KTMZ

[davideduardo]

I stopped responding to (and even reading) David's posts in September (you can't actually "ignore" a moderator). I was open about why---intellectually dishonest argument, willingness to use personal anecdotes in place of empirical evidence (which he'd spent 20 years busting anyone else for) and some outright gaslighting.

On the subject in question, I use personal anecdotes for two reasons. First, I am part of the Hispanic community and I’m involved on a daily basis with the issues related to that group. Second, and most important, I am involved and have been for over 60 years in Spanish language broadcasting both in the United States and Latin America. My personal experiences reflect what I consider to be a deep knowledge of Spanish language media as well as my total immersion in Hispanic cultures, and at this moment, how government actions affect it.

Nothing has changed, and I'm going right back to that policy after this post, but I got tagged, so I read, and there's some stuff here to clean up:

• Even if we accept, at face value, the idea that NO undocumented person would sign up for a PPM and none have, there is absolutely no way Lotus was relying on PPM to sell advertising for 1220 AM in Pomona. So that's irrelevant.

The Pomona station has been a 100% simulcast of KWKW ever since Lotus bought it. There is no basis for discussion of “sales” of the Pomona station because it did not sell separately.

• Literacy is an issue in diary-surveyed markets. Which L.A. is not.

I specifically stated that the diary markets were separate from LA, but they present a definite problem for people with limited literacy in all of the diary markets. That is in continuous to be a problem in measuring Spanish language radio.

• Any increase in ad revenues for Telemundo and Univision would likely be due to their being trusted sources of information in the communities they serve in a moment of great interest for those communities.

Yet neither Telemundo, nor Univision have large amounts of daily network newscasting. The bulk of their revenue comes from entertainment based programming and sports. And most of the accounts on both of these networks are general market advertisers that have no involvement in sociopolitical issues, and, in fact, tend to shy away from any kind of controversial content.

The fact is that both Univision and Telemundo have changed their news anchors and their coverage to be slightly more centrist than they were in the past. A good example of this was the Univision removal of Jorge Ramos as lead anchor because of his expressed attitude that anchors should include opinion in their coverage of news.

• 1220 in Pomona is 60 miles from 1220 in Santa Clarita.

And, as I said, they are in the same Nielsen market. Pomona and Santa Clarita are both in the metro survey area.

I am happy for David and his family that they haven't been brutalized in broad daylight on a city street and held without cause.

While any such apprehension of a legal resident is not acceptable, when there is an effort to remove the roughly 10,000,000 illegal immigrants that arrived in the prior administration, it is reasonable to expect some cases of error. A whole separate political subject can be raised elsewhere about how this can be minimized or prevented (and sanctioned if appropriate) Still, if you add in the (at the low end of estimates) 10 million additional illegal immigrants here prior to 2020, and consider that a significant percentage of all of them were neither screened.nor validated, something needs to be done.

But none of this affects a little station in Pomona that has presented a politicized reason for silencing a repeater of another very low rated station, KWKW. As a person who was KW’s consultant going back over 50 years, my personal experience in the market and in Spanish language radio makes me curious and quite dubious about this contrived reasoning for silencing the station.

I'll stop here. Back to the specifics of 1220 in Pomona, for which I think there is abundant evidence that Lotus has reasonable concerns, stated honestly and clearly to the FCC.

Finally, we get to a natural radio subject. The statements made by Lotus would indicate that this station operates independently and separately, when in fact, it was a pure simulcast of KWKW. If there was a decline in revenue due to the political and social environment, then why did they not turn off KWKW also? The argument that the sociopolitical environment as required the silencing of that station fails on both of these counts.

 

[Yabadabado1]

The fact is that both Univision and Telemundo have changed their news anchors and their coverage to be slightly more centrist than they were in the past.

Which I wish was the case with ALL the news organizations nowadays. I think getting rid of the Fairness Doctrine opened a Pandora's Box.

 

[K.M. Richards]

Which I wish was the case with ALL the news organizations nowadays. I think getting rid of the Fairness Doctrine opened a Pandora's Box.

I am sick and tired of the repeated statement that things would be different if the Fairness Doctrine was still in existence.

All the Doctrine ever said was that stations had to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints. What it did not mandate was equal time for opposing views, or even at the same time of day as the POV being rebutted.

A station could do a five-minute editorial between their 6:00pm news and the network newscast, but air the rebuttals before signing off at 1:00am. Complain to the FCC? They'd tell you it was allowed.

In fact, the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations all used the Fairness Doctrine as a weapon against their political opponents when they appeared on talk shows, both on radio and television. Hell, if it were still in effect Trump would be finding every way possible to weaponize it in his favor.

While its removal was a contributing factor in the party-based polarization that has happened since its repeal in 1987, it would not in and of itself been able to prevent that from happening. Yet time and again, people here keep posting as if it would have.

 

[ChannelFlipper]

I am sick and tired of the repeated statement that things would be different if the Fairness Doctrine was still in existence.

All the Doctrine ever said was that stations had to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints. What it did not mandate was equal time for opposing views, or even at the same time of day as the POV being rebutted.

A station could do a five-minute editorial between their 6:00pm news and the network newscast, but air the rebuttals before signing off at 1:00am. Complain to the FCC? They'd tell you it was allowed.

In fact, the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations all used the Fairness Doctrine as a weapon against their political opponents when they appeared on talk shows, both on radio and television. Hell, if it were still in effect Trump would be finding every way possible to weaponize it in his favor.

While its removal was a contributing factor in the party-based polarization that has happened since its repeal in 1987, it would not in and of itself been able to prevent that from happening. Yet time and again, people here keep posting as if it would have.

I am OK with bringing back the fairness doctrine so long as they bring back AM only radios with it.

The world has changed as of a long time ago and it is long past time to deal with it if you haven't already.

 

[ted chittenden]

I am sick and tired of the repeated statement that things would be different if the Fairness Doctrine was still in existence.

All the Doctrine ever said was that stations had to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints. What it did not mandate was equal time for opposing views, or even at the same time of day as the POV being rebutted.

A station could do a five-minute editorial between their 6:00pm news and the network newscast, but air the rebuttals before signing off at 1:00am. Complain to the FCC? They'd tell you it was allowed.

In fact, the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations all used the Fairness Doctrine as a weapon against their political opponents when they appeared on talk shows, both on radio and television. Hell, if it were still in effect Trump would be finding every way possible to weaponize it in his favor.

While its removal was a contributing factor in the party-based polarization that has happened since its repeal in 1987, it would not in and of itself been able to prevent that from happening. Yet time and again, people here keep posting as if it would have.

While I agree with your commentary, I should note that Salem and Iheart have
publicly stated in the past that if the Fairness Doctrine were alive today, they couldn't have the kind of talk programming schedules that they do now.

 

[radiofan2023]

I think a lot of people confuse the Fairness Doctrine with the Equal Time Rule.

 

[michael hagerty]

I think a lot of people confuse the Fairness Doctrine with the Equal Time Rule.

Absolutely. Both were in effect when Cronkite gave his opinion about the winnability of the Vietnam war on the CBS Evening News. He did it anyway, and there wasn't 90 seconds of a four-star general sitting in Walter's chair the following evening.

The Fairness Doctrine wouldn’t do what people seem to think it would.

First, it has no impact on cable news or the internet—-only the public airwaves of radio and television.

Second, if you were to reinstate it for those broadcast stations, any coverage of issues would have to give equal time and consideration to opposing points of view. Want to do a story on adults who sexually exploit children? The National Man-Boy Love Association or some other group in favor of lowering or abolishing the age of consent would need to have equal time and representation of their views in that story.

The only way to avoid that is to not cover important issues—-which is what broadcasters had essentially come down to in the final decade the Fairness Doctrine was in effect.

 

[K.M. Richards]

While I agree with your commentary, I should note that Salem and Iheart have
publicly stated in the past that if the Fairness Doctrine were alive today, they couldn't have the kind of talk programming schedules that they do now.

Both have management with the programmer talent to have made something similar to the lineup work had the Fairness Doctrine not been repealed.

But, if you accept (as I do, and said in the last paragraph of that commentary) that its repeal was a major contributing factor in the party-based polarization that exists now, there is no way of knowing whether the Talk format would have evolved the way it has if the Doctrine had remained in place.

So the public statements by Salem and iHeart are meaningless other than being relevant to what happened post-Doctrine. And, despite the occasional call to bring it back, other than a major upheaval politically that somehow brought the different sides into agreement (cue the flying pigs and prepare to defrost Hell) there's no way that's going to happen.

Therefore, I consider any such statement as the one I responded to by @Yabadabado1 to be irrelevant POVs that do little other than drive me crazy by the false presumption that the Doctrine did more than it actually did. Perhaps after almost 40 years people's memories are faulty and they "remember" an effect that never was, but it has been that long and IMHO it is time to let go of it.

 

[K.M. Richards]

I think a lot of people confuse the Fairness Doctrine with the Equal Time Rule.

Now that you mention it, there is likely a false connection in people's minds. What they don't remember, though, is that the Equal Time Rule applies only to candidates for public office, and only when the campaigns are in force.

The Fairness Doctrine never had anything to do with that, nor did the provisions of the ETR apply to issues outside of its scope.

Good point.

 

[michael hagerty]

And now, this:

FCC Targets ‘The View’ and Jimmy Kimmel With Eye Toward Getting Equal Time for Republicans

The FCC released new guidance Wednesday that stipulates that daytime and late night talk shows will be expected to comply with equal time rules.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

 

[K.M. Richards]

Does Carr understand the equal time rule himself?

Every non-news talk show has been following that rule for as long as it's been in force ... which is why you never see any candidates for public office on those talk shows.

I am guessing that he thinks he can make it apply to any elected official even when there is no campaign in process, in which case I would ask him "hey Chairman Clueless, who gets the 'equal time' when there's no opposing candidate?"

And good luck if he thinks he can make it apply on that basis, because I don't see that happening without a court battle which would hold it in abeyance until it made its way to SCOTUS. By that time, he'll no longer be on the Commission.

 

[K.M. Richards]

And here is the link to Commissioner Gomez's full statement objecting to same, using the same rationale as I did, and making it pretty clear that this is really targeted at Kimmel and his brethren:

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-418165A1.pdf

The key word in her statement is "newsworthiness", which has been the determining factor all along.

(I also note that the Hollywood Reporter correctly reported that once an entry is made in a station's Public File about an appearance that triggers the equal time rule "other candidates can then submit an equal opportunities request".)

 

[ted chittenden]

Does Carr understand the equal time rule himself?

Every non-news talk show has been following that rule for as long as it's been in force ... which is why you never see any candidates for public office on those talk shows.

I am guessing that he thinks he can make it apply to any elected official even when there is no campaign in process, in which case I would ask him "hey Chairman Clueless, who gets the 'equal time' when there's no opposing candidate?"

And good luck if he thinks he can make it apply on that basis, because I don't see that happening without a court battle which would hold it in abeyance until it made its way to SCOTUS. By that time, he'll no longer be on the Commission.

Yes, this will be taken to court and definitely not the court of public opinion.

What I also find to be of interest in the article is the quote from Daniel Suhr. The same Mr. Suhr also filed with the FCC last year requesting that the commission (if memory serves) revoke the licenses of public radio and television stations for being too partisan. For now, the FCC has wisely avoided that one.

 

[K.M. Richards]

What I also find to be of interest in the article is the quote from Daniel Suhr. The same Mr. Suhr also filed with the FCC last year requesting that the commission (if memory serves) revoke the licenses of public radio and television stations for being too partisan.

Suhr also tries to conceal his true motive by claiming appearances by politicians violate the rule even when there is no campaign in progress. He is trying to win his argument by omitting those facts which do not support his narrative.

And the clueless masses will believe him because they do not know any better.

 

[Yabadabado1]

Absolutely. Both were in effect when Cronkite gave his opinion about the winnability of the Vietnam war on the CBS Evening News. He did it anyway, and there wasn't 90 seconds of a four-star general sitting in Walter's chair the following evening.

The Fairness Doctrine wouldn’t do what people seem to think it would.

First, it has no impact on cable news or the internet—-only the public airwaves of radio and television.

Second, if you were to reinstate it for those broadcast stations, any coverage of issues would have to give equal time and consideration to opposing points of view. Want to do a story on adults who sexually exploit children? The National Man-Boy Love Association or some other group in favor of lowering or abolishing the age of consent would need to have equal time and representation of their views in that story.

The only way to avoid that is to not cover important issues—-which is what broadcasters had essentially come down to in the final decade the Fairness Doctrine was in effect.

I haven't watched them since our local PBS network stopped carrying the MHZ Network [on a digital sub-channel] but I seem to recall that the foreign English language news broadcasts [DW News, France 24] had both opposing sides on their broadcasts when they were talking about some subject that had controversy--Fossil VS Wind/Nuclear/etc. energy, Israel Vs. Hamas, stuff like that]. I don't know if that's a requirement by their respective governments but something like that should be done VOLUNTARILY here. I can probably imagine why they don't because it'll probably just turn into a screamfest between both sides.

 

[michael hagerty]

Suhr also tries to conceal his true motive by claiming appearances by politicians violate the rule even when there is no campaign in progress. He is trying to win his argument by omitting those facts which do not support his narrative.

And the clueless masses will believe him because they do not know any better.

The argument will be made that the campaign calendar is obsolete---that every politician is always running for something.

 

[michael hagerty]

I haven't watched them since our local PBS network stopped carrying the MHZ Network [on a digital sub-channel] but I seem to recall that the foreign English language news broadcasts [DW News, France 24] had both opposing sides on their broadcasts when they were talking about some subject that had controversy--Fossil VS Wind/Nuclear/etc. energy, Israel Vs. Hamas, stuff like that]. I don't know if that's a requirement by their respective governments but something like that should be done VOLUNTARILY here. I can probably imagine why they don't because it'll probably just turn into a screamfest between both sides.

Well, that's the problem---decorum. And that if the anchor/moderator tries to rein one that's breaking the rules in, that's seen as bias agains the point they were making and if they don't, it's seen as bias against the other candidate.

 

[Yabadabado1]

Well, that's the problem---decorum. And that if the anchor/moderator tries to rein one that's breaking the rules in, that's seen as bias agains the point they were making and if they don't, it's seen as bias against the other candidate.

Plus the fact they won't stop it because.......ratings!

 

[K.M. Richards]

The argument will be made that the campaign calendar is obsolete---that every politician is always running for something.

Personally, if I were an attorney having to challenge that POV in court, I would ask "then who is the 'opposing candidate', since that distinction belongs only to those running for a specific office during a specific election?"

 

[michael hagerty]

Plus the fact they won't stop it because.......ratings!

People can't turn away from a trainwreck.