-
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
KNBR hosts blast Homeland Security ads on the air
- Thread starter michael hagerty
- Start date
I just heard one of those ads on Lite FM in NYC.
People say the government doesn't fund commercial radio, but here's an example of how they do. It's just one example. I would bet the amount of money Cumulus is receiving for the campaign is equal or close to the amount of money KQED-FM receives from CPB. But the money KQED gets is not advocacy money. This is. They are not PSAs but paid advertising, and identified as such.
www.dhs.gov
DHS Announces Ad Campaign Warning Illegal Aliens to Self-Deport and Stay Out | Homeland Security
Secretary Kristi Noem announced a nationwide and international multimillion-dollar ad campaign warning illegal aliens to leave our country now or face deportation with the inability to return to the United States.
Last edited:
Wouldn't it be more effective to produce these ads in Spanish and put them on Spanish-speaking stations, rather than on A/C and sports talk stations?
That is, assuming the intent to encourage undocumented immigrants to "self-deport" is actually genuine, and it's not all just a publicity stunt designed to help drive up the administration's approval rating among American-born White voters...
That is, assuming the intent to encourage undocumented immigrants to "self-deport" is actually genuine, and it's not all just a publicity stunt designed to help drive up the administration's approval rating among American-born White voters...
Ding-ding-ding, give @Kev a gold star for seeing through the charade. That is exactly what it is, using our tax dollars to puff out their chests and pump up their approval ratings with wavering MAGA supporters.
Of course it would. I suspect part of the purpose of the ads is to prod the sanctuary cities and states. The vast and overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants of both the last four years and the last several decades have been from Latin America. Very few of those immigrants even have a 6th grade education in Spanish, let alone any knowledge of English.
I have been told by people in electronic media involved with covering the U.S. Mexico border that, to find someone to interview in English, it can take a whole day... if ever. They definitely are not listening to an English language talk station.
And obviously this is only to show anti-immigration proponents that the government is at work.
But just thinking that this only reaches and resonates among "American born White voters" is inaccurate. A majority of my friends are legal immigrants from Latin America and not one I have talked with since the time of the primaries a year ago is in favor of allowing undocumented and illegal immigrants into the country. Those who worked hard to justify their residency and eventual citizenship resent "freeloaders" and often comment on the impropriety of waving foreign flags in the U.S. to protest the enforcement of "our laws".
Some of these friends have pictures of the Pledge of Allegiance part of their granting of citizenship along with wedding and family photos. They had to work hard to become Americans and resent the "freeloaders".
More so, they are showing the legal immigrants that there is no free ride for others. My wife actually applauded the first time she saw the "self deport yourself" ad.
You can also hear illegal immigration being discussed negatively in a number of the Charlemagne Tha God shows where the fact that illegals "undersell" Black workers and take their jobs away.
The difference was that at one time, there was an easier path to citizenship. My grandfather became a citizen because he volunteered to fight in WW2. My grandmother became a citizen because she married him. Is that path still open? In the last 20 years, there have been a number of legislative proposals put forth on this idea, and they've all been shut down. The view, expressed by the president, is that unless you can buy your citizenship from him, you should go back home. It was very different for Cubans in the 80s.
What Exactly Is Trump's 'Gold Card' Route to Citizenship?
Trump's "gold card" would create a new route to U.S. citizenship, but only for the wealthy.
The earlier link I posted included both the national and international versions of the ad. They're both in English. It didn't mention one in Spanish.
Yes. I have family that has established residency here... most becoming citizens already... within the qualified quota system or by marriage and, sometimes, by the family unification rules.
I was part of the Mariel Boatlift in 1980 when we took every kind of seaworth craft... and then some... to Mariel and brought about 125 thousand refugees to the U.S. As they were political refugees, they got immediate status as immigrants.
But if you were a Mexican (and were not going to invest large amounts in the US) in the same period, you had to apply within the quotas, get a series of interviews, have clean police records, and generally prove in an interview that you wanted to be here. The keyword was "cuota" and not "open door".
I asked and none of us has seen the ad in Spanish. But most of the family is Netflix and Amazon prime focused, so they don't watch a lot of Univision and Telemundo. I will do some more asking.
If I was working at a station that was approached to run those ads, I would turn the money. I don't care. It's not right. I've worked for a station that once threw a client out and cancelled their contract... so some stations still have standards.
I haven’t heard the radio commercials (yet) but I’ve seen the tv commercials on our local CBS O&O station.
But I wonder how they feel about individuals here legally (with visas and green cards) being deported, as the current administration is attempting to do.
This ad has been showing on various Phoenix TV stations for at least the past month and it is indeed, puffery.
No way would I, assuming I was an illegal, trust this administration with "deport yourself now and perhaps you will be allowed back in at some future date". These people are serial liars.
Mexicans no longer have a path to immigrate to the US unless it’s through family, marriage, employment or money and skill. Mexican citizens no longer qualify for the visa lottery.
They're airing on rock KISW in Seattle and alternative 91X, serving the San Diego market. Many of their listeners aren't happy with it, and it's an odd choice of stations.
Wouldn't this be one of those wasteful expenditures DOGE was supposed to be cracking down on?
Wouldn't this be one of those wasteful expenditures DOGE was supposed to be cracking down on?
Keep in mind those aren't local station buys but national corporate buys. That's what the hosts at KNBR said. The spots weren't bought locally, but are imposed by corporate. I'm sure they're also on iHeart stations.
That would mean you would have to reject all advocacy advertising. You can't refuse CocaCola ads and take 7-Up ads. Falls under "Fair Trade" practices.
You can refuse a client based on things like a bad credit rating, but not because you don't like their product. You can refuse content based on standards like explicit sexual terms or even... back in the Beautiful Music days... because it is too loud.
For example, the old and now considered illegal NAB Code prohibited hard liquor ads. In Puerto Rico, stations tried to take just "native" rum ads but not whiskey and gin and vodka. Our FCC attorneys in Washington said we could not do that, so even then on the Island we took all hard liquor ads when on the mainland nobody did.
Or the case of Bonneville, which for many years had LDS standards for ad acceptability that excluded a number of categories. But since the rule was uniformly applied, it was legal.
Generally, such buys come out of an agency which picks the stations they want and contacts the station rep firm to get rates. If the rates meet the CPM or Viewership metrics they are using, they make the buy, generally station by station even if it is a package. The rep firm may be owned by the individual station owner of a group, or may be independently owned.
And those ads, placed by an advertising agency, fall under the "advocacy" or "public notice" categories. If you turn one down, you can't run the ones for opposite views or even for advocacy in other areas.
As such, the buy was not "imposed" on each station unless the individual station has a prohibition of all advocacy buys. You can't pick and choose who has access to commercial time unless the process applies to all "products" in a category.
Generally, yes. But Cumulus and Audacy own networks and there are also network buys. That appears to be what this is.
If the station is owned by Cumulus, it must carry a certain number of Cumulus network spots. Thus, it is imposed. The way around it, and this was in the story linked in the OP, is for the GM to speak with corporate about moving those spots to the AM talk station, where they might be more appropriate.
I have not heard any radio commercials, in English or Spanish. Has anyone else?
Since this is a broadcasting board, this is a political subject.
And even the networks sell via a rep firm in most cases.
Still, the sale has to comply with overall station standards. It does not matter where the buy is made, if each station has a policy of accepting advocacy commercial announcements, then it can not turn one down because someone on the local staff does not like it. The point is that the FCC and other agencies with jurisdiction won't let you pick and choose which ads to take and which not to accept.