• 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

How do these "religious" stations serve the public interest?

Local TBN programming

> Portland's TBN station, KNMT has local programming called,
> Northwest Praise the Lord, its like a national vesion of
> Praise the Lord, but its gear toward local churches around
> the Portland area.

Phoenix's KPAZ also airs a local version of Praise The Lord. It comes on around midnight here. Both the toll-free and local telephone numbers appear on national programs, but only the local number appears on the local program.

I doubt that the local Daystar station, KDTP, airs any local programming. I believe they're fully satellite-programmed here.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by dhett on 10/02/05 12:20 AM.</FONT></P>
 
Re: Local TBN programming

> > Portland's TBN station, KNMT has local programming called,
>
> > Northwest Praise the Lord, its like a national vesion of
> > Praise the Lord, but its gear toward local churches around
>
> > the Portland area.
>
> Phoenix's KPAZ also airs a local version of Praise The Lord.
> It comes on around midnight here. Both the toll-free and
> local telephone numbers appear on national programs, but
> only the local number appears on the local program.
>
> WWTO TV 35 in La Salle Illinois has some local programming. I have not seen it in a while since I have Dish network and they are not carried in the locals package but they used to have a local interview type programming on Monday wednesday and Friday at noon and some local preachers were featured on weekend evenings around six pm. Like I said I have not seen Channel 35 in several years sine they are not carried on Dish networks Chicago locals pack. Someone who has seen them more recently could probably give a better idea of the local programming they carry now if any.
 
> Why not put your money where your big mouth is and try it.
> TBN Mother Angelica and others are all legal.

The original post didn't question the legality of it. He questioned HOW the show serves the public interest. As discussed, not everything has to serve the public interest, just a certain amount of programming a week. Which is minimal. Meet that and you can run infomercials the rest of the time.

Which a lot of stations do?

> Maybe I like religious programs. Why not write the fcc to
> take off the crap, the trash, the filth the HORRIBLE excuse
> for music on places like MTV - and ban the jukebox music tv
> stations that are around.
>

And you are not alone. Obviously A LOT of people like those shows. I can guarantee you if people didn't like them, they wouldn't get money and the shows would be off the air. <P ID="signature">______________
Once I figured out the meaning of life....Then I forgot to write it down.</P>
 
> > The difference is that PBS doesn't promise to cure cancer
> > and cast out demons. Nobody's giving up on medical
> science
> > because their totebag and boxed set of "Sounds of the 60s"
>
> > just got there.
> >
>
> I think you know better than that.
>
> No Christian TV show promises to cure cancer or cast out
> demons because if they're truly Christian, they know it's
> not in their power to do so. They promise to pray for
> people, which is completely separate from their appeals for
> money. No one is denied prayer if they don't donate, and if
> you have proof otherwise, I suggest you contact the FCC,
> because that ministry is using the airwaves to commit fraud.
>
Remember Robert Tilton? The dumpster full of prayer requests that ABC (wasn't it? It may have been NBC that nailed him good) found? You know, he's still on the air and hasn't changed his schtick a bit. Hell, Peter Popoff, who once told a man that he had ovarian cancer, is still occasionally seen on TBN. And should we get into Pat Robertson's "words of knowledge"? "I see a woman in Denver, she's having eye problems. God is healing you now." Or Paul Crouch's threats to take his personal cash machine dark unless people stepped up the funds (which isn't happening)?

Show me an honest man in pay-to-pray TV and I'll show you someone who'll get out of the game once he realizes what's up.

You're right on one thing, they're not true Christians. They're basically medieval occultists and indulgence sellers for our time. The Bible's pretty clear on the point that people like them are on the wrong side.
 
> > The difference is that PBS doesn't promise to cure cancer
> > and cast out demons. Nobody's giving up on medical
> science
> > because their totebag and boxed set of "Sounds of the 60s"
>
> > just got there.
> >
>
> I think you know better than that.
>
> No Christian TV show promises to cure cancer or cast out
> demons because if they're truly Christian, they know it's
> not in their power to do so. They promise to pray for
> people, which is completely separate from their appeals for
> money. No one is denied prayer if they don't donate, and if
> you have proof otherwise, I suggest you contact the FCC,
> because that ministry is using the airwaves to commit fraud.
>
I would agree with you here. But in a larger since they seem to IMPLY it.
For instance here in Chicago, I saw a show about a woman with HIV and she prayed and the whole bit and a year later she is "cured."

Now in Chicago alone, HIV is misdiagnosed around 2%, with a 5% error for false positives. (U of Chgo Med School Statistic).

To ME this indicates more than likely this woman was misdiagnosed. But she sees it otherwise.

Informercials are a FAR WORSE area for making claims. Just google infomerical king "Kevin Trudeau" to see how many times the government has called him and sued him, and won, for making false medical claims. But he keeps coming back on infomercials.

<P ID="signature">______________
Once I figured out the meaning of life....Then I forgot to write it down.</P>
 
> Remember Robert Tilton? The dumpster full of prayer
> requests that ABC (wasn't it? It may have been NBC that
> nailed him good) found? You know, he's still on the air and
> hasn't changed his schtick a bit.

Yeah, I remember Tilton. The first time I saw him on TV, within 5 minutes I had him pegged for a phony. It was soooo obvious. But he lost his TV ministry for a time. BTW, he's not back on TBN; BET picked him up in 2000. Says a lot about what BET thinks of their target audience, doesn't it?

> Hell, Peter Popoff, who
> once told a man that he had ovarian cancer, is still
> occasionally seen on TBN.

I haven't heard anything about him since he was exposed. I doubt he's on TBN, but I see that he is on other networks: The Word Network, Comedy Central, Spike and BET. Doesn't matter - he's still a phony, but I'm not his judge; God is.

> And should we get into Pat
> Robertson's "words of knowledge"? "I see a woman in Denver,
> she's having eye problems. God is healing you now."

I can't say much about their "words of knowledge" since it's impossible to prove if they're true or not. I know that the word of knowledge is scriptural (1 Cor 12), but only God knows if they're being used honestly. I'd hate to be the one found to be deceiving people with false "words of knowledge".

>Or
> Paul Crouch's threats to take his personal cash machine dark
> unless people stepped up the funds (which isn't happening)?
>

I have some serious misgivings about Crouch. That's why I refuse to donate to the network or to any ministry through the network.

> Show me an honest man in pay-to-pray TV and I'll show you
> someone who'll get out of the game once he realizes what's
> up.
>

I can't say that all Christian TV is a sham. (All generalizations are untrue, including this one.) But there is enough dishonesty to make me uncomfortable. Nevertheless, they have a First Amendment right to be on TV, as long as they're not breaking the law, so even though I don't agree with much of what they're doing, I vigorously defend their legal right to do it and defer their moral judgment to One more qualified.
 
> No Christian TV show promises to cure cancer or cast out
> demons because if they're truly Christian, they know it's
> not in their power to do so. They promise to pray for
> people, which is completely separate from their appeals for
> money. No one is denied prayer if they don't donate, and if
> you have proof otherwise, I suggest you contact the FCC,
> because that ministry is using the airwaves to commit fraud.

Actually, the FCC would probably have to dismiss any such complaint -- they're not (nor should they be) in the business of determining the validity of religious claims. On the other hand, the FTC might have something to say about any provable instances of fraud.
 
> And that's unique to religious broadcasters? Syndicated
> shows, no matter how mass-appeal it may be, is non-local.
> It serves the interest of the community because people want
> to see it, the same way that religious shows do.
>

Somehow, I doubt that's how "community interest" is actually defined or classified. <P ID="signature">______________
"Not fixing [New Orleans'] levees before Katrina struck will now cost us untold billions. Not resolving the nation's issues of race and class has and will cost us so much more."
--Wynton Marsalis
</P>
 
> Yeah, I remember Tilton. The first time I saw him on TV,
> within 5 minutes I had him pegged for a phony. It was soooo
> obvious. But he lost his TV ministry for a time. BTW, he's
> not back on TBN; BET picked him up in 2000. Says a lot
> about what BET thinks of their target audience, doesn't it?
>
> > Hell, Peter Popoff, who
> > once told a man that he had ovarian cancer, is still
> > occasionally seen on TBN.
>
> I haven't heard anything about him since he was exposed. I
> doubt he's on TBN, but I see that he is on other networks:
> The Word Network, Comedy Central, Spike and BET.

And now I wonder why Aaron MacGruder (of "The Boondocks") make fun of BET all the time -- because of white, Christian charlatans paying for time on the channel. At one time, one of his strips said, to an effect, "Want to see people of color on BET? Adjust the hue control on your TV."

> > And should we get into Pat
> > Robertson's "words of knowledge"? "I see a woman in
> Denver,
> > she's having eye problems. God is healing you now."
>

Does his "words of knowledge" include his thoughts on people like Hugo Chavez?

Of course, Pat probably suggests that real Christians also buy his diet products, which he's now hawking on his TV shows.
 
> How do these stations (think TBN) that broadcast "Satan's
> infomercials" aka "pay for pray" aka "bunko scam" serve the
> public interest?
>
> On cable I can understand, but not on broadcast TV where
> they are a waste of valuable spectrum.
>

I won't disagree with you regarding spectrum, but apparently nobody else is buying the stations. If somebody wants it, they generally get it. End of story.
Some things people forget about the whole religion thing is that the Government has a policy regarding Freedome from forcing an official religion, but non regarding freedom FROM religion, which some people seems to think.
If you don't like it, don't watch it.

Also, with respect to the Church channels, there are as many church formats out there as music formats on radio. These stations serve a very narrow portion of the public, yet apparently enough to keep these stations on the air. It's not like there could be a generic "God Exists" channel, because it's always the technicalities, so to speak, that are important to the worship crowd.
Not eating pork, not dancing, etc. So each of these channels teach the unique views of that particiular denomination.
 
> > Remember Robert Tilton? The dumpster full of prayer
> > requests that ABC (wasn't it? It may have been NBC that
> > nailed him good) found? You know, he's still on the air
> and
> > hasn't changed his schtick a bit.
>
> Yeah, I remember Tilton. The first time I saw him on TV,
> within 5 minutes I had him pegged for a phony. It was soooo
> obvious. But he lost his TV ministry for a time. BTW, he's
> not back on TBN; BET picked him up in 2000. Says a lot
> about what BET thinks of their target audience, doesn't it?

Was he ever on TBN at all anyway? Local early-morning syndication has always been his thing.
>
> > Hell, Peter Popoff, who
> > once told a man that he had ovarian cancer, is still
> > occasionally seen on TBN.
>
> I haven't heard anything about him since he was exposed. I
> doubt he's on TBN, but I see that he is on other networks:
> The Word Network, Comedy Central, Spike and BET. Doesn't
> matter - he's still a phony, but I'm not his judge; God is.

He's been a guest with Crouch a time or two, but I don't think he has a full-time slot.

It is odd that BET is carrying these two (and also Mike Murdock, who is clearly in the same boat with them) instead of more African-American ministries. While Jakes, Dollar, etc. may have their issues, at least they seem to have an actual message and use their Bibles as something more than storing prostitutes' phone numbers.

>
> > And should we get into Pat
> > Robertson's "words of knowledge"? "I see a woman in
> Denver,
> > she's having eye problems. God is healing you now."
>
> I can't say much about their "words of knowledge" since it's
> impossible to prove if they're true or not.

Which was kind of my point. He's being purposefully vague in the same way Sylvia Browne is when she "finds" people. It's the same scam, only Pat replaces the woo-woo New Age sentimentality with neo-con politics.



I know that the
> word of knowledge is scriptural (1 Cor 12), but only God
> knows if they're being used honestly. I'd hate to be the
> one found to be deceiving people with false "words of
> knowledge".

The Biblical concept of the word of knowledge has nothing to do with Pat and Gordon Robertson's little mentalist tricks. The structure of the passage shows that "word of knowledge" refers to the ability to teach and explain the Gospel. Healing and prophecy are separate gifts. The Robertsons are simply using the term as a nifty-sounding catchphrase, nothing more.

>
> >Or
> > Paul Crouch's threats to take his personal cash machine
> dark
> > unless people stepped up the funds (which isn't
> happening)?
> >
>
> I have some serious misgivings about Crouch. That's why I
> refuse to donate to the network or to any ministry through
> the network.
>
> > Show me an honest man in pay-to-pray TV and I'll show you
> > someone who'll get out of the game once he realizes what's
>
> > up.
> >
>
> I can't say that all Christian TV is a sham. (All
> generalizations are untrue, including this one.) But there
> is enough dishonesty to make me uncomfortable.
> Nevertheless, they have a First Amendment right to be on TV,
> as long as they're not breaking the law, so even though I
> don't agree with much of what they're doing, I vigorously
> defend their legal right to do it and defer their moral
> judgment to One more qualified.
>

I don't think anybody is saying they shouldn't be on the air, but they should at least exhibit a greater commitment to localism. That's just something one's supposed to do as the owner of a terrestrial broadcast station.
 
> > And that's unique to religious broadcasters? Syndicated
> > shows, no matter how mass-appeal it may be, is non-local.
>
> > It serves the interest of the community because people
> want
> > to see it, the same way that religious shows do.
> >
>
> Somehow, I doubt that's how "community interest" is actually
> defined or classified.
>
But that's the point. It's a concept you simply can't define.

Our local UPN affiliate doesn't have a bit of local programming other than sports. Does a schedule laden with wretched talk shows (in my opinion) and a few sitcoms serve the public interest? If so, why? Because of the sports? Because some people find enjoyment in "King of Queens?" In "The People's Court?"

So how do you measure community interest? Is it by ratings? Some nebulous amount of local programming (even if it's utterly unwatchable)?

Religious programming does about as much to serve the public interest as most commercial broadcasters. It just reaches a different segment of the population.
 
>
> It is odd that BET is carrying [Popoff and Tilton] (and also Mike
> Murdock, who is clearly in the same boat with them) instead
> of more African-American ministries.

Simple -- there's money to be made by selling time to anyone, black or white. BET caters to blacks, but when it comes to green offered by white televangelists, they're colorblind.
 
> > How do these stations (think TBN) that broadcast "Satan's
> > infomercials" aka "pay for pray" aka "bunko scam" serve
> the
> > public interest?
> >
> > On cable I can understand, but not on broadcast TV where
> > they are a waste of valuable spectrum.
> >
>
> I won't disagree with you regarding spectrum, but apparently
> nobody else is buying the stations. If somebody wants it,
> they generally get it. End of story.
> Some things people forget about the whole religion thing is
> that the Government has a policy regarding Freedome from
> forcing an official religion, but non regarding freedom FROM
> religion, which some people seems to think.
> If you don't like it, don't watch it.
>
> Also, with respect to the Church channels, there are as many
> church formats out there as music formats on radio. These
> stations serve a very narrow portion of the public, yet
> apparently enough to keep these stations on the air. It's
> not like there could be a generic "God Exists" channel,
> because it's always the technicalities, so to speak, that
> are important to the worship crowd.
> Not eating pork, not dancing, etc. So each of these
> channels teach the unique views of that particiular
> denomination.
>
And they keep stock healthy in the prayer cloth industry.
 
> > > And that's unique to religious broadcasters? Syndicated
>
> > > shows, no matter how mass-appeal it may be, is
> non-local.
> >
> > > It serves the interest of the community because people
> > want
> > > to see it, the same way that religious shows do.
> > >
> >
> > Somehow, I doubt that's how "community interest" is
> actually
> > defined or classified.
> >
> But that's the point. It's a concept you simply can't
> define.
>
> Our local UPN affiliate doesn't have a bit of local
> programming other than sports. Does a schedule laden with
> wretched talk shows (in my opinion) and a few sitcoms serve
> the public interest? If so, why? Because of the sports?
> Because some people find enjoyment in "King of Queens?" In
> "The People's Court?"
>
> So how do you measure community interest? Is it by ratings?
> Some nebulous amount of local programming (even if it's
> utterly unwatchable)?
>
> Religious programming does about as much to serve the public
> interest as most commercial broadcasters. It just reaches a
> different segment of the population.
>


I think that the few charleteans who are out there masquerading as TV Evangilists are giving religious TV a bad name. Of course we all know about the stories of Paul & Jan Crouch and their gold lame stage as well as Benny Hinn and his multi-million dollar spending as well as Creflo Dollar here in Atlanta who gets a multi-million dollar salary from his charitable foundation(report from the AJC about a month ago), Jerry Falwell, Robert Tilton, John Hagee, Rod Parsley, etc....

I think the local religious stations would be better served to show the LOCAL churches which I think would serve the public interest than these pre-produced dog & pony shows. Just my .02 worth.

Also has anyone ever seen the blooper reel that has made it's way around TV stations featuring Tilton and some wild background noise(wink, wink)?<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
> Also has anyone ever seen the blooper reel that has made
> it's way around TV stations featuring Tilton and some wild
> background noise(wink, wink)?

In Windows Media Player format:
http://strange.timetrip.net/?entry=tilton<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
> Actually, the FCC would probably have to dismiss any such
> complaint -- they're not (nor should they be) in the
> business of determining the validity of religious claims.
> On the other hand, the FTC might have something to say about
> any provable instances of fraud.
>

Point taken. My angle was for fraud, not for content, so that would be the FTC. I didn't know if it would have involved the FCC or not, being broadcast-related.
 
> Point taken. My angle was for fraud, not for content, so
> that would be the FTC. I didn't know if it would have
> involved the FCC or not, being broadcast-related.

My guess (and its just a guess) is that the FCC could get involved *if* the FTC decided against a particular religious broadcaster -- assuming that the finding was against an organization that was also licensee of one or more stations. Such a finding by the FTC could raise questions regarding the fitness of the organization to hold an FCC license. But note that this has the FTC acting first...
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom