If this major issue is pushed and debated or any part of it put into the regulations, major corporations to small town owners will take it to every level of federal court and every congressional subcommittee... In a way, this is a 'wake up' to state the practical... So we must state it... Maybe a little "Sky Is Falling" can wake the dead corporate real estate suites who run radio....
-
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
cold_coffee said:
Ah. Of course. As always. It's the communists under the bed again.
You don't think the FCC hasn't heard from some right leaning entrepreneurs also, who have left the broadcasting business under it's present climate and are hoping to see the corporate strangle-hold broken so they can become owner-operators?
As an industry we have looked the other way as small and medium sized communities had their channels stripped away so we could have over-population of broadcasting in the cities... and now we don't like the proposed cure? Maybe we wouldn't be facing this curse if we had stepped up earlier and demanded some sanity in allocations.
And how are we supposed to react to that? Are the "Christian broadcasters" our friends?
Their program content tends to be disruptive of local church congregations.
They are hogging frequencies with their translators that small town day-timers and underpowered full-time operators could use to enhance their coverage for night-time.
Just what are the Christian broadcasters doing for our communities or our industry that we should share their alarm that they might feel the squeeze?
//***** written by a former Christian broadcaster *****//
That seems to be a rash generalization.Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
Could they use those frequencies? Legally? You've made a claim, now back it up. If the small town operators could use translator frequencies WHY HAVEN'T THEY? The FCC has made no content rule that makes it easier for religious broadcasters. It seems that it is a case of getting the small town operators off of their collective asses and into active use.
And if they cannot LEGALLY use those frequencies perhaps it is time for those operators to get off of their asses and petition for rule changes.
justalurker said:
You are absolutely correct. Guilty as charged. I will simply claim that I am qualified to make a rash generalization on this topic that if we were to pursue it would turn out to be a lot more right than it is wrong. We are talking about radio primarily and I don't want to hijack the topic to try and morph into a discussion of religious issues. If you want to pursue this topic, send me a "Personal Message" through this board and we can exchange some notes off-line.
In just the last few months the FCC has granted a couple of A.M. commercial stations to make use of low power F.M. translators to enhance their coverage at night. The two that I am familiar with are Murfreesboro, TN and Union, SC. I think they were granted some kind of STA outside the normal standards which put the industry on notice that good things were on the way. I think they are currently writing the rules and procedures under which stations with very low night time power and hopefully day-time only A.M. stations can make a standard application to do this and be fully licensed.
I don't think they will allow the Commercial stations to use any of those frequencies between 88.1 and 91.9 which are reserved for NCE. What I was throwing rocks at in my earlier post was all the religious translators that have been granted IN THE COMMERCIAL PORTION of the F.M. band. There are one or two of the group-owned religious broadcasters who appear to be filling every blank spot they can get their hands on for the primary purpose of stopping the growth of NPR. I have yet to figure out the "business model" of these religious broadcasters.
The sad news is that even when the FCC finalizes the procedures for obtaining a low-power F.M. assist for A.M. stations, there aren't nearly enough available channels in the FM band to meet the need, with or without the religious sattelators using their channels.
Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
If you can't discuss it in public perhaps you should not have made the accusation in public? It turns it into an editorial without reply. But I am happy with the fact that you have acknowledged the unfair nature of the statement ... we can leave it at that.
Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
There are at least 50 translators rebroadcasting AM stations in the FM band. Four more STA applications were granted Thursday. There were 24 STA grants in the past two months. These are becoming "routine exceptions", and yes, the FCC should wrap up a NPRM on the matter very soon and make AM translators a routine activity, not an exception. The NPRM asked responders as to what the limits on opening the FM band to translators of AM should be (should it be all at once or phased in with the most "needy" stations getting preference?). Unless petitioners are successful, the base proposed rule will simply allow what the 50 translators are already doing ... 60dB translator remaining within 2mV/m contour and 25mile radius of the AM site.
This is a case where the commercial broadcasters got off their asses and, via the NAB, did something. It started with a couple of translators and a station getting help from their congressional representative ... and now it looks like it will expand.
Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
Don't state as fact something that is just your opinion. You have stated that these translators were applied for "for the primary purpose of stopping the growth of NPR". That is your opinion, not a fact. If you ask the parties involved (those who filed) you will find that their stated purpose is to expand religious broadcasting. I realize that you have a chip on your shoulder - but your claim of purpose is not supported by the facts.
You have also overlooked the commercial band translator licenses applied for by NPR stations (possibly to block others from building stations on their fringe ... but possibly to extend their reach) as well as applications filed by Kaspar and Capstar ... commercial stations broadcasting commercial content on commercial translators.
Other than AM only operators, small stations had THE SAME opportunity to file for translators as anyone else during the last window (back in March of 2003). Perhaps they should have had the same foresight?
Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
It is not satellitors in the commercial band (commercial band stations must be fed OTA ... the best a "satellitor" can do is feed a commercial band translator via a non-comm band satellite translator or station). Looking through some of the 50 AM Translator STAs guess where they got their frequency? Some got it from one of the mass filing companies you complain about ... others got it from their own FM operations (yes, many of these "poor AM stations that need an FM translator" have co-owned FM facilities).
Until the next window opens up those wanting translators should be happy that there is an available pool ... it isn't like the FCC is going to pull translator licenses and give them to someone else. If they get pulled NO ONE will have the frequency.
justalurker said:
No, you can't prance out here, twist around what I wrote, and then put on your sanctimonious, pious face and leave the stage saying " ....you have acknowledged the unfair nature of the statement.... ". No, I acknowledged that I made a generalization, and then suggested that maybe I am qualified to make that generalization. No where did I admit that it was wrong.
This isn't an issue of who is right and who is wrong. I have spent close to three hours wading through almost 300 posts you have put in these forums and it turns out you and I look at our religion, our faith differently. We are trying to have a discussion here about the future and the failure of small market radio. A previous poster took a good poke at "liberal activists" and attempted to rope the burden proposed regulations might cause for broadcasters of religion into the discussion of small market radio, I challenged his generalizations (hopefully I was gentle enough in making that challenge) and you go off like a rocket about my post.
This is not the venue to pursue the plight of religious stations. We can do that elsewhere if that is of interest to you. You and I can go off-line and have a revival meeting over that part of our faith that we share, and debate robustly on that which we disagree, but I don't desire to have that conversation here.
You have an encyclopedic knowledge of the FCC and it's handling of translators, etc. I would truly love to be able to learn from you on that topic.
Hopefully we might find some topic where I could share something that you would find useful.
When you are ready to discuss the TOPIC of this thread I'll be ready to respond. As for now, your personal comments are unacceptable.
EXACTLY ... which is why you should not have brought up your personal problems with such stations.
EXACTLY ... which is why you should not have brought up your personal problems with such stations.
All right you guys...let's not start a holy war here. Let's get back to the issue at hand, shall we?
That is, multiple radio ownership in the hands of too few is hurting this business. We've seen suburban-licensed stations moved in to larger cities and rebranded as the big city station, we've seen AM's and some FM's reduced to simulcast repeaters or shut off altogther, frequency swaps, and other niceties that have resulted in too many hands in the pie. A city that had 35 stations prior to 1992 now suddenly has 55, and all of them claiming to serve that city. And they all want those agency dollars. Now those markets have shrank and the overinflated prices that conglomerates paid for their stations are coming back to haunt them because they overspeculated on agency revenue that is barely trickling in anymore. Even if they add the numbers up and present them to the agency as controlling a 7 share in the market, it's still not enough.
The technology that's out there today has revolutionized this industry. You can, as a small market owner with one or two stations, use that technology available out there to serve the public interest as a public trustee...and STILL make a nice living doing it. You won't get rich, but you won't starve either.
This technology was exploited by conglomerates who simply looked at it as a way to eliminate jobs and take their competitors out of the market. This is the real issue here...taking the service away from the communities who need and deserve local radio service.
I'm going to use Renda Broadcasting of Indiana, Pennsylvania as an example. They own four stations: an AM/FM licensed to Indiana, a 10,000 watt AM licensed to Homer City (2 miles south), and a Class A FM licensed to Blairsville (13 miles south). Indiana is the seat of government for Indiana County (we're not very original around here when it comes to names, I'm afraid).
In that case, because all of those communities reside in the same county, it is not necessary to put separate studios in Blairsville or Homer City, since those stations are getting full community coverage despite being based out of town. Phone, email and fax take care of that, along with an in-person presence at town hall meetings and local high school sports. They don't have to hang out a shingle right in town to be local. However, if Renda chose to operate all four of those stations from Johnstown (25 miles to the southeast in Cambria County), then no...that should never be allowed. It's too far removed from the community.
A standard has to be set as to what is considered local. As far as community advisory boards are concerned, they need to be made up of credible individuals who have the ability to make prudent decisions from a business standpoint. Chamber-member businesses, college advisory board members, legislators, etc. To make it up of random people is just plain wrong. Too many people are led to believe that just because someone owns a radio station, they're rich. That's just not so. It was never the case in the beginning, nor is it the case now unless you're a conglomerate.
More than that, their findings should never be binding. Anything binding should be subject to this: They can submit their findings to the FCC, with the burden of proof on them insofar as substandard levels of local service, if the station fails to respond within a specified time frame. The commission can take it from there. Good opportunity to make sure those public files are up to date!
That is, multiple radio ownership in the hands of too few is hurting this business. We've seen suburban-licensed stations moved in to larger cities and rebranded as the big city station, we've seen AM's and some FM's reduced to simulcast repeaters or shut off altogther, frequency swaps, and other niceties that have resulted in too many hands in the pie. A city that had 35 stations prior to 1992 now suddenly has 55, and all of them claiming to serve that city. And they all want those agency dollars. Now those markets have shrank and the overinflated prices that conglomerates paid for their stations are coming back to haunt them because they overspeculated on agency revenue that is barely trickling in anymore. Even if they add the numbers up and present them to the agency as controlling a 7 share in the market, it's still not enough.
The technology that's out there today has revolutionized this industry. You can, as a small market owner with one or two stations, use that technology available out there to serve the public interest as a public trustee...and STILL make a nice living doing it. You won't get rich, but you won't starve either.
This technology was exploited by conglomerates who simply looked at it as a way to eliminate jobs and take their competitors out of the market. This is the real issue here...taking the service away from the communities who need and deserve local radio service.
I'm going to use Renda Broadcasting of Indiana, Pennsylvania as an example. They own four stations: an AM/FM licensed to Indiana, a 10,000 watt AM licensed to Homer City (2 miles south), and a Class A FM licensed to Blairsville (13 miles south). Indiana is the seat of government for Indiana County (we're not very original around here when it comes to names, I'm afraid).
In that case, because all of those communities reside in the same county, it is not necessary to put separate studios in Blairsville or Homer City, since those stations are getting full community coverage despite being based out of town. Phone, email and fax take care of that, along with an in-person presence at town hall meetings and local high school sports. They don't have to hang out a shingle right in town to be local. However, if Renda chose to operate all four of those stations from Johnstown (25 miles to the southeast in Cambria County), then no...that should never be allowed. It's too far removed from the community.
A standard has to be set as to what is considered local. As far as community advisory boards are concerned, they need to be made up of credible individuals who have the ability to make prudent decisions from a business standpoint. Chamber-member businesses, college advisory board members, legislators, etc. To make it up of random people is just plain wrong. Too many people are led to believe that just because someone owns a radio station, they're rich. That's just not so. It was never the case in the beginning, nor is it the case now unless you're a conglomerate.
More than that, their findings should never be binding. Anything binding should be subject to this: They can submit their findings to the FCC, with the burden of proof on them insofar as substandard levels of local service, if the station fails to respond within a specified time frame. The commission can take it from there. Good opportunity to make sure those public files are up to date!
kenhawk1160 said:
I think the majority of us following this thread are standing and applauding what you just said. Here is where life get's rocky: How do you ever reduced that concept to enforceable legalese so the FCC is "on board' with us. How far is too far for a studio location. Think of small towns in New England or even parts of Pennsylvania... where the population is rather dense. 25 miles would definitely be too far. Now think of West Texas or Montana and other thinly populated areas with different forms of local government. It could be possible that someone could come up with a geography and a set of two, three or four stations where we would all agree that one of those towns will be properly served from <gasp!> 50 miles away. I'm not smart enought to write a rule that spells all that out. And when a renegade owner comes along who does not share our view of localism, no one is smart enough to make the rules loophole proof.
RE: the first line of your post.... Justalurker and I recognize that this is not the time or place to continue that conversation. It is over.
Say that your local radio station has decided to use the technology of satellite fed music and programming ... perhaps they cannot afford a full local staff ... or perhaps they hire voice track people from out of town. Maybe they are less of a music station and run national programs and talk radio shows RELEVANT to the community. Is there some sort of rule that service to the community must come FROM the community?kenhawk1160 said:
Local control is probably more important ... making sure decisions are made locally ... but this can be done without the "advisory boards" and other rules that are easier to comply with as a large station than as a small independent station.
Perhaps ... but the bigger problem seems to be in more urban situations ... where clusters are built from rimshots and all operated from one studio complex. Are any of these stations serving primarily their named community? Or are they all ignoring their named community for the sake of the mass market?
Out in rural areas it is easier to say that the station is being run from the "wrong town" or accept that the town 10 miles down the road is close enough while the town 25 miles down the road isn't close enough. (It is more arbitrary if you're saying a town 25 miles away in the same county is OK and 25 miles away in a different county is wrong.) But what if it's all in the metro? Should a (theoretical) cluster with stations in Fishers, Martinsville and Greenwood be able to have studios in central Indianapolis?
Should any group be able to muscle it's way onto a board? Who defines credible? Another layer of government rules?
That is where (per the topic of this thread) small market and especially small radio operations are hurt the most. The could select a board of the most credible people available ... and still not meet some arbitrary standard or make every "special interest group" happy. Clusters and nationally owned stations can meet these requirements easier. Bring people in ... if they want more rock and less ballads meet that need via another frequency in the group. If they want equal time for their issues meet that need on the appropriate format in the group.
Would you make Radio Pacifica carry Rush Limbaugh if a dedicated and organized group pushed the advisory board hard enough? Would you require the Rush Limbaugh station carry Air America's programming? Perhaps some stations would air both ends of the spectrum. But should it be required for "equal time"?
Pick your favorite format and imagine your least favorite content being forced to air to appease a minority on the "local advisory board". This is a possibility for the smaller stations who can't blow off the rules the way larger corporations can (by pointing to other cluster stations or hiring better lawyers). And a good reason to make sure any solution offered has a problem and actually solves that problem.
I think it's simple. If FCC decides stations are required to go on air with emergency information within a certain time period (minutes? hours?), and they don't, then they get penalized.
But to say stations need to be staffed fulltime in case there is a problem is ridiculous.
Not too many would argue whether a station is manned by a live person or automated, that it should be required to go live if an community emergency breaks out. If the station fails, penalize them and threaten to pull the license.
Otherwise, this rule is the same as when all the kids get punished because one kid didn't clean his room. It's the one who didn't follow the rules that should be punished, not everyone in the house.
But to say stations need to be staffed fulltime in case there is a problem is ridiculous.
Not too many would argue whether a station is manned by a live person or automated, that it should be required to go live if an community emergency breaks out. If the station fails, penalize them and threaten to pull the license.
Otherwise, this rule is the same as when all the kids get punished because one kid didn't clean his room. It's the one who didn't follow the rules that should be punished, not everyone in the house.
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of Comments of
MB Docket No. 04-233 Bruce N Quinn
Background
I may be one of the few Americans who has some experience on both sides of many issues in this
FCC proceeding. Once, locked out of broadcasting. Then, a radio station owner for 20 years.
Thirty years ago, the FCC had rules in place that prohibited a legally blind man from being the
operator on duty of a broadcast station. Despite passing the test,
I was not able to work in my chosen field because of FCC restrictions . My dream of owning my own
station one day would have been crushed except for a few things.
As a determined young man I defied the Federal Communications Commission and
built a pirate radio station called Jolly Roger Radio, The unlicensed station operated on AM, FM, and
short wave. And it stayed on the air until the FCC Field Office in Chicago came to shut it down. It
was then that I got my chance to tell the people of this country about how I had been shut out of
broadcasting because of my handicap. This story made national news many times in print and television.
Now, this might really have been my end, but, Senator Edward Kennedy intervened
and told the FCC that I should have a license. The Engineer In Charge of the Chicago Field Office
was a man who had once been a consultant. He took a liking to me and showed me how to prepare FCC
applications. Then the chief of the Allocations Branch let me hang out at the building on M Street and see
how the FCC worked. They showed me how to find new channels and file petitions for rulemaking.
The FCC was now quite aware of who I was and in the late 1980s gave me 3 FM construction
permits. Two were for small towns and one was 10 miles from downtown Indianapolis. With financial
help from my family, I built and licensed these radio stations almost 20 years ago.
Almost all the other small stations around went broke. But I survived by doing
community events. Lots of community events and I found sponsors for that.
I found radio frequencies for many others and helped them file applications and start FM radio
stations including Indiana University.
The Problem
It’s true! Broadcasting is really a mess right now. More than ever it has become a rich man’s game.
Women, minorities, and even average Americans don’t have the millions
of dollars that licenses are selling for today. Many in small towns and inner cities have no station that
cares about them. Music is no longer selected on a local level. Stations in corporate clusters are
unmanned and tornado warnings don‘t get on the air at night.
The 107,000 Comments
The FCC has been swamped with about 2 form letters by 2 groups, filed many times. One seeks to
break up the clusters, send them back to their community of license, have community boards form
and dictate programming. Have someone on duty at all times.
The second form letter from religious broadcasters sees this proceeding as a war against Christian
radio. People who dislike their religion could form hostile citizens boards and stop their freedom of
speech and censure programming.
Discussion And Solutions
I believe the Commission should open more frequencies to give more Americans
the chance to become station owners. Open LPFM filing windows and remove
The 3rd adjacent channel restriction. Also, take the 12 Mhz of Television Channels
5 & 6 and expand the FM band.. Make 6 Mhz non-commercial and 6 Mhz commercial for new
owners and minorities.
I applaud the community radio stations that operate with citizen volunteers. They bring a unique
form of radio that every city should enjoy. But we should not force
this style of radio on others with programming advisory boards. Instead require all
stations to do some public service in their community of license and document it in their public file.
Radio stations should have someone on duty. Technology is wonderful today.
However, when a computer goes crazy, only a human being can fix it.
Someone needs to get that tornado warning on too. I don’t care if the operator
is at a remote location, or asleep as long as alarms wake him and he can grab a microphone.
It is to late to send broadcasters back to their community of license. The advertising base that
supported these stations may have vanished, or other stations may have moved in. Most
broadcasters are struggling today. Super stores rarely advertise.
And they have put out of business those who did. Some of these proposals would now ruin
broadcasters in medium sized towns.
But, there are still those who would be happy to own a station in a small town.
Those who work hard can survive. Minorities in large cities need service.
Let’s pass some new rules and get more radio stations and new owners on the air.
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of Comments of
MB Docket No. 04-233 Bruce N Quinn
Background
I may be one of the few Americans who has some experience on both sides of many issues in this
FCC proceeding. Once, locked out of broadcasting. Then, a radio station owner for 20 years.
Thirty years ago, the FCC had rules in place that prohibited a legally blind man from being the
operator on duty of a broadcast station. Despite passing the test,
I was not able to work in my chosen field because of FCC restrictions . My dream of owning my own
station one day would have been crushed except for a few things.
As a determined young man I defied the Federal Communications Commission and
built a pirate radio station called Jolly Roger Radio, The unlicensed station operated on AM, FM, and
short wave. And it stayed on the air until the FCC Field Office in Chicago came to shut it down. It
was then that I got my chance to tell the people of this country about how I had been shut out of
broadcasting because of my handicap. This story made national news many times in print and television.
Now, this might really have been my end, but, Senator Edward Kennedy intervened
and told the FCC that I should have a license. The Engineer In Charge of the Chicago Field Office
was a man who had once been a consultant. He took a liking to me and showed me how to prepare FCC
applications. Then the chief of the Allocations Branch let me hang out at the building on M Street and see
how the FCC worked. They showed me how to find new channels and file petitions for rulemaking.
The FCC was now quite aware of who I was and in the late 1980s gave me 3 FM construction
permits. Two were for small towns and one was 10 miles from downtown Indianapolis. With financial
help from my family, I built and licensed these radio stations almost 20 years ago.
Almost all the other small stations around went broke. But I survived by doing
community events. Lots of community events and I found sponsors for that.
I found radio frequencies for many others and helped them file applications and start FM radio
stations including Indiana University.
The Problem
It’s true! Broadcasting is really a mess right now. More than ever it has become a rich man’s game.
Women, minorities, and even average Americans don’t have the millions
of dollars that licenses are selling for today. Many in small towns and inner cities have no station that
cares about them. Music is no longer selected on a local level. Stations in corporate clusters are
unmanned and tornado warnings don‘t get on the air at night.
The 107,000 Comments
The FCC has been swamped with about 2 form letters by 2 groups, filed many times. One seeks to
break up the clusters, send them back to their community of license, have community boards form
and dictate programming. Have someone on duty at all times.
The second form letter from religious broadcasters sees this proceeding as a war against Christian
radio. People who dislike their religion could form hostile citizens boards and stop their freedom of
speech and censure programming.
Discussion And Solutions
I believe the Commission should open more frequencies to give more Americans
the chance to become station owners. Open LPFM filing windows and remove
The 3rd adjacent channel restriction. Also, take the 12 Mhz of Television Channels
5 & 6 and expand the FM band.. Make 6 Mhz non-commercial and 6 Mhz commercial for new
owners and minorities.
I applaud the community radio stations that operate with citizen volunteers. They bring a unique
form of radio that every city should enjoy. But we should not force
this style of radio on others with programming advisory boards. Instead require all
stations to do some public service in their community of license and document it in their public file.
Radio stations should have someone on duty. Technology is wonderful today.
However, when a computer goes crazy, only a human being can fix it.
Someone needs to get that tornado warning on too. I don’t care if the operator
is at a remote location, or asleep as long as alarms wake him and he can grab a microphone.
It is to late to send broadcasters back to their community of license. The advertising base that
supported these stations may have vanished, or other stations may have moved in. Most
broadcasters are struggling today. Super stores rarely advertise.
And they have put out of business those who did. Some of these proposals would now ruin
broadcasters in medium sized towns.
But, there are still those who would be happy to own a station in a small town.
Those who work hard can survive. Minorities in large cities need service.
Let’s pass some new rules and get more radio stations and new owners on the air.
justalurker said:
This is why I stated that any advisory board's input should be of a non-binding type only. However, the burden of proof as far as not being a community servant would have to be on them. Any findings that the board makes should be in writing and the station owners should be given time (30 days is good) to respond in kind, along with a reason why.
More than that, the board's input should only apply to non-music program content. That includes, but is not limited to, news, sports, public affairs, and to some degree, the content of commercials. A station in Jonesboro, AR was fined $4,000 recently for a Hooters ad involving golf "put your balls on our t's". It might not mean a big deal to me in the northeast, but in the buckle of the Bible Belt, the FCC smite! Any input relative to music, if it absolutely must exist, should be limited to the seven dirty words found in the lyrics.
And no...not just any group should be able to muscle its way onto a board. Your local chamber is made up of competent men and women who understand the needs of business. Hospital, college, and school boards also have to make decisions that are fiscally prudent while not undermining the level of service provided. Special interest groups involving religion, race, or such should have a place as well. But the makeup must be balanced on all fronts. Most people on these boards are educated and/or intelligent individuals capable of making such decisions.
Non commercials are required to have advisory boards now. this is non binding.
The idea of form letters is ridiculous. Form letters are ignored historically by the FCC as form letters or petitions with multiple signatures are as a parrot. parotting one person's agenda.
The idea of form letters is ridiculous. Form letters are ignored historically by the FCC as form letters or petitions with multiple signatures are as a parrot. parotting one person's agenda.
kenhawk1160 said:
And the nay sayers the station is defending itself against go to the higher authority (FCC) and say that the needs of their minority group are not being met via radio in that community. The smaller the community the more likely that there won't be some other station taking care of that minority need. The smaller the station the more likely that the defense will be written by station staff or a volunteer than a person who spends their life dealing with the FCC for a cluster or large corporation. Someone more likely to make a mistake in the filing and get the station fined.
The proposed rule doesn't help localism ... it is easily met by those it targets and a burden on those it apparently seeks to protect.
And for the stations (excuse the reference) where the message is in the music? Actually every music station has a message in their music ...
Some station's message is an "only the good die young" party party party message ... complete with FCC content rule challenging content. Others have a different message ... music with a strong anti-abortion, anti-homosexual and in many ways anti-party message. To dismiss music as the filler between the content of commercials and other messages seems short sighted.
Current rules tend to ignore the music and focus on that "issues report" ... again, a report that is easy to fill out for a cluster or large network and less easy to fill out for an independent station. Let's make rules that help the right people.
justalurker said:
You have pointed out and identified a very MAJOR change in broadcasting today as compared to broadcasting in the era when the basic philosophy of broadcast regulation was given birth. Much of our regulatory process assumes that issues will be handled via discussion programs, editorials and news commentary. And those a bureaucrat can measure in number of minutes and seconds and then assign a subject matter to them and display the balance or lack there-of in a chart. The bureaucrats have benefit from automation, also. They can analyze the data more quickly today and display the results more vividly via Excel and Power Point. And it is not difficult to assemble a panel, a committee, a task-force that can listen to or read scripts from discussion, editorials and news and assign a label to the content. Assemble three different committees and ask them to independently analyze the same material and all three are likely to come to similar conclusions. Enforcement is, to use an overused term today... black and white. Objective rulings can be made. Well, thats overstatement. A seemingly objective ruling maybe.
Yes there were a handful of musicians with an attitude and message going back to Woodie Guthrie, but it was not assumed that music was a critical part of message and community service.
Music today IS recognized as a valid and effective vehicle of message. How would congress and the FCC ever write a meaningful and enforceable set of rules on how to evaluate and score a stations handling of community issues based on musical content. How would these rules avoid charges of censorship?
Compound that mess by trying to apply rules of content balance to the broadcasting of religious music. I can see the letter now: Dear Licensee. After careful study we find you guilty of playing too little Shinto traditional music and too much Buddhist mystical music. Please respond within 45 days on your plan to correct this problem.
Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
I doubt if they would get denominational, but IF music is counted AND an equal time (or at least proportional representation) attitude is adopted it could get interesting.
A "party" station plays Nelly "Hot in Herre" ... the lyrics are judged to be suggestive and promiscuous. The station balances the message by playing abstinence or safe sex PSAs. All is well?
On the other hand a religious station plays a pro marriage song such as "I will be here" ... do they need to offer the opposing message in sponsorships from a local divorce attorney? During "Sanctity of Human Life Week" how much time do messages from Planned Parenthood get on a religious station? If music is counted and equal/proportional time is required does every play of a "save your baby" song require playing a pro-abortion message?
Currently no ... the issue is counted as presented even if the coverage is one sided (either side). And that seems to work ... unless you're in a minority that isn't represented.
There needs to be a balance between the "community needs" and the ability of a station to present a message ... whether that message is Radio Pacifica's or Rush Limbaugh's, party till you die or inspirational. Hopefully the FCC remains sane when they write what the balance will be.
This is a private business. If you want all the strings, committees, rules, regulations and all that prevent a profit, all your little small town operations will not only go dark, but even someone with no regard to profit won't even be able to keep them on the air.
Then there will only be large market 100,000 watt stations playing nelly, or it will lead to nothing but a network of NPR stations.
Hope you like jazz and classical music 24/7.
This thread was meant for SMALL MARKET. If you have no experience working in small market, how about railing on corporate radio in another thread. There are numerous threads here for you to complain about the greedy large market owners.
Then there will only be large market 100,000 watt stations playing nelly, or it will lead to nothing but a network of NPR stations.
Hope you like jazz and classical music 24/7.
This thread was meant for SMALL MARKET. If you have no experience working in small market, how about railing on corporate radio in another thread. There are numerous threads here for you to complain about the greedy large market owners.
- Status