George Soros buying radio stations

[K.M. Richards]

But he also twisted the facts. Soros didn't "buy 220 radio stations." That is factually wrong. He bought debt in a company going through bankruptcy. He twisted the facts for a reason, and that was to manipulate his audience. Carr has done the same thing with this story, for the same reason. In any case, what do conservatives fear about a liberal having a stake in radio stations? Shouldn't we be happy that someone saved this company from all of the vulture capitalists out there who are buying and destroying radio stations?

I thought my second paragraph covered that, but thanks for making the point more directly.

As for your rhetorical question: I wonder what "the gentleman from Louisiana" would say if he knew Audacy owns some talk stations that spew Fox News Radio's garbage (WPHT in Philadelphia comes to mind, as an example), which he likely agrees with?

 

[TheBigA]

I wonder what "the gentleman from Louisiana" would say if he knew Audacy owns some talk stations that spew Fox News Radio's garbage

The Audacy station in New Orleans is WWL. It competes with iHeart's WRNO. WWL is live & local talk. The iHeart station is the Glen Beck/Hannity/Fox News station in town. Last time I checked, WWL is a longtime affiliate of CBS News Radio. Of course that isn't a recent thing. Soros isn't the reason why WWL is local.

But yes, WPHT carries the Fox News syndicated night show. WBEN Buffalo is mostly local, but it's all conservative talk. In fact most of the Audacy stations are locally hosted.

 

[MarkW]

That's a long time ago. Same with Bain Capital. I'm not aware that either are involved much in broadcasting. There's a new group now.

I think the public is starting to grow tired of being used by politicians. I think the revolt over Epstein is an indication. The people are media savvy. They're starting to see through a lot of the ways in which they're being manipulated. The "Soros buying radio" meme is a great example, because all of the terrible things the politicians said would happen didn't. His money didn't lead to any changes in programming. On the other hand, when a conservative buys a media group, the first thing he does is change the programming. We're starting to see that with Ellison and CBS. My view on this is that liberals are about empowering people, while conservatives are about control. The funding of public radio didn't come with mandates for programming. It was about empowering stations and producers to pursue their own vision. The Musk purchase of Twitter came with more top-down control and mass firings of staff.

Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe Soros has flipped the formats at the Audacy conservative talk stations and replaced them with Democracy Now. What has Soros done with Audacy that's so bad? We all saw how Kari Lake dealt with VOA. She fired all the staff and replaced them with OANN. Is this really what the country wants? Do they really want more consolidation and centralization of radio? Because that's what the conservatives want. We'll see how far Brendan Carr's FCC goes in ownership deregulation.

This is my favorite post of all time from you.

Wonderfully stated in all respects. You hit the ball out of the park.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

I thought my second paragraph covered that, but thanks for making the point more directly.

As for your rhetorical question: I wonder what "the gentleman from Louisiana" would say if he knew Audacy owns some talk stations that spew Fox News Radio's garbage (WPHT in Philadelphia comes to mind, as an example), which he likely agrees with?

Senator Kennedy of Louisiana is only focusing on Audacy All News Stations like KNX, KCBS/KFRC-FM, KYW Radio, WBBM Radio and WINS Radio. He probably thinks all of Audacy are like the local all news stations in major cities and want Chairman carr to investigate those licences. Yes as mentioned here and on other threads Audacy owns radio stations in other parts of the country and have various radio formats they manage.

https://radiodiscussions.com/threads/homeland-security-ads-on-knx.777308/

Is this the one and we had to run on similar arguments about why KNX Los Angeles had to air Homeland Security ads. We had a partial idea that KNX wants to avoid getting hit from the FCC under Chairman Carr to avoid the same stuff hitting KCBS/KFRC-FM if KNX refused to air the Homeland Security ads.

 

[gr8oldies]

One of his investment companies bought $400 million worth of Audacy debt. Neither he nor his company own those stations. They own debt. Just like China owns $700 billion of US debt. It's not illegal. The FCC wants to re-open the case and litigate it. Audacy owns 28 news talk stations. Nothing has changed since this happened. There's really nothing to see.

It didn't happen overnight. The bankruptcy began in February, and was approved in November. That's the standard approval time. All of this is documented.

The fact is that any American citizen can buy any broadcasting station, regardless of his political party. ANY citizen.

My question to you is why is someone who lives in Ohio getting a fundraising letter from a politician in Louisiana? Is he running for president?

Fake Mr. Haney/Foghorn Leghorn apparently is one of the major voices of the Trump RNC. Interesting that thousands of stations parroting the Republican line is no problem at all but this is.

 

[TheBigA]

Fake Mr. Haney/Foghorn Leghorn apparently is one of the major voices of the Trump RNC. Interesting that thousands of stations parroting the Republican line is no problem at all but this is.

Who pays his salary? We all do. Why should someone who receives taxpayer money work for the RNC? He should be defunded.

He was also a big proponent of defunding public radio. He said it was biased. How is he exempt from that?

Kennedy on taxpayer-funded NPR, PBS: “The audience for public radio and public television is declining”

Watch Kennedy’s comments here. WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) explained why taxpayer-funded news services, including National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), have declining audiences. Kennedy argued that the federal government should stop funding these...

www.kennedy.senate.gov

We all pay for the government. We expect it to serve ALL of us. Defund Kennedy.

 

[cc333]

@michael hagerty @K.M. Richards @TheBigA

I really enjoy reading your posts on this thread and elsewhere, because they're thoughtful and honest.

That said, I agree with all of you on many points!

I've had it. Other viewpoints are fine. Just don't lie, excuse lies, or try to exhaust me, because I did this for a living. I'd rather not do it now, but I can't help myself, and if anybody wants to play this game, I will make you prove every point until you either have proven it, can't prove it or Lance has shut down the thread.

Keep up the good work!

Even though you're retired from doing it as your job (and quite possibly fed up with it, given how cutthroat the field has become), the need for keeping people honest will never end, and we need more people like you going out there and holding everyone accountable!

c

 

[davideduardo]

You may have noticed, I'm way past letting even David try to baffle us with bullshit.

There is nothing baffling. An investment firm can buy the debt of any company as long as pertinent legal obligations are complied with. In other words, following the law on secured vs. unsecured creditors, legal requirements on who gets "first payments" and such.

The FCC has restrictions on criminals being granted licences. That was the Don Burden case at WIFE et. al. decades ago, and has come up with a few licensees since then. Even companies that committed crimes, like General Tire, can lose or be forced to divest broadcast properties.

But Soros' company has all the rights that you and I do to buy up company debt. He just has a bigger bank account. He can also buy stations through his companies or even in his name if he wants to.

The real issue here is that many politicians... in this case on the right... do not understand that an investor will not take stations that are generally profitable and change them to ideology-based outlets that will not get significant ratings and any revenue.

Remember, this kind of argument is a double edged knife: not so long ago the failure of liberal talk radio was blamed on "conservative" station owners and their camp followers... when the failure was entirely ratings and sales based.

 

[TheBigA]

The real issue here is that many politicians... in this case on the right... do not understand that an investor will not take stations that are generally profitable and change them to ideology-based outlets that will not get significant ratings and any revenue.

It doesn't matter what the investor does. This is about raising money, not policy.

This story has been percolating in conservative media for a year. Their audience has already made up its mind.

George Soros closer to controlling 200 radio stations despite objection from Trump-nominated FCC commissioner

The FCC seemingly approved a deal that would “fast-track" George Soros’ acquisition of more than 200 Audacy radio stations across America, irking Republican commissioners.

www.foxnews.com

This is presented as "us" vs "them" and "they" are trying to sneak something illegal. Even though it's not.

 

[davideduardo]

It doesn't matter what the investor does. This is about raising money, not policy.

Valid point. But the argument is totally fake: no politically active station buyer is going to change profitable formats for ones that have a zero record at success.

This story has been percolating in conservative media for a year. Their audience has already made up its mind.

I can think about stories that "percolated" in liberal media, too. But that would take us into another political abyss. Let's just say that politicians are known to take unsubstantiated talking points and make them into actual "issues".

 

[TheBigA]

Valid point. But the argument is totally fake: no politically active station buyer is going to change profitable formats for ones that have a zero record at success.

We can understand politicians not understanding this. But what's the excuse for the chairman of the FCC?

 

[davideduardo]

We can understand politicians not understanding this. But what's the excuse for the chairman of the FCC?

None? The FCC long ago stepped away from any content regulation outside of profanity and indecency.

And we incessantly see politicians and ignorant "civilians" not understanding that the FCC does not regulate networks, cable, streams and anything but AM, FM, TV and RF communications.

 

[Delete My Account]

But he also twisted the facts. Soros didn't "buy 220 radio stations." That is factually wrong. He bought debt in a company going through bankruptcy. He twisted the facts for a reason, and that was to manipulate his audience. Carr has done the same thing with this story, for the same reason. In any case, what do conservatives fear about a liberal having a stake in radio stations? Shouldn't we be happy that someone saved this company from all of the vulture capitalists out there who are buying and destroying radio stations?

I'm always baffled by how some circles of conservatives will claim both that liberals fail at media, that all "liberal" enterprises are failing, go woke and go broke sort of cliches. Usually a mention of Air America thrown in as well.

And yet, when people they identify as liberals participate in investments or the free market, they're also threatening American traditions and not sufficiently "patriotic."

It's almost like they don't want liberals or centrists participating in the marketplace of ideas at all. Or that they're afraid that if they're allowed to exist peacefully and not constantly barraged or sued or pressured, some of that evil "liberal" thinking might actually sway someone's opinion. In which case, that person is no longer patriotic or worth being heard, and the cycle continues.

 

[Daryl Lynn L.A.]

This is not cool. David should have shut down this whole board when he had a chance. I hope it goes away!!!!!

Nooo. This is like a chataqua, a meeting of the minds of some of the top people in broadcasting. lf this kind of seminar discussion were featured as part of an arts and entertainment roundtable presentation, at least where l live in the Bay Area, people would be paying upwards of $100 a ticket to get in the door; and KQED would be taping it for a public affairs segment. Let them hold forth. This is the best part of very accomplished people donating their time to dialog, reflection, and elucidation. l find it fascinating, if not riveting. (Daryl)

 

[davideduardo]

Nooo. This is like a chataqua, a meeting of the minds of some of the top people in broadcasting. lf this kind of seminar discussion were featured as part of an arts and entertainment roundtable presentation, at least where l live in the Bay Area, people would be paying upwards of $100 a ticket to get in the door, and KQED would be taping it for a public affairs segment. Let them hold forth. This is the best part of very accomplished people donating their time to dialog, reflection, and elucidation. l find it fascinating, if not riveting. (Daryl)

Thanks, DL.

It is hard today to separate radio from politics, and I admit to being sensitive on the subject... likely due to my experiences in far less open societies in other parts of the world.

But somehow we seem to keep getting back on the subject of "what's on the radio" and the forces and people who make it happen... even if we disagree!

 

[ted chittenden]

And we incessantly see politicians and ignorant "civilians" not understanding that the FCC does not regulate networks, cable, streams and anything but AM, FM, TV and RF communications.

Actually, Congress has allowed the FCC to regulate some cable and on-line services for specific populations. I'm thinking of audio descriptions of videos for the blind and visually impaired and captioning of audio for the deaf. See

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/audio-description

 

[davideduardo]

Actually, Congress has allowed the FCC to regulate some cable and on-line services for specific populations. I'm thinking of audio descriptions of videos for the blind and visually impaired and captioning of audio for the deaf. See

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/audio-description

I would not consider that "content" in the sense that it does not change the nature of programming. I'd consider it "access" much in the way that many if not most buildings must have handicapped access.

My youngest daughter is deaf, so we always have closed captions "on" on every screen. That is an important effort that the government required.

 

[TheBigA]

None? The FCC long ago stepped away from any content regulation outside of profanity and indecency.

However, this particular chairman has done numerous interviews including one mentioned by the senator where he is concerned about the Audacy bankruptcy approval because of one investor. That's the issue mentioned in the OP's fundraising letter. He apparently made some kind of content agreement with the new owner of Paramount. He is doing things that some interpret as partisan. Those are just two examples. Some of this was discussed at an FCC symposium over the weekend:

Former FCC Chairs Warn of Troubling Shifts in Media Oversight, DEI Policy.

Former FCC members are sounding the alarm — the nation’s media watchdog is being weaponized, its independence eroded, and decades-old norms tossed aside. At the Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet

www.insideradio.com

This is a new activist FCC that is using its power in ways that involves content.

 

[cc333]

Nooo. This is like a chataqua, a meeting of the minds of some of the top people in broadcasting. lf this kind of seminar discussion were featured as part of an arts and entertainment roundtable presentation, at least where l live in the Bay Area, people would be paying upwards of $100 a ticket to get in the door, and KQED would be taping it for a public affairs segment. Let them hold forth. This is the best part of very accomplished people donating their time to dialog, reflection, and elucidation. l find it fascinating, if not riveting. (Daryl)

You nailed it! Absolutely perfectly put!

c

 

[radiofan2023]

I would not consider that "content" in the sense that it does not change the nature of programming. I'd consider it "access" much in the way that many if not most buildings must have handicapped access.

My youngest daughter is deaf, so we always have closed captions "on" on every screen. That is an important effort that the government required.

My grandma was also deaf, due to a mumps infection when she was 12. She told me on a TTY chat we had that when closed captioning on TV came about in the early 80's, her friend told her about it and she got a decoder box that hooked up to her TV and showed the closed captions on the screen. She said she really enjoyed being able to get more out of watching TV, and she also loved going to open caption movies.