KUT License Challenge?

[uncamark]

It's still over 2 1/2 years before Texas radio licenses run out, but a lawyer with telecom experience (on the common carrier side, not the broadcast side) has told the Save KUT offshoot blog Keeping Public Radio Public that he intends to gather research on filing a challenge to the license of UT-owned NPR affil KUT--tied for NUMBER ONE in the November PPMs--over alleged recent changes in music programming (which is why Save KUT was formed in the first place) and alleged "overcommercialism," all of which is music to the windowpane gang at KPRP's ears:

http://keeppublicradiopublic.com/2010/12/05/kut-license-challenge/

Of course, the FCC washed its hands of programming changes ages ago (unless they deny the KTRU/KUHF sale in Houston, which is highly unlikely) and its rules on underwriting announcements don't cover minutes per hour or method of delivery (almost all funders are read by the hog-calling voice of PD Hawk Mendenhall)--the only grounds they would have would be if the spots broke the established rules of no comparisons/no prices/no call to action (with the exception of established slogans, which the lawyer and the windowpane gang may not know about).

If I were KUT's continuity people, I'd be watching the funder copy like a hawk (no pun intended).

 

[fredcantu]

Can you challenge because of changes to entertainment programming? On the commercial front, I recall many angry letters to the FCC when my station dropped a format popular with older demos to target a younger crowd. But our news and public service commitment continued even after the format change. So nothing became of the complaints.

 

[mmnassour]

Well, that website says that KUT is not living up to its obligations as a non-com station, that it's playlist is too close to KGSR's, etc., etc., etc. I think we all know this is going nowhere, but it may be a good bargaining chip for the group to get one or two more hours a week of some local program (probably at 5:00 am Sunday) started.

But I don't think the FCC will deny KUT's license because they dropped old Soap Creek Saloon acts in favor of Keane or Train.

 

[fredcantu]

KUT also does a good job of crediting its donors discretely. They get a brief announcement, not a :60 spot, like you'll hear on some non-comms.

 

[bturner]

The FCC does not care about the format. There can be 20 stations in town playing the very same songs and sounding alike. It doesn't matter if its commercial or a non-commercial station. The FCC website clearly states they make no decisions on formats.

Second, regarding Underwriting: the FCC has issued vague guidelines stating Underwriting Announcements in excess of 30 seconds are more likely to exceed FCC Rules in contenr restrictions. The FCC has opined that more than 6 Underwriter Announcements an hour may be too excessive but has not defined this to be a 'per hour' or 'average' per broadcast week. When the commercial stations were limited to 18 minutes an hour of commercial time, the FCC would consider the average number of minutes per hour on a daily or weekly basis, knowing that most stations have high commercial loads during the day but not at night. In addition at stations in seasonal towns, that 18 minute rule might be applied over a year. What I'm saying is "6" is a suggestion and so is the 30 second maximum length. The FCC tends to work with broadcasters unless there are blatant violations.

What gets me about groups trying to make stations do things their way is these groups don't foot the bills that have to be paid. If this group is a financial contributor, then you have a voice or at least a 'beef' with the station. Why not pool your cash and lease a station to do what you want. I'm sure there are several in Austin that would love to hand the airwaves over to you for a reasonable amount of money. My point is, many groups tend to not look at other options or tend to not choose to have the financial influence to effect change.

 

[fredcantu]

Isn't KOOP/KVRX filling this void the Save KUT group is concerned about?

 

[uncamark]

Isn't KOOP/KVRX filling this void the Save KUT group is concerned about?

Yes, but then we have things come into play.

One of the Save KUT/Keeping Public Radio Public people is the founder of KOOP, who got canned some years ago in a Pacifica-ish intercine war (his opponents got rid of him by what I will admit is the dubious reason of not doing a legal ID--*one* legal ID). Needless to say, he has a grudge against KOOP and I assume sees gaining control of KUT as his revenge. (I assume that if new owners made up of a citizens group took over, he would be GM by reason of experience--the other major SKUT/KPRP people have no radio experience.) He could shut down the HD signals, fire account execs, rehire Larry Monroe, give Paul Ray his old shows back, bring in volunteer DJs instead of paid DJs and drop some of the national programming (and maybe pick up "Democracy Now!"), but I couldn't see him getting rid of the NPR drive time news shows, Terry Gross, "Car Talk," Ira Glass, Garrison Kellior or even "Wait, Wait" or "Marketplace."

The other thing that has driven this movement all along was the cutting in hours of two Legendary Austin Radio Personalities (in their view) and the "creative stifling" of another Legendary Austin Radio Personality, all symbols of the good old days of anti-war protests (cue the "Austin City Limits" theme), Armadllo World Headquarters and an Austin that didn't have yuppie scums that can't get enough of David Dye--an Austin that thy want KUT to stand for forever. At least that's their opinion.

 

[TheBigA]

Needless to say, he has a grudge against KOOP and I assume sees gaining control of KUT as his revenge.

That's pretty childish if you ask me. The government isn't going to come in and play "mommy" here. To put it simply, he has no case. This guy needs to grow up and move on.

 

[mmnassour]

Needless to say, he has a grudge against KOOP and I assume sees gaining control of KUT as his revenge.

That's pretty childish if you ask me. The government isn't going to come in and play "mommy" here. To put it simply, he has no case. This guy needs to grow up and move on.

Agreed! From what I've read here and on their website, the word to describe them is...delusional.

 

[MisterRadio]

If you are talking about Jim Ellinger, he is using the same argument he used to start KOOP in the first place, KUT not really servicing the community, etc. That is also the sort of the reason KVRX was created, though technically that license also belongs to UT. IMHO, KVRX always did a better job serving the community even if it was run by students only.

 

[fredcantu]

IMHO, KVRX always did a better job serving the community even if it was run by students only.

Here's something to ponder. Which actually does the community more good, a station that does a good job and is widely heard or a station that does an excellent job but only has a tiny audience?

 

[uncamark]

IMHO, KVRX always did a better job serving the community even if it was run by students only.

Here's something to ponder. Which actually does the community more good, a station that does a good job and is widely heard or a station that does an excellent job but only has a tiny audience?

The old school public radio or community radio argument is that it's better to serve several micro-audiences rather than one sizable audience--the block format/"new radio station every two hours" philosophy. Meanwhile, in the last 20 years that philosophy has been put aside at public radio by the David Giovannini "it's not public service if the public doesn't listen to it" credo of finding a consistent sound and sticking with it, either full-time or for significant portions of the schedule. In the case of KUT, they felt that they didn't want the station's sound to change with every DJ shift change and tried to make the music consistent--and that AAA was the way to go because it's the only public radio music format that has a median age well below the retirement age. Although it's common sense to those of us who follow radio, for those who think that non-commercial radio should not do anything commercial radio might do, it was repugnant and that serving the presumed-unserved micro-audiences is more important.

 

[bturner]

The reality in public or commercial radio is to draw enough of an audience to generate the funds to pay the bills, handle emergencies and tuck a little aside for capital expenses. If the 'different station each DJ' idea generated enough revenue for the KUT expenses and needs, that would be the format. KUT is simply giving the community the style of radio they believe will generate enough of an audience to satisfy their financial needs. There is nothing more sinister about this than you choosing to buy a car, determining what you can afford and getting the best car you can for that amount.

 

[fredcantu]

Micro-audiences don't go unserved these days. There's always the Internet and streaming to smart phones. It's not like the old days where those denied radio airwaves suffered in silence.