• 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

FCC Investigating Audacy's KCBS

Lance reported the story in September, and we discussed it in other threads:

We don't have any proof that it was in response to Carr's complaint. Maybe it was, but nobody's talking. Which is the smart thing to do.
Read again the pull quotes at #53.
 
Even when presented with clear video evidence of what happened with the murder of the two protesters there, along with extensive reporting and analysis, the administration instantly and shamelessly lied about those murders, attempting to smear the reputations of the two victims repeatedly.

This, of course, is the real problem. Even though it is impossible to regulate media from positioning false narratives as fact without running afoul of the First Amendment (and the lack of authority for the FCC to regulate non-broadcast), how would you enforce such a rule?

If you had the authority to do so, would you shut down platforms that are disseminating falsehoods as fact? In the case of widespread social media like Facebook, do you shut the whole thing down because even if Zuckertwerp did the right thing and started cancelling user accounts for that behavior they can easily create a new account to resume posting?

Does there come a point where someone is so egregious in posting same that they aren't allowed free speech rights anymore? And again, who is the arbiter? For that matter, given what we are seeing with the current administration's apparent policy of "make up a narrative that fits what we want people to believe; never mind the facts" how do you know any hypothetical authority created to oversee the suppression of non-factual reporting and social media posts is going to be impartial?

When Fox News Channel started operation three decades ago, I looked at Rupert Murdoch's political leanings and I predicted to friends that this was going to be an ultra-conservative "news" service, but even I did not see it going so far to the right that facts contrary to the narrative would not only be dismissed, but actively attacked on-camera. Facebook started to become ubiquitous a few years before Fox News but I could see even then that it was ripe for abuse, if for no other reason that, even if monitored for content violations (a laughable concept where they are concerned in the first place) non-factual posts could be shared with thousands of people before they could even be reported ... and let's face it, the MAGAs who get their information from Facebook and Fox News are far from Mensa material.

I am convinced that something major league horrifying, that is offensive to everyone regardless of their political leanings, will have to happen before any serious action is taken about this. And even then, I can't even begin to imagine how long it will take to get things back to normal ...

... if it even can at this point.
 
Read again the pull quotes at #53.

Yep I saw that. Here's what you wrote when the station was asked for comment:

The article said that KCBS news director Jennifer Seelig was asked for comment but did not respond. It's not clear whether it was the AP or the Times that asked for that response.

Which is why I said "nobody's talking."

If it was me, and I was being targeted by the right wing in this way, I would get out of town quicker than the speed limit. Maybe even change my name.
 
Last edited:
Which is why I said "nobody's talking."
Well, of course not. I think it's highly likely she was under orders not to say anything. Particularly if lawyers were involved.

If it was me, and I was being targeted by the right wing in this way, I would get out of town quicker than the speed limit. Maybe even change my name.
It could be worse - you could be running for office against a guy who says he wants to hang you:

 
Last edited:
It could be worse - you could be running for office against a guy who says he wants to hang you:

In a normal world, that would go nowhere fast.

But we're not in a normal world anymore, so anything's possible.

I am convinced that something major league horrifying, that is offensive to everyone regardless of their political leanings, will have to happen before any serious action is taken about this. And even then, I can't even begin to imagine how long it will take to get things back to normal ...

... if it even can at this point.
I'm also convinced that things are going to have to get lots worse before anything changes, and it's deeply concerning.

c
 


Back
Top Bottom