Could someone please explain the criteria for determining that a post is "political"?

[FreddyE1977]

So I stopped by here the other day to see what was happening, but I could not gain access as I was greeted with a notification saying “You have been banned for the following reason: Political posting. Your ban will be lifted on Feb 14, 2025 at 12:00 AM.”

This was curious as I did not remember having posted anything political.

Did I say “Vote for Joe Futz”? No.

Did I say “Senator Plim is a Nerd”? No

Did I say “Call your Congressman and tell him to vote Yes on HB 1171, the repeal of the excise tax on buggy whips.”? No

I had absolutely no idea. And apparently the mods were unwilling to tell me what I’d said or what rule I had violated as I had only this cryptic one-line notification.

So evidently I had said something in the course of one of these radio discussions which someone had DEEMED to be political. As many here have pointed out it is virtually impossible to discuss most topics on this board while not EVER veering into politics because:

• Almost everything in the industry is regulated by the Federal Government, and
• A number of key players in the industry receive public monies.

There are threads on here discussing the AM Radio in Every Car Act and other pieces of legislation. Just how on earth is one supposed to discuss a PENDING PIECE OF LEGISLATION without getting “political”?

Indeed I could post many, many, MANY links to comments made by other participants here which you could say were “political” using this same ill-defined criteria. I did not because:

• They are entitled to their opinions, and
• It is virtually impossible to fully decouple politics from broadcasting for the reasons I outlined above.

So, what is the differentiator? Why did I receive a ban while others did not?

Could the difference be that the mods just happen not to like the side of the issue I took as opposed to the side taken by the others I could mention?

I think perhaps yes. Prove me wrong.

 

[Jean Luc]

So I stopped by here the other day to see what was happening, but I could not gain access as I was greeted with a notification saying “You have been banned for the following reason: Political posting. Your ban will be lifted on Feb 14, 2025 at 12:00 AM.”

This was curious as I did not remember having posted anything political.

Did I say “Vote for Joe Futz”? No.

Did I say “Senator Plim is a Nerd”? No

Did I say “Call your Congressman and tell him to vote Yes on HB 1171, the repeal of the excise tax on buggy whips.”? No

I had absolutely no idea. And apparently the mods were unwilling to tell me what I’d said or what rule I had violated as I had only this cryptic one-line notification.

So evidently I had said something in the course of one of these radio discussions which someone had DEEMED to be political. As many here have pointed out it is virtually impossible to discuss most topics on this board while not EVER veering into politics because:

• Almost everything in the industry is regulated by the Federal Government, and
• A number of key players in the industry receive public monies.

There are threads on here discussing the AM Radio in Every Car Act and other pieces of legislation. Just how on earth is one supposed to discuss a PENDING PIECE OF LEGISLATION without getting “political”?

Indeed I could post many, many, MANY links to comments made by other participants here which you could say were “political” using this same ill-defined criteria. I did not because:

• They are entitled to their opinions, and
• It is virtually impossible to fully decouple politics from broadcasting for the reasons I outlined above.

So, what is the differentiator? Why did I receive a ban while others did not?

Could the difference be that the mods just happen not to like the side of the issue I took as opposed to the side taken by the others I could mention?

I think perhaps yes. Prove me wrong.

I can appreciate you are being careful but it would be helpful to have some idea of the topic of what you posted before the plug was pulled. I would add to your list that much of the content on radio is political. Further leading figures in broadcasting often take political positions. I can appreciate drawing the line on political advocacy but reporting on political issues currently undergoing public debate and directly or indirectly affecting broadcasting should be open for discussion (note the recent threads dealing with the FCC as an example).

Also I know this might mean extra work for the admins, but I assume that most "violations" are inadvertent and instead of just pulling the plug, let the individual know what they did wrong so they know what not to do in the future. Also Facebook flags rule breaking posts so the poster can still see it but nobody else can. The poster can edit the post to bring it within the rules of they want.

 

[b-turner]

For me it is the name calling. Here's what I mean: Our Lord Almighty Donald Trump. There are many more and typically it is the far right and far left that have disparaging adjectives for the opposing side that infiltrate each sentence intending to show the opposing side as morons. These adjectives are so entrenched in the vocabulary of the person they don't realize they're using them (if they can be believed). And if called on it they boldly post they're not posting to appease my snowflake offense. The typical response is to throw it back on me as if the statement I'm asking them to validate came from me, something I see a lot in politics because the statements are not valid.

The moderators do a good job in weeding these out but there are several here that are habitual offenders.

 

[fybush]

This was the post in question:

"I suppose I owe NPR and PBS an apology. At least they've had the decency to come before Congress and openly ask for an appropriation every year. Not hustling cash out the back door of an agency whose primary mission is allegedly feeding starving people in emerging countries."

I assume you were talking about USAID at the end there, and whether or not your allegations have any basis in fact, they were both inflammatory and had nothing to do with broadcasting. Can you really make a case otherwise?

As for your assertions that we're moderating based on our own political views, I don't think you can find two people farther apart on political views than me and David, and both of us, along with Lance, are trying to keep things here somewhat under control as best we can even when we're all very busy with other paying jobs.

Do we see everything that's posted here all the time? We do not, and we depend on user reports to alert us when things get off the rails.

A little common sense should go a long way here. Keep things calm and based more on fact than emotion and we can all keep these forums going smoothly.

 

[Deleted member 108832]

Scott Fybush and I just had this conversation a couple of days ago. It is apparent that he and I don't have the same viewpoint on politics, but he was impartial and fair in the conversation we had in addressing the extremely insulting words levied against our current sitting President, as well as my not-so-subtle response to that particular individual.

There are certain users here, won't name names but you know who you are, that come here to, solely, bash on Donald Trump and his administration because you simply don't have the testicular fortitude to go about your speaking your truth out in the public. This place seems to be your security blanket. Bill Turner is exactly right in what he wrote above. This is a broadcasting forum, for the purposes of discussing broadcasting. Not a place for us to read that those who supported the elephant are a bunch of ignorant, low class, white racists. Also, not a place for us to read that those who supported the donkey are nothing more than a bunch of traitorous, mindless sheep. I've had my absolute fill of it. This is not why most of us come here, and it should be stopped coming from both sides. There are numerous other websites you can go to argue, bicker, and fight, if that's what gets you off.

I, wholeheartedly, believe we have the correct administrators in place to get the brakes pumped on these shenanigans quick, fast, and in a hurry.

Sorry you received the "temporary ban", Freddie. You've always been one of the better contributors around here, at least in this man's opinion.

 

[Motown]

I believe the political discussion criteria is fairly simple. Don’t bash politicians. Period. Keep the conversation on radio personalities and factual information on what was said. Your personal political views are irrelevant to this board’s focus on radio. There are plenty of political boards to spew hatred. This board is not one of them. My $0.02.

 

[davideduardo]

As for your assertions that we're moderating based on our own political views, I don't think you can find two people farther apart on political views than me and David, and both of us, along with Lance, are trying to keep things here somewhat under control as best we can even when we're all very busy with other paying jobs.

I could not have said it better. This answers the original question l question and dimensions it.

In fact, when I consider deleting a post or banning a user, the first thing I do is consider how Scott and Lance might think. If I am to far out of line for a consensus opinion, I reevaluate my thoughts.

Your moderators share a respect for varied and different opinions. But this site is about radio, TV and related media like cable and streaming. If a post does not relate to that marquee, it will be deleted or the thread closed.

Do we see everything that's posted here all the time? We do not, and we depend on user reports to alert us when things get off the j

Each of us spends “too much” time here and still we came read everything. As Scott says, filing a report helps us… and it is easy.

A little common sense should go a long way here. Keep things calm and based more on fact than emotion and we can all keep these forums going smoothly.

And stick to radio… and TV and that newfangled internet contraption. Not politics.

 

[davideduardo]

I believe the political discussion criteria is fairly simple. Don’t bash politicians. Period. Keep the conversation on radio personalities and factual information on what was said. Your personal political views are irrelevant to this board’s focus on radio. There are plenty of political boards to spew hatred. This board is not one of them. My $0.02.

And there are plenty of places to talk about pure politics, good, bad, and evil. This is not one of them.

 

[kevtronics]

I believe the political discussion criteria is fairly simple. Don’t bash politicians. Period. Keep the conversation on radio personalities and factual information on what was said.

The line between those two have been blurred ever since a TV personality ran for President, with a former radio personality running as his Vice President. And now in the NY/NJ area alone there are multiple (now former) radio personalities running for political office, as well as multiple former politicians who became radio personalities.

 

[davideduardo]

The line between those two have been blurred ever since a TV personality ran for President, with a former radio personality running as his Vice President. And now in the NY/NJ area alone there are multiple (now former) radio personalities running for political office, as well as multiple former politicians who became radio personalities.

And that is nothing new. Ronald Regan worked at radio, finally getting noticed when he arrived at Des Moines' WHO. Lyndon Johnson owned radio stations. And more senators and representatives at the national and state level have worked in the media or owned stations. Again, nothing new.

 

[tbolt909]

Are broadcasters and meteorologists going to be targeted for not calling the Gulf Of Mexico the Gulf Of America? This is just one example of the childish crap that's going on...

 

[davideduardo]

Are broadcasters and meteorologists going to be targeted for not calling the Gulf Of Mexico the Gulf Of America? This is just one example of the childish crap that's going on...

Silly to you or not, this was an official renaming. If the current administration wants to make this a policy point, that is their decision.

 

[tbolt909]

Silly to you or not, this was an official renaming. If the current administration wants to make this a policy point, that is their decision.

So you're saying they should be jailed if they the use the correct name that everyone else in the world uses? It's not a policy at all. It's a capricious whim. Once Trump is gone, the name will be changed back...

 

[fybush]

I already had to delete a few replies and close this thread because some of you still aren't getting the message.

If you're posting something and saying "your boy (name of politician)," you're outside the boundaries of the civil conversation we try to encourage here.

Do better or find somewhere else to post.