NHMC files petition to deny KFI license renewal

[RBR-TVBR Buzz Stream]

The National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC), a non-profit, non-partisan, media advocacy and civil rights organization for the advancement of Latinos, filed a 351-page petition with the FCC to deny the renewal of the broadcast license of Clear Channel’s news talker KFI-AM LA. The petition contends that “KFI and Clear Channel have demonstrated a pattern of [...]

More...

 

[SuperRadioFan]

{sighhh} Why do they even bother?? Well I guess it gives some work for some people, but probably mostly lawyers.

 

[Bob Hudson]

{sighhh} Why do they even bother??

Money....shakedown money. They have their sellout price and as soon as Clear Channel reaches it, the petition goes away. The buyout will be in the form of some sort of seemingly charitable contribution to help promote diversity, or maybe they'll pay NHMC to teach "tolerance" to CC employees, but it will in one way or another help the NHMC pay rent and salaries.

 

[RicoGregg]

Nogales is once again spotlight squawking. He's been doing that since Howard Stern and the Selena tragedy in 1995.

I'm a proud Hispanic, but they do not speak for me. NHMC has given new meaning to the term "sabre rattling."

They go after high profile radio stars, so easy to do, but where are they when Hollywood casts an Italian, Jew, Mediterranien (sp), or someone like Angelina Jolie as a Latino character? Or when actual Hispanics are cast, they're cast as gang bangers, drug dealers, criminals, or generally sleazoid types?

Where have they been when issues like Affirmative Action, Immigration reform, and quality of life pop up?

If they're a media coalition of some type (coalition of who?), then why is it still the case after many, many years, the only ways a Hispanic can get mentioned in the LA Times is to either be a criminal or victim of a crime?

We can read about the Kardashians blowing their noses, or Justin Beiber wearing a doo-rag, but not Eva Longoria's next project, if she has one.

Alex Nogales always picks his spots and times his jumps, when everyone is looking.

 

[Thomps2525]

In 2012 the NHMC claimed that John Kobylt & Ken Champiou ""habitually use unsubstantiated claims, divisive language, flawed argumentation and dehumanizing metaphors against people of color, people of certain religions and LGBT people to shock and anger their audience." Hey, NHMC, John & Ken also go after white people.....or didn't you notice?

I wonder if the Spanish-language radio hosts use "unsubstantiated claims, divisive language, flawed argumentation and dehumanizing metaphors" against white people. I'm sure the NHMC wouldn't acknowledge that either.

 

[stevensonair]

The disturbing part of the complaint for me is where they point out KFI hosts have specifically given out personal contact information on public airwaves, leading to threats of violence.

Isn't there some responsibility on the part of KFI to not give out people's personal cellphone numbers on the public airwaves? I'm not sure it's an FCC violation, but it seems to at the least cross some sort of ethical code you'd think would be in place at a major broadcast group like Clear Channel.

 

[ChannelFlipper]

The disturbing part of the complaint for me is where they point out KFI hosts have specifically given out personal contact information on public airwaves, leading to threats of violence.

Isn't there some responsibility on the part of KFI to not give out people's personal cellphone numbers on the public airwaves? I'm not sure it's an FCC violation, but it seems to at the least cross some sort of ethical code you'd think would be in place at a major broadcast group like Clear Channel.

If I recall correctly, the group had ALREADY publicized the person's personal information in a flyer that they widely distributed themselves. John and Ken just gave them a little more "promotion". Sorry, but they can't be held responsible for the organization's stupidity. Ha Ha!!

 

[stevensonair]

So it's perfectly legal and ethical for a broadcaster to "promote" that information with the intent to harass an individual simply because said individual is engaged in activism?

I'd imagine you'd feel differently if you were the one getting the phone messages. You wouldn't be thrilled at the "promotion" on KFI.

 

[ChannelFlipper]

So it's perfectly legal and ethical for a broadcaster to "promote" that information with the intent to harass an individual simply because said individual is engaged in activism?

I'd imagine you'd feel differently if you were the one getting the phone messages. You wouldn't be thrilled at the "promotion" on KFI.

Politics is a full-contact sport. If you can't handle it, best to get out of the ring. If you publicize your name and number for an overtly political purpose, don't be surprised when you get feedback that is not from your side. There are ways to go about activism while keeping your personal information private, but they chose not to avail themselves to them. Sorry Charlie.

Maybe they would have been better served getting a real education instead of engaging in "activism". Clearly they needed one. John and Ken gave it to them, just not in the classroom where they probably belonged.

 

[stevensonair]

So just to clarify:

You support radio shock jocks taking people's numbers onto the airwaves and encouraging their audience to barrage them with troll calls and intimidation.

At a time when radio needs as much respect as it can get, you're encouraging the use of it as a trolling operation.

With that in mind, anyone who supports the antics of John & Ken is free to PM me their personal phone numbers - I'll be more than happy to find something you're involved in and encourage my audience to "express their opinion" on your personal free speech to you directly. After all, it's "educational."

 

[Robnoxious]

At a time when radio needs as much respect as it can get, you're encouraging the use of it as a trolling operation.

With that in mind, anyone who supports the antics of John & Ken is free to PM me their personal phone numbers - I'll be more than happy to find something you're involved in and encourage my audience to "express their opinion" on your personal free speech to you directly. After all, it's "educational."

I think we've talked about this before, about a year or so ago.

An advocacy group released a public media announcement (in this case, a Hispanic one) to all those that would listen with their displeasure in whatever hot button topic it was at the time (in the past year it could have run the gambit from the possible dismissal of the DREAM Act to forbidding driver's licenses for illegal aliens) but they gave out some personal private cell phone numbers as the public contact information for their advocacy group. Then they got butthurt when those very same phone numbers they themselves released started ringing and found out the entire world doesn't necessarily support the cause they were beating their drum about.

Now I'm starting to remember the debate from 12 months ago... was it right for John & Ken to blast the phone numbers in that press release? It's a press release, that's like the biggest green light you can grant. The very nature of a press release means the contents therein can be published for the public to consume and decimate. Anyone can look up press releases if they choose to. Was it ethical for J&K to blast the contact phone numbers over the air? That's debatable but you'd have to be able to prove there was malicious intent to get any traction out of the complaint.

Ergo: KFI's license renewal is hardly in any jeopardy.

 

[SimiRadioListener26]

So just to clarify:

You support radio shock jocks taking people's numbers onto the airwaves and encouraging their audience to barrage them with troll calls and intimidation.

They didn't tell their audience to make threatening calls. J&K can't control every individual member of the listening audience. Besides, the phone number in question was already posted on a publicly distributed document, that's how they got it in the first place. If you put yourself out in the public as an activist, the public has a right to let you know that they don't care for your views. As long as it's not expressed as a threat of violence, it's protected speech. Those individuals who made threatening calls are solely responsible for their actions. Making J&K or KFI responsible in any part is ludicrous. If you're an adult you should have figured out by now that making threats against someone's life is illegal. It's not the responsibility of other people to remind you of that.

 

[Unregistered]

So just to clarify:

With that in mind, anyone who supports the antics of John & Ken is free to PM me their personal phone numbers - I'll be more than happy to find something you're involved in and encourage my audience to "express their opinion" on your personal free speech to you directly. After all, it's "educational."

You don't seem to understand the difference between public display of one's phone number and privacy. I choose to make my phone number private, I've never been involved in anything political, and what is most disturbing is you don't seem to understand, in this context, the meaning of the word "personal", as you used it, in "personal phone number". Had I made my phone number public in some way, that's different, but I have not. Your use of my phone number as "educational" is really invasion of privacy. Not so, had I chose to publicize the number. The logic seems to escape you.

 

[stevensonair]

You're confusing two points here.

I'm not disputing the number was on the flyer for those interested in the cause or issue to contact the organizers.

I'm making the point that a major broadcast company allowed its air talent to go on and knowingly spread that number for a purpose that they had reasonable expectation of causing distress and inconvenience to an individual who wasn't given a chance to speak for themselves on the program or give consent for use of their number.

Now if your vision of society is anarchist in nature, where you'd love to take the information of anyone you disagreed with who happened to be out there taking a political stand, and use your 50,000 watt podium to punish them with a barrage of half-informed listeners, then I suppose what J&K did is absolutely heroic.

But to some of us, it's immature at best, and encouraging harassment at worst. There used to be something called ethics. I'm shocked so few of you seem to understand that just because you CAN do something doesn't make it a great idea. In a society where so much personal information can easily be found, my belief broadcasters have a responsibility to the public to not abuse that information. Period.

 

[davideduardo]

You're confusing two points here.

In a society where so much personal information can easily be found, my belief broadcasters have a responsibility to the public to not abuse that information. Period.

You are missing the point. While research will "pull" all manner of personal information... often that intended for limited distribution... KFI did not "pull" that phone contact.

The organization in question "pushed" the data into the public eye. The whole and all-encompassing concept of a "press release" is to disseminate freely and openly its content. Part of that content was the phone number.

Since the press release nowhere said "Phone contact for media only" or similar wording, it can be assumed that the entire content of the press release was intended for the broadest possible public dissemination.

So, instead of blaming the organization that had no understanding of what a press release really is, we are blaming KFI. While that is certainly the kind of misdirect that politicians both red and blue are frequently employing these days, it is no excuse for blaming the messenger for the content of the message.

 

[Bob Hudson]

Ironically, in 2010 the Ford Foundation gave the NHMC $250,000 for the issue "Freedom of Expression"

http://www.fordfoundation.org/grants/grantdetails?grantid=116209

 

[henry]

To clarify the argument:

KFI gave out the phone number of Jorge-Mario Cabrera.

The number is one he uses as the director of communications at the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles. It is publicly listed on CHIRLA's web site. The number also happened to be his personal cell.

That was a bad call on Jorge's part. He easily could've routed calls through a business office phone, or even a free Google Voice number.

Rule #1 of working in media: Never publicly post your personal cell number.

 

[davideduardo]

To clarify the argument:

Rule #1 of working in media: Never publicly post your personal cell number.

That's a general rule in business and government.

I recently needed to call the head of a large company. The number is on the web. What I got was an answering system where I picked one of the options and recorded a message. An assistant to the person I wanted to get my message to called and acknowledged the receipt of the message and told me that either the person I called or a delegate would handle the matter. In this case, the president of the company called. But I could have equally been handed to another person in management.

The point is that there is no public direct line to the person in question. He's shielded by a message system, but there are people screening the messages to make sure that anything except nutcases and crank calls are properly handled.

Mr. Cabrera simply did not understand how things work in the real world... or in the media world. Now his fellow travelers want to blame the media for their mistake.

 

[Lopaka]

Why would anyone stand up for Clear Channel? Seriously.

 

[davideduardo]

Why would anyone stand up for Clear Channel? Seriously.

This is not a case of standing up for Clear Channel. KFI, under any owner, took publicly disseminated information from a press released and... well.. released it to the public.

The parties responsible for this are the people at CHIRLA who sent out a press release with a phone number on it. Blame them for stupidity or, at minimum, playing in the big leagues without advisors.

Putting a phone number in a press release is no different than posting it on a website or in a Yellow Pages add... it is an invitation to make use of that number.

And letting listeners who disagreed with the specific organizations objectives or statements know how to register that disagreement is no different than any of those campaigns that tell people to let their Senator, Representative, Mayor, Councilman, etc., know of their feelings.