The Desk.net posted an article in the last few days in which they referenced a FCC law that as they put it required " Equal Time " for any broadcast discussion outside of news programs. I thought the equal time rule ( actually equal opportunity ) was thrown out years ago. Did I miss something?
-
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
Equal opportunity requirement
- Thread starter Radio Bob
- Start date
The Equal Time rule does still exist. An excerpt from FCC rules, 73.1941:
However, it is limited to candidates running for office. As far as I know, there is not presently an equivalent requirement for non-candidates.
There are also certain exceptions. The most common exception is for bona fide spot news. For example, if we have a candidate for Congress who is currently mayor, we do not have to offer equal time to their opponent every time we use a sound bite of the mayor speaking to their city council.
We also do not have to offer equal time in the case of paid advertising. We have to offer equal price, and we cannot sell advertising to one candidate but not another.
However, it is limited to candidates running for office. As far as I know, there is not presently an equivalent requirement for non-candidates.
There are also certain exceptions. The most common exception is for bona fide spot news. For example, if we have a candidate for Congress who is currently mayor, we do not have to offer equal time to their opponent every time we use a sound bite of the mayor speaking to their city council.
We also do not have to offer equal time in the case of paid advertising. We have to offer equal price, and we cannot sell advertising to one candidate but not another.
The requirement on each station for certain candidates within a defined period of time before elections to sell ads at the lowest unit rate, not just equal price. That means the lowest comparable rate given any commercial advertiser.
"In addition, there is a requirement on each station for certain candidates within a defined period of time before elections to sell ads at the lowest unit rate. " (Google AI)
A station can limit the number of ads in each race and can also limit the candidacies that it will accept any ads for. At AC station WQII I worked with Koteen & Burt and the FCC staff to establish a policy like that where we made sure the station was not inundated with political ads
Keep in mind the rule is for "legally qualified candidates for office." Nobody in this context is running for office.
Carr is targeting The View. I would like to know how conservative talk radio provides equal time.
deadline.com
Carr is targeting The View. I would like to know how conservative talk radio provides equal time.
Brendan Carr Targets ‘The View’ As FCC Chairman Continues Regulatory Threats In Aftermath Of Jimmy Kimmel’s Suspension
The FCC chair suggested that he would look into whether the show was exempt from an FCC regulation.
deadline.com
We all have been saying "candidates". I thought that was clear. And it does not apply to ballot initiative ads, PAC ads and general "party" ads. Just specific candidates. It also applies only during a defined period prior to each election based on the definition of "legally defined candidate".
A really good discussion of the subject, from PBS, is at Candidate Appearances | Media Law 101 | PBS
You can see that the window for equal rates and access is somewhat vague as different jurisdictions and parties have differing definitions of what the period in which a person is a legally defined candidate.
I'm talking about Brendan Carr. He wants to apply this rule to The View. It doesn't apply.
Here's what The Desk.net is referring to: FCC chairman targets "The View" after getting Jimmy Kimmel suspended
I totally agree. I'm rather sure he knows that, too. But he is seeing that pressure "well applied" gets results that are beyond rules. The concerns of two network affiliate owners got Kimmel "suspended" and The View has been told not to discuss the issue of Kimmel's case. In neither case has the FCC actually done anything, but both DIsney/ABC and the affiliates are reacting.
That's not his job. He is a regulator, not a mafia boss. This government is out of control and even republicans can see it.
There is nothing these companies have done that warrants this kind of "pressure." He's treating them the way warring countries treat adversaries.
The answer to this question is Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. We're 5 for 5Keep in mind the rule is for "legally qualified candidates for office." Nobody in this context is running for office.
Carr is targeting The View. I would like to know how conservative talk radio provides equal time.
Brendan Carr Targets ‘The View’ As FCC Chairman Continues Regulatory Threats In Aftermath Of Jimmy Kimmel’s Suspension
The FCC chair suggested that he would look into whether the show was exempt from an FCC regulation.
May I remind you that both my state and federal government considers me to be in 2 Domestic Terrorist groups
Unsettling, isn't it?
I'm wondering if the federal government is next going to consider declaring the entire state of California, including all non-republican lawmakers and citizens (including RINOs) a Domestic Terrorist group.
Scary times!
c