After all the hoopla about Family Radio's Harold Camping preaching of the rapture and the end time on May 21, 2011, today I checked Family Radio's Buffalo FM, 89.9 WFBF... On the air and from what I heard, business as usual. But it makes me wonder, is a hoax such as Camping's preaching and promising an actionable offense before the FCC? Imagine the uproar if Clear Channel, Entercom or Cumulus participated in such a "promotion." Yes, CC has thousands of stations and Family Radio has about a hundred. Still, Harold Camping's advisory cost some members of the listening public their jobs, their life savings and in some cases their families, and maybe even their faith. http://www.christianpost.com/news/harold-camping-lost-the-gospel-christ-say-theologian-50348/ Is this the sign of responsible ownership and broadcasting in the public interest, convenience and necessity? Should Family Radio be stripped of its licenses?
-
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
Just Another Broadcast Day At Family Radio
- Thread starter JustPastBuffalo
- Start date
If the FCC were to take action against Family Radio's licenses, it would be under the "hoax rule," 73.1217, which reads thusly:
No licensee or permittee of any broadcast station shall broadcast false information concerning a crime or a catastrophe if:
(a) The licensee knows this information is false;
(b) It is forseeable that broadcast of the information will cause substantial public harm, and
(c) Broadcast of the information does in fact directly cause substantial public harm.
Any programming accompanied by a disclaimer will be presumed not to pose foreseeable harm if the disclaimer clearly characterizes the program as a fiction and is presented in a way that is reasonable under the circumstances.
Note: For purposes of this rule, "public harm" must begin immediately, and cause direct and actual damage to property or to the health or safety of the general public, or diversion of law enforcement or other public health and safety authorities from their duties. The public harm will be deemed foreseeable if the licensee could expect with a significant degree of certainty that public harm would occur. A "crime" is any act or omission that makes the offender subject to criminal punishment by law. A "catastrophe" is a disaster or imminent disaster involving violent or sudden event affecting the public.
No licensee or permittee of any broadcast station shall broadcast false information concerning a crime or a catastrophe if:
(a) The licensee knows this information is false;
(b) It is forseeable that broadcast of the information will cause substantial public harm, and
(c) Broadcast of the information does in fact directly cause substantial public harm.
Any programming accompanied by a disclaimer will be presumed not to pose foreseeable harm if the disclaimer clearly characterizes the program as a fiction and is presented in a way that is reasonable under the circumstances.
Note: For purposes of this rule, "public harm" must begin immediately, and cause direct and actual damage to property or to the health or safety of the general public, or diversion of law enforcement or other public health and safety authorities from their duties. The public harm will be deemed foreseeable if the licensee could expect with a significant degree of certainty that public harm would occur. A "crime" is any act or omission that makes the offender subject to criminal punishment by law. A "catastrophe" is a disaster or imminent disaster involving violent or sudden event affecting the public.
There is this pesky little document known as the U. S. Constitution which insists that government, the Federal government in particular, but by implication, state and local governments also, shall not establish the nature of acceptable religious belief.
Many of us might applaud some action to calm Mr. Camping down, but how are you going to feel when some Federal agency shows up at the religious establishment that your family has participated in for 3 or 4 generations and starts telling you what you may and may not say or write as part of your system of faith.
The shoe might not fit on that foot so comfortably.
Many of us might applaud some action to calm Mr. Camping down, but how are you going to feel when some Federal agency shows up at the religious establishment that your family has participated in for 3 or 4 generations and starts telling you what you may and may not say or write as part of your system of faith.
The shoe might not fit on that foot so comfortably.
This discussion is spanning multiple threads, but since GRC is here, too, let me pose this question to him: if my system of faith compels me to walk into a crowded theater and yell "fire," does the government have something valid to say about that?
What's at issue, in other words, isn't just Camping's "acceptable religious belief." If he wants to believe that Judgment Day is happening, he's free to do so. The issue is whether he has the absolute right to use a federally-licensed broadcast facility to spread that message. There are certain fairly minimal restrictions the FCC imposes on "free speech" when it takes place over a licensed broadcast facility, and I don't see any religious exemption to any of them: you can't use a broadcast facility to transmit indecency or profanity (give or take certain safe-harbor periods), you can't use a broadcast facility for personal attacks, and you can't disseminate hoaxes under the provisions of 73.1217.
What's at issue, in other words, isn't just Camping's "acceptable religious belief." If he wants to believe that Judgment Day is happening, he's free to do so. The issue is whether he has the absolute right to use a federally-licensed broadcast facility to spread that message. There are certain fairly minimal restrictions the FCC imposes on "free speech" when it takes place over a licensed broadcast facility, and I don't see any religious exemption to any of them: you can't use a broadcast facility to transmit indecency or profanity (give or take certain safe-harbor periods), you can't use a broadcast facility for personal attacks, and you can't disseminate hoaxes under the provisions of 73.1217.
I haven't read 73.1217(and don't currently have the mental energy to do so), but assuming it doesn't counter what I'm about to say here, let me just say...you can't be promoting a hoax if you believe it to be a real prophecy. Obviously Camping is a false prophet, but he may very well believe what he says. Unless you can prove it was a deliberate attempt to scam people, I don't think there's anything you can do about it. It's sad when some retired transit worker in NYC loses his life savings(well over 100K) to put up Rapture billboards around town, but I don't think there's anything you can do about it. Perhaps Camping's punishment is he will be discredited by many of his followers(though not all) and Family Radio will fall on hard financial times.
cee said:
What if someone really "believes" that there's a fire in a crowded movie theatre?
To that you might say: "this person is clearly delusional and that's a different issue completely!" Well, many would argue that this doomsday prophet is also delusional....as is, for that matter, ANYBODY collecting other people's money using TV and radio in the name of religion.
Now what?
Hey Harold.....start reading.....
Mark 13:32 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
Amen
Mark 13:32 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
Amen
Anybody care to try to prove:
(a) The licensee knows this information is false;
in court? Good luck with that, unless he was stupid enough to say "look at these suckers" on tape somewhere.
It's much easier to follow the money. His little "media empire" would collapse fast if he was convicted of a felony.
(a) The licensee knows this information is false;
in court? Good luck with that, unless he was stupid enough to say "look at these suckers" on tape somewhere.
It's much easier to follow the money. His little "media empire" would collapse fast if he was convicted of a felony.
Scott Fybush said:
There is among our people in this nation some concept that self-government is a simple process and as individuals we assign differing levels of importance to values we have decided are more important than someone else's values.
Much of the furor over Camping has been coming from people who are not attached to any highly distinctive "brand" of religious thinking so they are not likely to stand by my side when I say: "Slow down, let's think our way through the conflicting American values that are smashing up against each other in this.... this.... this embarrassing display of "religion applied to everyday life."
Much of this furor over Camping has been coming from people who ARE attached to a brand of religious thinking that is quite bland and they know that it is unlikely that any "Federal Bureau of Religious Comliance" will never come knocking at their door with a cease and desist order.
Another bunch of furor over Camping has been coming for people who are attached to a brand of religious thinking that has it's own wack-a-doodle claims and prophecies and they are down on Camping, not because he is yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre, but because he is yelling FIRE in the WRONG THEATRE!!!
I have no problem if some prosecutor wants to turn Camping's life upside-down looking for a level of hoax that crosses the border into the land of fraud and illegal versions of hoax. The last three posts in this thread have listed some very valid concepts that should be considered.
Religious broadcasting has included some "bad hombres" who have been fleecing the flock for decades with what I personally believe to be bad theological premises. Such hoaxters seem to run a much higher risk of being arrested for deviant sexual behavior than for deviant pocket-book lightening behavior.
Why would the law look the other way since the beginning of broadcasting... to suddenly pounce upon Camping as The Poster Child for deviant expression of religion. When people gather for discussion in forums like this, I am equally concerned about the hoaxes about how we view our basic freedoms as I am any broadcasters actions.
(There is a high probability that Camping is NOT a classic hustler. I participate in some forums where the issues of how we choose sides and form teams in the world of faith are discussed. I have butted heads with a lot of "Harold Camping kind of guys". Ever see a garden where someone got sick mid-season and just let all the vegetables "go to seed"? It is not a pretty site. There is a phrase we use in conversation... certain crotchety old men have let their theology go to seed. That is not a pretty sight either!)
If we are going to activate the "Hoax Police"... I want them to start with Talk Radio and the current political advocacy machinery in this country. I am much more concerned with "trash talk" in the political world than I am the "trash talk" in religious broadcasting. Trash talk cannot change the existence or nature of God. Trash talk in the political world CAN CHANGE the existence and nature of our civilization.
SirRoxalot said:
I am not a lawyer, but I think it's very provable. Remember that the licensee of the Family Radio stations is not Harold Camping, the individual. It's Family Stations, Inc., a nonprofit California corporation that has four voting board members, of which Camping is one.
Did Family Stations, Inc. enter into contractual obligations that extended past May 21, 2011? Did Family Stations, Inc. make international frequency reservations for its shortwave station for periods beginning after May 21, 2011? (That one, I know the answer to - it's "yes.") Did Family Stations, Inc. pay for insurance for its facilities or its employees for a period after May 21, 2011? These are all factors that could be used to determine whether Family Stations, Inc. as the licensee of the Family Radio stations may have known (or at least had reason to believe) that the information it was broadcasting was false, even as it was telling its listeners otherwise.
I think the harder piece of the case to make would be to prove that "public harm" resulted from the broadcasts, which were relatively low-key affairs. Much of the hype surrounding the "end of the world" came from the publicity that surrounded the broadcasts, and Family Stations, Inc. has at least some plausible deniability of responsibility there.
Scott Fybush said:
I read an article posted somewhere written prior to May 21, quoting a secretary at Family Radio who didn't believe Camping's prediction and stated other employees of the organization didn't. She was also continuing to schedule appointments with Family Radio employees for after May 21.
Another question is who authorized all the billboards Family Radio was putting up... did Camping do it all himself? Were they authorized by the board of directors?
The best course of action might be for the Family Radio board to ask Camping to step down and retire.
Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
As am I, GRC...but the law is a blunt instrument sometimes. I find it hard to locate very much in the other broadcasts that disturb you that would rise to the level of "hoax" contemplated in 73.1217.
But you've raised a new issue here, and on this one I don't think history agrees with you. If the FCC were to take action against Camping's licenses, it would hardly be the first time "since the beginning of broadcasting" that a religious broadcaster's license has been in jeopardy for content-related issues. Several of the seminal Fairness Doctrine cases, Red Lion and WXUR, specifically concerned religious broadcasters, and nowhere in there did the FCC (or any of the courts that subsequently ruled on the cases) locate a blanket exemption from federal content regulation for religious broadcasting. Going back to the earliest days of broadcast regulation, content issues were at least part of the problem for Aimee McPherson and Norman Baker and Doc Brinkley, all of whom could be described as religious broadcasters, to at least some extent.
In other words, from where I sit, many of the questions you raise appear to be red herrings. It's of little interest to me - and should be of no interest to the FCC - what particular brand of Christianity (or Judaism, or Islam, or what have you) a religious station preaches. What matters (or at least what should matter) is that all broadcasters, religious or otherwise, be held to the same standards...and for now, anyway, those standards include 73.1217. Whether or not Family Radio violated 73.1217 will be a matter for the FCC to determine...but if it was violated, the standards and the penalty should be the same regardless of the doctrine or beliefs of the broadcaster...shouldn't they?
Scott: I think you and I are a lot closer to being in agreement on this issue (these issues?) that it looks like.
In the case of Red Lion, the broadcaster may have felt it was a religious issues at stake, but my hazy memory is that somehow Red Lion's "content" that got them in trouble was maybe more political than it was religion or doctrine.
Doc Brinkley was before my time but my memory is that his fatal flaw was a health and medical violation... selling some derivative of goat glands on the premise that it would "heal" a health issue. Today we advertise Viagra. Doc Brinkley may have draped his activity in the ornaments of worship activities, but his mistake was a medical products violation. I will have to plead ignorance on the details of Aimee McPherson and Norman Baker.
My point is that I don't want to see the FCC or a prosecutor go after Camping in such a way that the public will perceive that he was tried for faulty theology. If people lost their life's savings paying for billboards, etc., let them go after Camping on legal grounds similar to why they went after Bernie Madoff.
I have known pastors and broadcasters who wrapped themselves in "sack cloth and vestry garments" while being pursued by legal officials, doing a very successful job of fund raising all the while by convincing the faithful that they were being, in language of the church, "persecuted for serving Jesus. Send those offerings. We must pay for this legal fight. We can't have the lawyers burying Jesus under the court house. Send money today!"
If a banker or a car dealer or a farmer owns a radio station and in convicted of fraud in any phase of his/her life, I think the FCC has long taken the view that such a conviction is grounds for declaring the licensee unfit to be a broadcaster. (Even if the station did not play a role in the fraud.) That is how I view Camping. If his personal behavior (on or off the air) defrauded people of their valuable assets, or if his personal behavior (on or off the air) caused gatherings of people in the streets in a way that threatened the public peace, then prosecute him. Upon prosecution, then let the FCC decide if his personal values and morals qualify for serving as an officer of a broadcast licensee.
My main "line in the sand" on this is: I don't want the FCC to act in any way that would telegraph a message to the already paranoid people of various faiths that the FCC is "God's Great Umpire" or "Satan's Great Umpire" dividing the good religious beliefs from the bad religious beliefs as part of their Constitutional Duty.
In the case of Red Lion, the broadcaster may have felt it was a religious issues at stake, but my hazy memory is that somehow Red Lion's "content" that got them in trouble was maybe more political than it was religion or doctrine.
Doc Brinkley was before my time but my memory is that his fatal flaw was a health and medical violation... selling some derivative of goat glands on the premise that it would "heal" a health issue. Today we advertise Viagra. Doc Brinkley may have draped his activity in the ornaments of worship activities, but his mistake was a medical products violation. I will have to plead ignorance on the details of Aimee McPherson and Norman Baker.
My point is that I don't want to see the FCC or a prosecutor go after Camping in such a way that the public will perceive that he was tried for faulty theology. If people lost their life's savings paying for billboards, etc., let them go after Camping on legal grounds similar to why they went after Bernie Madoff.
I have known pastors and broadcasters who wrapped themselves in "sack cloth and vestry garments" while being pursued by legal officials, doing a very successful job of fund raising all the while by convincing the faithful that they were being, in language of the church, "persecuted for serving Jesus. Send those offerings. We must pay for this legal fight. We can't have the lawyers burying Jesus under the court house. Send money today!"
If a banker or a car dealer or a farmer owns a radio station and in convicted of fraud in any phase of his/her life, I think the FCC has long taken the view that such a conviction is grounds for declaring the licensee unfit to be a broadcaster. (Even if the station did not play a role in the fraud.) That is how I view Camping. If his personal behavior (on or off the air) defrauded people of their valuable assets, or if his personal behavior (on or off the air) caused gatherings of people in the streets in a way that threatened the public peace, then prosecute him. Upon prosecution, then let the FCC decide if his personal values and morals qualify for serving as an officer of a broadcast licensee.
My main "line in the sand" on this is: I don't want the FCC to act in any way that would telegraph a message to the already paranoid people of various faiths that the FCC is "God's Great Umpire" or "Satan's Great Umpire" dividing the good religious beliefs from the bad religious beliefs as part of their Constitutional Duty.
I really never heard of this preacher or cared to listen to Family Radio. But because of his (twice wrong now) predictions about the end of days, I'm sure his radio audience increased; along with revenues for his radio empire.
All I hope is that when the time comes for the end of days, I'm taking a nap because I don't want to be bothered with all that noise and commotion.
All I hope is that when the time comes for the end of days, I'm taking a nap because I don't want to be bothered with all that noise and commotion.
I just had a flash back to my early years in radio when a Evangelist Duo named Paul & Jim, I believe they were from Sunbury, PA, were always talking about the end of the world. All you had to do was buy their book and you would find out all the details. As long as there has been Radio Evangelists, there has been these "nut jobs" and they still and will always have their followers.
What a great thread!
I'm not sure contracting for insurance proves much. Most policies have a "force majeur" clause that voids their terms in anything that could be considered an "act of God," and surely this would be, so buying the insurance was not inconsistent with expectations of The Rapture.
I remember one afternoon in the '80s, when I was at WBUF, when AccuWeather on 'KB predicted 60 inches of snow overnight. Our guys at Air Science were calling for 12-18". The next morning, we'd had something a little over a foot, if I recall correctly. I'm not in a position to judge whether the AccuWeather guys really believed we'd get that much snow or were just hyping, just as I'm not in a position to judge Mr. Camping's motives.
I do believe it would be wise, especially when forecasting the time and date of The Rapture, to add a disclaimer that "predictions for the end of the world, including those in the past by this host, have historically been unreliable, and should not be a basis for financial investments or divestitures."
And, perhaps Camping's board is now left to ponder the possibility that their star is suffering the early stages of dementia.
jh said:
I'm not sure contracting for insurance proves much. Most policies have a "force majeur" clause that voids their terms in anything that could be considered an "act of God," and surely this would be, so buying the insurance was not inconsistent with expectations of The Rapture.
I remember one afternoon in the '80s, when I was at WBUF, when AccuWeather on 'KB predicted 60 inches of snow overnight. Our guys at Air Science were calling for 12-18". The next morning, we'd had something a little over a foot, if I recall correctly. I'm not in a position to judge whether the AccuWeather guys really believed we'd get that much snow or were just hyping, just as I'm not in a position to judge Mr. Camping's motives.
I do believe it would be wise, especially when forecasting the time and date of The Rapture, to add a disclaimer that "predictions for the end of the world, including those in the past by this host, have historically been unreliable, and should not be a basis for financial investments or divestitures."
And, perhaps Camping's board is now left to ponder the possibility that their star is suffering the early stages of dementia.
Paul_Warren said:
Certainly that is a possibility, but there are people of all ages who preach a message of end times, the "Left Behind" genre of Christianity that are nowhere near dimentia-setting-in-age. I have dug into Camping's history that much but he fits a classic pattern. A dynamic personality who starts out in a relatively conservative denomination and becomes consumed with being even more conservative and leads his congregation to leave the conservative denomination so they can be free of what they see as liberal influences. There are many well know broadcasters of Christianity through the years who have followed that pattern.
When even a very conservative denomination is too liberal for you, and you venture further to the right, as the pilots say who flight-test brand new airplane designs would say: "You are somewhere outside the traditional envelope."
Whenever the subject of religious broadcasters come up, I'm reminded of the quote attributed to Amie Semple McPhearson, who supposedly told Herbert Hoover, when he was Secretary of Commerce, "tell your minions of satan to leave my radio station alone."
The issue in McPhearson's case wasn't content, but a technical one, as her station would occasionally broadcast off frequency. But it gets to the attitude of some religious broadcasters who feel they are intermediaries between the people and the Lord, and what they do is a devine calling, unaffected by laws of the temporal world. Similar to that commercial for Hebrew National hot dogs, who answer to a higher authority than the FDA.
I just love that line, "minions of satan."
The issue in McPhearson's case wasn't content, but a technical one, as her station would occasionally broadcast off frequency. But it gets to the attitude of some religious broadcasters who feel they are intermediaries between the people and the Lord, and what they do is a devine calling, unaffected by laws of the temporal world. Similar to that commercial for Hebrew National hot dogs, who answer to a higher authority than the FDA.
I just love that line, "minions of satan."
"Minions of Satan" would be an excellent name for a metal band...
It's only one instance, but imagine if this had been repeated across the country. http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-palmdale-woman-attempted-murder,0,3939586.story It isn't Jonestown, but it has all the makings of it. A messianic leader, thousands of disciples who'll do whatever the leader says. The FCC doesn't give a fig about radio anymore, it's all about broadband and digital these days, so it's unlikely the licenses will be jeopardized by Camping's ramblings. But maybe this incident will get a few FCC eyeballs back on the RF sector.
- Status