A DJ on a New York station offers money to anyone who can tell him where a competitor's FOUR YEAR OLD DAUGHTER goes to school, so he can sexually assault her? Program directors at the biggest multiple owner in the country take money and stuff to promote records. Paging Alan Freed. What will it take for this moribund FCC to start pulling licenses ? Whatever happened to the concept of licensees as public trustees, required to serve the public interest?Bill
-
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
Isn't it time for the FCC to start lifting licenses?
- Thread starter billjacobs
- Start date
F
fred flintstone
Guest
No!
Ever heard of democracy? People vote with their dials.Radio is a sales medium. Radio stations take money to promote things. That is the nature of the business.Who decides what is the public interest?How about letting people decide? Radio is for people who listen to the radio - not for people in the public and non-profit sectors who want to be on the radio promoting their "causes" (for free, of course). Radio already has too much puffery of local politicians, bureaucrats and do-gooders. Nobody's interested. This is a proven way to drive away listeners.The way to serve the public interest is to interest the public. If people tune in, they are being served.Instead of lifting licenses, auction off licenses to the highest bidder.Any station that can't maintain at least a one share - and show a profit three years out of five, gets its license yanked. The marketplace rules.Also get rid of all those non-commercial licenses. Same rules for everybody. Public radio gets OK numbers; they can pay their way like everybody else.And I don't care what that jerk in New York said. Free speech is free or it's not. The cops had no business arresting him. And before anybody says it, I don't buy that Holmes fire-in-a-crowded-theater BS (from the same guy who made baseball a monopoly and favored forced sterilization in the name of eugenics, and said it is a crime to criticize the government).
Ever heard of democracy? People vote with their dials.Radio is a sales medium. Radio stations take money to promote things. That is the nature of the business.Who decides what is the public interest?How about letting people decide? Radio is for people who listen to the radio - not for people in the public and non-profit sectors who want to be on the radio promoting their "causes" (for free, of course). Radio already has too much puffery of local politicians, bureaucrats and do-gooders. Nobody's interested. This is a proven way to drive away listeners.The way to serve the public interest is to interest the public. If people tune in, they are being served.Instead of lifting licenses, auction off licenses to the highest bidder.Any station that can't maintain at least a one share - and show a profit three years out of five, gets its license yanked. The marketplace rules.Also get rid of all those non-commercial licenses. Same rules for everybody. Public radio gets OK numbers; they can pay their way like everybody else.And I don't care what that jerk in New York said. Free speech is free or it's not. The cops had no business arresting him. And before anybody says it, I don't buy that Holmes fire-in-a-crowded-theater BS (from the same guy who made baseball a monopoly and favored forced sterilization in the name of eugenics, and said it is a crime to criticize the government).
P
PhilGalasso
Guest
Re: No!
I don't know where you've been over the past decade, but the FCC has been auctioning licenses since the abomination known as the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was railroaded through a Republican-controlled Congress and signed into law by a Democratic president as part of the usual political horse trading that goes on in Washington. In fact, the FCC is just now granting construction permits for new stations to the winning bidders in the most recent FM auction.Sorry, but I agree wholeheartedly with Bill Jacobs. The FCC has become far too much of a pawn of big business. Small businessmen are frozen out of commercial broadcasting these days due to the concentration of stations in the hands of a handful of companies, the high stick values of stations caused by the big boys trying to get even bigger, and the current policy of auctioning off frequencies to the highest bidder, rather than granting them to whomever would best serve the community. Sorry, but there is no public interest in using the American public's airwaves to air threats, spew filth, or foster criminal activity.Let's go back a couple of years. Infinity Broadcasting (now CBS) was cited repeatedly for broadcasting indecent material, both on the Howard Stern Show and on Opie and Anthony's program. The Communications Act of 1934 (which created the FCC) and subsequent court decisions expressly prohibit the broadcasting of such material. Yet Infinity/CBS not only retains all of its licenses...it has rehired Opie and Anthony to do a syndicated show originating from WFNY-FM in New York! In 1986, the FCC ruled that RKO General was unfit to be a broadcast licensee due to some alleged shady business practices by RKO's parent company, General Tire & Rubber. The license of RKO's WNAC-TV in Boston was revoked, channel 7 in Boston was granted to a competing applicant, and the remaining RKO General stations were sold at a distress sale. Most of these stations, including WOR in New York, had exemplary programming policies! Yet CBS/Infinity, which has repeatedly flouted the law by turning the public airwaves into a sewer on some of its FM stations, pays a fine and gets a pat on the butt to not do it again!That said, the FCC needs to do some housecleaning in the noncommercial part of the band as well. In many areas, community stations are being frozen out by the McReligion broadcasters such as the American Family Association, Family Stations, and Calvary Chapel. The FCC recently granted the American Family Association a construction permit for a Class A station on 91.5 in Shenandoah, PA (Schuylkill County). The FCC waived the main studio rules, calling this proposed station a "satellite" of the American Family Association's main station in Tupelo, Mississippi! Shenandoah does not have meaningful local radio service and it is located near the Susquehanna River, which often floods. How can a station run by a fundamentalist group in Mississippi serve Central Pennsylvania? The multitudes of "satellators" (satellite-fed translators) need to be cleaned off the FM band as well, as these have precluded many local community groups from putting LPFM stations on the air. Which would better serve a local community...an LPFM station operated by a local church or community organization, providing locally-oriented programming of whatever format...or a translator rebroadcasting some religious huckster over 1,000 miles away who smiles sweetly while conning lonely old ladies out of their life savings?The legitimate noncommercial stations provide a valuable service in offering programming that the commercial stations won't touch. Here in Northeastern PA, our local public station, WVIA-FM, provides us with classical music and jazz. We can also get fine programming from the WRTI "network" out of Temple University. While many commercial stations give us morning "updates" replete with Hollywood gossip, WVIA and other public stations give us real news and long form news coverage. WHYY-FM can go into the depth that KYW cannot. And Bill's station, WRDV, provides Philadelphia and the Philly 'burbs with great big band music and pre-Beatles oldies that are available nowhere on the commercial side of the radio dial (except for a few hours on Sunday nights on WOGL).Holding noncommercial stations to the same criteria that commercial stations use in selecting programming would narrow our choices even more than they are now. I guess you are satisfied with hearing nothing but Spanish and urban formats in New York, urban and AC in Philly, or AC and "alternapop" in NEPA.fred flintstone said:
Spectrum is a limited resource (no IBOC comments here, please...I could say plenty, but won't) and licensees are public trustees. When they don't serve the public interest, they should lose their licenses. What happened on HOT97 was inexcusable beyond my ability to find words for it. IMHO, any licensee that has created an environment where an airstaffer thinks, FOR EVEN A SECOND, that such comments are acceptable by any standard at all, is per se unfit to hold a license. And where was the guy with the "dump" button? In the men's room?Bill
F
fred flintstone
Guest
Given the mental workings of some bored ops, maybe he thought the men's room was where they put the dump button. Logical? But seriously, folks...For the sake or arguement, let's say I accept your premise about stations as public trustees and serving "the public interest, convenience and necessity." What exactly is "the public interest?" And who decides?Under law, the FCC can not censor or regulate content. You are calling for exactly that. You say it's offensive. Others may find it funny. Who decides? Some Mississippi preacher? Some South Florida lawyer? The First Ammendment is absolute: "No law means NO LAW." - Justice Hugo L. Black.Sorry, I don't want you deciding what I can listen to - no matter how good your intentions might be. My radios have tuners and on/off switches. I can decide for myself.What else are you going to pull licenses for? Howard Stern's Lesbian Dial-a-Date? Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction? Randi Rhodes' assassination bit? Showing David Caruso's butt on NYPD Blue? (Somebody has called for pulling licenses in each of these cases, and many others.)And then it's a short-step to banning the music you don't like and requiring the music you do like. (Which some people have done on this board because nobody is playing classical, standards or real oldies around here.)What is your problem with the democracy of the marketplace? It was good enough for Jefferson. I know, people might not make good choices so you have to protect all those people who might listen to Star and Buckwild from themselves. And why is middle class WASP outrage so much greater when Black shock jocks say something outrageous, compared to a nice middle class Long Island Jewish boy like Howard?Careful, somebody might call that different standard racist.Bill Jacobs at WRDV said:
I
imhomerjay
Guest
>>Sorry, I don't want you deciding what I can listen to - no matter how good your intentions might be. My radios have tuners and on/off switches. I can decide for myself.<<Agreed. There's a great saying that I'll probably butcher--and I apologize for that--but the point is I may disagree with what you say but I defend your right to say it. Outrage about the implication of the remarks regarding a child is justified. I advocate anyone--anyone--who kills or molests a child being subject to the death penalty. (Seriously.) By all means, directyour outrage to Clear Channel, to the advertisers, etc. That's the voice of democracy in action, whether in this case or any other. Boycotts, letter/phone call campaigns, etc., are valid responses, and it is perfectly fair when someone is fired for stunts like this. That's the decision of the employer...but the FCC needs to stick to a minimalist role (regulating the frequencies, signals, etc.). The current criminal laws, IF enforced, would come into play should any harm come to someone because of stupid remarks as in a case like this. If, God forbid, something like that happened, throw the book at whoever contributed to it.
Contrary to popular belief, free speech is not absolute. You have no constitutional right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. Over the years, the courts have often wrestled with where to draw the line between speech that is constitutionally-protected and speech that is not. There is such a line, though reasonable minds could (and often do) differ as to precisely where it falls. Reasonable minds COULD NOT differ that -- wherever the line falls -- the guy on HOT97 was over it. WAY, WAY over it. QED.Bill
F
fred flintstone
Guest
Somebody always brings up "fire in a crowded theater." The phrase is from a Supreme Court decision by Oliver Wendell Holmes, upholding the World War I Sedition Acts, which made it a criminal offense to protest against the war or to criticize the government in any way. Holmes also declared major league baseball exempt from anti-trust laws and wrote decisions in favor of sterilizing the "feeble minded" in the name of eugenics. Eventually, history will regard Holmes as the facist he was. I bet he would have loved the Patriot Act.People always have such good reasons when they want to eviscerate the Bill of Rights. And Mr. Jacobs has declared that anyone who disagrees with where HE draws the line is not "reasonable." Wonder what else he will declare over the line? Maybe all Urban and CHR music so all radio stations will be required to play the June-moon-spoon music he likes.
The strength of your argument is not bolstered by personal attacks on me. Nobody has the RIGHT to hold a broadcast license. It's well-settled that the government can regulate speech on the public airwaves. If that moron from HOT97 wants to stand on a soapbox and yell his fool head off, even to the point of suggesting child abuse, the government probably can't stop him (though he may be liable for libel, slander, invasion of privacy or some such) but if he's doing it on the public airwaves, that's another story. Maybe it's different in Bedrock, Fred.Bill
Wait, wasn't Star, the DJ in question, on Power 105, which is Hot 97's competitor?Anyway, what Star did was WRONG and, if this were at a rock station, the license would have probably been yanked by now. Remember the whole Opie and Anthony Sex for Sam III bit. The Catholic League wanted WNEW's license pulled that day. We all know that Star will probably get fined and might never see an air studio again. But what it will amount to would be nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Have we , as a society, become so afraid of starting racial tensions that this behavior will go unchecked unless you're "the other race"? I'm sorry, but I feel there might be a double standard applied here, altho' I hope to Hell I'm wrong and that justice will prevail. This Star, regardless of his race, is a scumbag and there should be some accountability to Clear Channel.
F
fred flintstone
Guest
Mr Jacobs
ossibly you have not read Justice Holmes decisions in Schenck v US (which included the often mis-applied line about fire in a crowded theater) and Abrams v US. Holmes advocated criminalization of speech only when a "real and present danger" associated with such speech can be shown. Even that standard has been abused. You find Star's comments distasteful. You want the government to intervene to enforce your tastes and preferences. In the 50's, people who share your taste in music wanted the government to intervene to enforce their tastes and preferences and keep rock n' roll ("race music") off the radio. Now you and others wanted to drive DJ's who don't fit your tastes and preferences off the radio by putting their employers' licenses at risk.Where is the "clear and present" danger related to Star's comments. From what I have read, nobody took his comments seriously. Nobody thought he was actually going to do anything. There was no clear and present danger. You just did not like his comments (although I seriously doubt you were listening and are responding to 2nd and 3rd hand accounts out of context). As far as I am concerned, when you start calling for radio stations to have their licenses yanked because some shock jock gets you upset, you have crossed the line. The FCC is already enforcing the dictates of the "moral majority" on the rest of us. Howard Stern has already been taken off the air. I consider your viewpoints to be a "clear and present danger."PS: Mr. Jacobs, as long as we are being legalistic here. Your post has nothing to do with Philadelphia radio and should not have been posted on this board. And Bob, given the way in which you were banned from the old RI because somebody wanted to enforce their own tastes and preferences on you, I'd think you would not be so quick to call for action against Star and Clear Channel.
ossibly you have not read Justice Holmes decisions in Schenck v US (which included the often mis-applied line about fire in a crowded theater) and Abrams v US. Holmes advocated criminalization of speech only when a "real and present danger" associated with such speech can be shown. Even that standard has been abused. You find Star's comments distasteful. You want the government to intervene to enforce your tastes and preferences. In the 50's, people who share your taste in music wanted the government to intervene to enforce their tastes and preferences and keep rock n' roll ("race music") off the radio. Now you and others wanted to drive DJ's who don't fit your tastes and preferences off the radio by putting their employers' licenses at risk.Where is the "clear and present" danger related to Star's comments. From what I have read, nobody took his comments seriously. Nobody thought he was actually going to do anything. There was no clear and present danger. You just did not like his comments (although I seriously doubt you were listening and are responding to 2nd and 3rd hand accounts out of context). As far as I am concerned, when you start calling for radio stations to have their licenses yanked because some shock jock gets you upset, you have crossed the line. The FCC is already enforcing the dictates of the "moral majority" on the rest of us. Howard Stern has already been taken off the air. I consider your viewpoints to be a "clear and present danger."PS: Mr. Jacobs, as long as we are being legalistic here. Your post has nothing to do with Philadelphia radio and should not have been posted on this board. And Bob, given the way in which you were banned from the old RI because somebody wanted to enforce their own tastes and preferences on you, I'd think you would not be so quick to call for action against Star and Clear Channel.I am not going to indulge in a flame war.In my real job, I'm a lawyer, so I do know a bit about that of which I speak.BillP.S. Whomever said it was Power 105 was right; it wasn't Hot 97. Same argument applies. My apologies to Emmis, which operates Hot 97.
R
RockIntern
Guest
BOTTOM LINE
If the station were Active or Metal they would be off the air, you cannot mess with the AA's, they are the American Dream in this day and age. One example is the crap WURD gets away with on a daily basis and WHAT to some extent and the FCC looks the other way. If WPHT tried it they would be toast now, in the words of my great mayor, its the bros and sistas controlling the country and city, and we do what we please....just ask the semetics, who really run the whole show.
If the station were Active or Metal they would be off the air, you cannot mess with the AA's, they are the American Dream in this day and age. One example is the crap WURD gets away with on a daily basis and WHAT to some extent and the FCC looks the other way. If WPHT tried it they would be toast now, in the words of my great mayor, its the bros and sistas controlling the country and city, and we do what we please....just ask the semetics, who really run the whole show.
I'm not gonna get into this... but why pull a license? Star was fired. Boom end of story. And if you feel that strongly about it is a message board the place to argue it? If you're a lawyer why don't you file suit I'm sure the ACLU would love to hear from you.And RockIntern PLENTY of Active/Metal stations have had inappropriate content and not had their liscense pulled look at K-Rock and WNEW and I think it was WBCN when O&A told people the mayor was dead... no liscense pull there.Hold the jocks responsible for their actions and words (which they were Star was fired).Can we have one discussion without bringing in the color of people's skin?
R
raydofan
Guest
Re: No!
Nah, those are 'fake religions'.
I think your logic is a bit muddy here. I don't think you can equate fraud and supposed 'filthy words'. Also, the Pacifica case (which is what I think your alluding to here) applies to the 'seven' and not to innuendo, which is what the fines against Stern were all about. The charge lies in USC 1464, and not directly under the direct purview of the FCC (nee FRC). Further, what is 'obscene' and 'indecent' is in the eye of the beholder, and there has been no broadcasting test in the courts beyond the Pacifica decision. There is too much wiggle room insofar as who determines what is 'obscene' or not. Fraud is FRAUD, no matter how you take it apart.And let's not forget that the FCC held up Infinity's transactions until a 'donation' was made to the treasury. No Mea Culpa in the 1995 fines, and then there was that Consent Decree in 2004, which involved another donation in exchange for prior restraint.
It bears repeating: Fraud is FRAUD, no matter how you take it apart. And these folks should never have a 501(c)(3) status.You can thank the Reagan Administation for the distinction of what 'educational' means originally, which allowed the Fundamentalists to explode into the Non-Comm band. That and slipping uder the radar as far as the rules are concerned. Religion should not be a syndicated thing, but a local thing of any inclination. It would be funny to see all these religious broadcasters to be "BABed" (in a non-racist manner) on occasion, but it wouldn't be noticed. There should be a full-time Jazz or Classical station (or other non-pop music form) in their places. Or how about a Pagan, Wiccan or Bhuddist broadcaster?
Nah, those are 'fake religions'.- Status