Even if I were to agree completely that "the model works" and that it's giving the "people what they want" I would still have ethical issues with how it's done.
An organization claims to be non profit and for some sort of social cause or cause beyond pure profit. They structure themselves in a way where they aren't taxed on their income in the way those of us who are owner operators or even "corporations." They pay large sums of money for radio stations and then claim that it's a financial hardship to have to operate them locally. The only time you hear "Hartford" or "Indianapolis" on the station is at the top of the hour.
Now, you may claim this should be allowed and a good model. But when you claim it's not about lobbying and the desires of these interests, you'd be incorrect. You see, back when there was an LPFM movement, back when there WAS a Clear Channel (Mr. Eduardo seems to think I'm unaware of the largest group owner in my industry having changed its name) - there were filings from groups like EMF. EMF claimed that allowing a local church to start up a 100-250 watt LPFM would harm their fundraising. And they threatened that this would deprive communities of their service.
Now, even if you disagree with the stated FCC goals at the time of increasing "diversity" - which most of you seem to believe is some sort of nebulous and irrelevant concept to begin with, or translates to "what makes the most $$" you must admit that it is not the FCC's mandate or in any way required that they protect the interests of a group that had figured out a clever model for use of translators, and was seeking to protect it.
The argument put forward was illogical. A 250 watt class of LPFM would harm radio? I seem to recall the NAB, NRB and Clear Channel claiming exactly that. So a 250 watt LPFM originating local programming, or local automation was harmful.. until they figured out HD radio to translators! Then suddenly, 250 watts of origination from who knows where was a great idea. Same wattage. Different agenda.
I'm not a person who likes dirty tricks or underhanded dealing. I don't like it when those with power and money misrepresent themselves to stomp on those with less leverage. You might say it's a point of principle. And I see patterns, and this has been the pattern in broadcasting. Those who find the quirks and nuances of localism a bother, or "irrelevant" as Mr. Eduardo seems to, will consistently look for more loopholes and strategies to pinch the penny till it screams. I'm not against making a profit. I rather enjoy it. But economies, and societies, are ecosystems that must be in balance or we are deprived of things that are meaningful, lasting, and beneficial.
I'm in this business and my stations are profitable. As aghast as it may make some of you, I choose to do things that sometimes mean fewer people will listen to the stations at times. Certain things I do, certain methods and styles, are not necessarily what's the most easy to do, or the simple thing everyone will find to the popular taste. But I do them because I believe that they're important for my communities, and that those who are the most engaged in said communities do value those things. I'm fortunate that those things are supported. And I also get to enjoy what I do and feel good about it, whereas doing things simply out of popularity I wouldn't be as passionate about. It's extremely rewarding on a level that isn't reflected in a stock price.
At its most powerful radio can do that. And I'm sure most of you know it. I'm not denying that there IS a place for a large amount of syndicated or "national" programming. But I'm saying there are also rules for a reason, and that's because localism (not the dry and disinterested flavor Mr. Eduardo seems to think is the only thing being referred to) is not only something that can be profitable, but is good for communities. It's good for the people in them. It's good for the long term health of economies (yes, there are also business and economic reasons for NOT removing regulations en masse.)
If EMF, or any other operator wants to be a national brand, they have plenty of opportunities to do so. Ideally, they would go on satellite radio. If you believe there are too many stations to begin with, clear out the band clutter. Tighten the translator rules. Stop letting every satellite driven AM who didn't plan ahead get a free FM translator. But don't open the floodgates again when we have a tangible example of existing rules being exploited.
Localism doesn't have to be dry, irrelevant or longform public affairs. I hear stations on a daily basis that do tangible, entertaining and engaging things that go beyond news or music and into their communities. A lot of them are local non-comms who have formed a basis of listener support. They're not looking for a loophole, and they're not paying their top people over half a million dollars a year. They're sustaining themselves and taking chances and creating conversations. No, they're not the most popular stations in the market. But they are relevant and worth having as a part of the media ecosystem.
And what i absolutely do not want to see is the value of those stations driven up to the likes of iHeart and EMF because it no longer is a barrier to them to operate them as repeaters instead of radio stations. I don't want to see those that had the same dream I did, to serve communities they truly loved and cared about the residents of, priced out of buying a CP because it fills in another gap on the national map, and where the owners have never been because it's too far from Sacramento.
You're all arguing that this is the new and inevitable reality. I concur that it may be. But in the same as removal of other regulations, of which our current administration seems to regard as inherently good across all sectors, there's certain unintended consequences. And as a society, the more we deregulate, the more we say that whatever makes an extra dollar is inherently good or just fine, the more I think we lose. Call me an idealist or say its an intangible concept, but it's the truth. And it's not that I'm stuck in the past. I don't sit around listening to Sinatra all day and telling the kids to get off my lawn.
There is vital, compelling culture and community - in many genres, styles and approaches to radio. I think there's already room for all of them. And I do not want to see it crowded out. The rules have been changed for those who struggled to make it work numerous times, each time we've been made grandiose promises. Stop the handouts and favoritism and let those of us who can do, and those who can't, can find another line of work.
