidates, exactly what he is accusing the other station of doing. The tone of questions sounds more like an activist than a broadcaster.
Re: Equal Time Provision
As those who have responded have told you, it's not the simple cut and dried issue you seem to want it to be. If you think the FCC website is large, wait until you get to the rules you're asking about! There is not an FCC rule. There are several FCC rules. The rules are long, complicated things, full of clauses, disclaimers, exceptions, contradictions, and heaven knows what else. That's why the best advice you were given was to ask a lawyer.
And when you ask a lawyer, you're going to have to be more specific than "Can We Ask For Votes In A Campaign Broadcast?" Who is the "we" you are referring to? Does it refer to the owners of the station, the hired help conducting interviews, the candidates being interviewed, or what? The answer to, "Can we, the people who own this station, ask for votes in a campaign broadcast that we produce and schedule?" is not the same as the answer to, "Can we, the campaign committee of Candidate X, ask for votes in a campaign broadcast on a 'dollar a holler' brokered time station?".
Frankly, if you can't tell from the many reasonable and well-thought out answers you've gotten from people in this thread that you have already been given a wealth of good information, then I have to wonder what you're doing running either a radio station or someone's political campaign.
Desert Ear said:
As those who have responded have told you, it's not the simple cut and dried issue you seem to want it to be. If you think the FCC website is large, wait until you get to the rules you're asking about! There is not an FCC rule. There are several FCC rules. The rules are long, complicated things, full of clauses, disclaimers, exceptions, contradictions, and heaven knows what else. That's why the best advice you were given was to ask a lawyer.
And when you ask a lawyer, you're going to have to be more specific than "Can We Ask For Votes In A Campaign Broadcast?" Who is the "we" you are referring to? Does it refer to the owners of the station, the hired help conducting interviews, the candidates being interviewed, or what? The answer to, "Can we, the people who own this station, ask for votes in a campaign broadcast that we produce and schedule?" is not the same as the answer to, "Can we, the campaign committee of Candidate X, ask for votes in a campaign broadcast on a 'dollar a holler' brokered time station?".
Frankly, if you can't tell from the many reasonable and well-thought out answers you've gotten from people in this thread that you have already been given a wealth of good information, then I have to wonder what you're doing running either a radio station or someone's political campaign.
Oh if only! First, there's the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), which for broadcasters we're mostly concerned about parts 73 and 74 (and, for EAS, part 11...also part 15 to some extent). But it goes much, much further than that. Next there's the individual Report and Orders by the FCC, which are far, far harder to search. They're sort of like legal opinions, I guess...IANAL...where the FCC was asked to resolve a question and it made a decision. These decisions can be somewhat fluid; the law is always a fluid document, adapting and changing to the times. But in my personal opinion, FCC R&O's tend to be more subject to whatever the conventional wisdom of the day is, compared to a court of law where precedent can hold tremendous sway.
But that's not all! We're talking about media access for politicians on non-commercial radio stations. That means there's a myriad array of laws and gov't agencies that regulate elections in play...AND there's also the IRS, just for good measure.
BTW, I don't quite get the theme that LPFM's are an experimental form of broadcasting. They aren't at all; the rules surrounding them are generally no different than any other non-commercial radio station. Yes, some of the specifics...like how the allocations are decided or what level of EAS participation is required...are different. But LPFM's are governed by Part 73 just like any "full power" AM or FM, and their non-commercial status is virtually identical to the rest of the reserved-band stations.
aaronread said:
I don't know that anyone besides me has been so brash as to suggest that LPFM as we know it today is an experiment..... so let me spell out why I say that.
Those who supported the original legislation had a dream of "community" stations doing novel things, things that other forms of broadcasting were much too attached to sales dollars to do, to gamble on.
There are multiple definitions of the word community. I have a little town in mind where I would like to operate an LPFM. It has all the attributes of what a geographer would call a community. Its not a metro area. It is not a big city. Its just a little geographical community that probably has at least half-a-dozen sociological communities there. Some of those sociological groups might qualify and have the where-withal to actually operate and use such a station. That was the dream of the people who introduced this concept to Congress and the FCC.
Except in a limited number of licensees, that is not what has happened.
Somewhere in the forums the other day there was a post where someone quoted their contact at the FCC as saying there would be an Application Window in 2011 and that it would be the LAST application window ever! When you suggest that LPFM is on equal footing with all other forms of FCC licensed broadcasting services, tell me how many of them have been told THEIR WINDOW will be closed for eternity.
Most LPFMs are so financially strapped that we don't see people stepping up, announcing to the FCC "This is what I am going to do, and if it is not allowed, write me up. We will end up in court." Thus we have no definitive stream of guidance coming from the FCC on how these stations are to operate. That means every current licensee is in an experimental condition and most are scared to test the boundaries, to financially anemic to dare test the boundaries. lawyers cost money.
I make the claim the FCC cannot justify leaving LPFM to continue under its current rules. Too many commercial broadcasters want the supposed interference out of their private game preserve. Commercial broadcasters DO have the money to pay lawyers and even if Congress and the FCC try to leave things "status quo".... the courts sooner or later will declare the current status of LPFM must be changed.
The Evangelical wing of the church now dominates LPFM and they want more. There has been this 20 year marriage of Evangelicals and Republicans which basically hit the "divorce court" in the last 24 months. Other community groups who want a channel are going to look at these automated religious outlets and begin shouting: "Do your thing or get off the pot!" If there is no change made by Congress and the FCC, we will begin seeing legal challenges that religious operators in some cases are not in compliance with "the LPFM Experiment".
A year ago we were all excited that the Liberals in Congress were going to move LPFM in new directions and predictions were that we would have had the Application Window past up by now. (There are some Conservative Congressmen supportive of the effort but who knows what they might have ammended to the legislation.)
Whether you define community as a geography or as a sociological bonding of a group, these communities want and need some form of paid advertising. Until they get it, LPFM is failure waiting to happen. That makes it an experiment.
As you can see, I'm wound up pretty tight on this topic. I probably have half a dozen more examples that in essence say: The FCC was not sure how to implement this new low power service so they threw something together and said- We will let the marketplace work it out over time and eventually we will get it right.
I call that an experiment.
And if I were a graduate student and my experiment was as dead in the water as LPFM is right now, my professor would cancel the project and tell me to come up with another one.
@GRC: "Community radio" has a long-standing problem. Lack of listeners. The FCC for a long time held onto the myth of city of license and started licensing stations to cities in the suburbs. Usually these were stations located within the suburban counties of a metro area, with good signals from the big city stations. These suburban "community stations" either ignored their token city of license and tried to pass themselves off as another city station or adopted some niche format (often brokered religion) which also ignored the COL. Yes, a few stations did establish a strong local identity for a time but they were the exception. These stations that made it as community radio did it with a solid local personality and a local presence (they showed up for everything and they talked about everything - if your name was not mentioned on the radio this morning, probably you knew some of the people who were mentioned). Even if they lacked listeners, they maintained a connection to local advertisers, who often had limited advertising options.
But these so-called LPFM stations often do not target a "community," even though they claim to speak for one. They generally have some ax to grind. They see a radio license as a pulpit. They want to preach to, rather than reflect a community. In a post I recall from another context, they operate for people who want to talk on the radio and not for people who listen to the radio. Their preaching doesn't even get most of the choir to listen, although those people will say it's important that the "message" be preached. If a tree falls in an empty forest....
But these so-called LPFM stations often do not target a "community," even though they claim to speak for one. They generally have some ax to grind. They see a radio license as a pulpit. They want to preach to, rather than reflect a community. In a post I recall from another context, they operate for people who want to talk on the radio and not for people who listen to the radio. Their preaching doesn't even get most of the choir to listen, although those people will say it's important that the "message" be preached. If a tree falls in an empty forest....
MattParker said:
Thanks to modern roads and automobiles, not to mention the pervasiveness of regional media that covers an entire metro area, there is little to no demand for a "local community" station. If there was a radio station that covered just the issues of the suburban area I lived in, I wouldn't listen to it. I doubt if anyone would. There aren't enough important local issues to fill more than 10 minutes of airtime.
- Status