Not to harp on public service again...

[JohnnyMorganWXJX]

But someone explain to me exactly how/why this is acceptable.

"This week, Clear Channel Communications, which owns eight D.C. stations, shut down its public affairs department and let [Jerry] Phillips go, eliminating what some local charities called their main link to the public.

***

""For small nonprofits like us, this is how we got our message out," said Diane Charles, director of Stop Child Abuse Now in Alexandria and host of "Raising Children Today," a program Phillips produced on DC101 (WWDC).

***

And the kicker...

"Phillips said his last show, a Christmas special he was producing to raise money for the Capital Area Food Bank, will not air."

Realist, you're the one actively proposing that public service requirements are bogus. Please make a valid argument that this makes sense and is good policy.

 

[Radio_Realist]

> But someone explain to me exactly how/why this is
> acceptable.
>
> "This week, Clear Channel Communications, which owns eight
> D.C. stations, shut down its public affairs department and
> let [Jerry] Phillips go, eliminating what some local
> charities called their main link to the public.
>
> ***
>
> ""For small nonprofits like us, this is how we got our
> message out," said Diane Charles, director of Stop Child
> Abuse Now in Alexandria and host of "Raising Children
> Today," a program Phillips produced on DC101 (WWDC).
>
> ***
>
> And the kicker...
>
> "Phillips said his last show, a Christmas special he was
> producing to raise money for the Capital Area Food Bank,
> will not air."
>
> Realist, you're the one actively proposing that public
> service requirements are bogus. Please make a valid
> argument that this makes sense and is good policy.

No, I'm the one challenging those who advocate "public service" to simply spell out clearly and unambiguously just what that service should be, and how much of it should be required. I cannot defend whether or not it is "acceptable", since I still don't know what the precise requirements are. And this is after reading the entire set of FCC regulations regarding content and service in the public interest from the FCC's website.

Regardless of how despicable Clear Channel might be in this action which comes straight from the Ebeneezer Scrooge school of business management, how can anyone comment on whether or not the action you mention violates the law regarding public service without first knowing how much and what kind of service is legally required.

Also, since I don't live in DC and don't pay attention to the local charities down there, I don't know if the charities complaining are successful operations that would be at risk of failure without CC's help, or if they are unsuccessful enterprises who wouldn't succeed no matter how much publicity CC gave them. I know for a fact that there are charitable enterprises that accomplish great things and provide vital services to those in need. At the same time, I also know for a fact that there are many charities that do not accomplish much in the way of helping the people that they claim they intend to help. Some of these charities are fraudulent, others are sincere but ineptly run.

For example, I applaud the goal of "Stop Child Abuse", an organization mentioned in the article. I do not know if they are effective at accomplishing that goal or not. And knowing whether or not they are effective is critical in deciding whether they deserve the donation of resources.

In any case, my contention that public service requirements are "bogus" is based on the fact that they are vague and ambiguous, not on the fact that broadcasters shouldn't be required to perform certain clearly defined requirements for service to all of those who live within the range of their signals.

The story also doesn't include any information on whether or not Jerry Phillips was still effectively doing his job. From the article you cite:

"We're taking a new direction," said Bennett Zier, Clear Channel's regional vice president. "Jerry is moving on."

Zier said his stations, which currently have no news staff, will add "personality-based news for our morning shows," including some public affairs content.

End quote.

So, maybe after 35 years on the air, Phillips was simply past his sell-by date, and it was time for him to go. They promised "personality-based news" for their morning shows. Perhaps the kind of announcements that Phillips used to broadcast will know be handled by another member of the broadcast staff. Where is it written that there must be a single voice dedicated to the public affairs stuff?

The article states "Phillips was a beloved, if sometimes corny, daily reflection" of the community. Perhaps they were exaggerating about the "beloved" part, and that the "sometimes corny" part meant that his personality and style no longer fulfilled the needs of the community and/or Clear Channel. Maybe CC decided that someone who was less corny would do a bette and more effective job. Do you know if that is or isn't the case?

In any event, I don't see how you can expect anyone to make a thoughtful response to your challenge unless you can provide more information to work with.

 

[JohnnyMorganWXJX]

> No, I'm the one challenging those who advocate "public
> service" to simply spell out clearly and unambiguously just
> what that service should be, and how much of it should be
> required. I cannot defend whether or not it is "acceptable",
> since I still don't know what the precise requirements are.
> And this is after reading the entire set of FCC regulations
> regarding content and service in the public interest from
> the FCC's website.

It's not enough just to look at the FCC rules and regulations on public service requirements. You also have to look at FCC decisions applying them--for example, in license applications, renewals, etc. In our common law system, the decisions applying, defining, revising the statutes/rules have as much force as the statutes/rules themselves.

> Regardless of how despicable Clear Channel might be in this
> action which comes straight from the Ebeneezer Scrooge
> school of business management, how can anyone comment on
> whether or not the action you mention violates the law
> regarding public service without first knowing how much and
> what kind of service is legally required.
>
> Also, since I don't live in DC and don't pay attention to
> the local charities down there, I don't know if the
> charities complaining are successful operations that would
> be at risk of failure without CC's help, or if they are
> unsuccessful enterprises who wouldn't succeed no matter how
> much publicity CC gave them. I know for a fact that there
> are charitable enterprises that accomplish great things and
> provide vital services to those in need. At the same time, I
> also know for a fact that there are many charities that do
> not accomplish much in the way of helping the people that
> they claim they intend to help. Some of these charities are
> fraudulent, others are sincere but ineptly run.

I'm not sure that matters or is germane to the discussion of public service requirement. While I agree with everything you wrote here, the issue is whether the radio stations have a duty (statutory or regulatory) to help these charities (e.g.--I'm not saying that charities are the only ones or way they must help.) The status of the charities is immaterial (unless they are a known fraud, even then CC isn't helping ANY charities under this new system.)

> For example, I applaud the goal of "Stop Child Abuse", an
> organization mentioned in the article. I do not know if they
> are effective at accomplishing that goal or not. And knowing
> whether or not they are effective is critical in deciding
> whether they deserve the donation of resources.
>
> In any case, my contention that public service requirements
> are "bogus" is based on the fact that they are vague and
> ambiguous, not on the fact that broadcasters shouldn't be
> required to perform certain clearly defined requirements for
> service to all of those who live within the range of their
> signals.

Ok, if that's your position, I misunderstood your original posts from last week. That's alot more reasonable than the misapprehension I had, that you believed there were no public service requirements.

> The story also doesn't include any information on whether or
> not Jerry Phillips was still effectively doing his job. From
> the article you cite:
>
> "We're taking a new direction," said Bennett Zier, Clear
> Channel's regional vice president. "Jerry is moving on."
>
> Zier said his stations, which currently have no news staff,
> will add "personality-based news for our morning shows,"
> including some public affairs content.
>
> End quote.
>
> So, maybe after 35 years on the air, Phillips was simply
> past his sell-by date, and it was time for him to go. They
> promised "personality-based news" for their morning shows.
> Perhaps the kind of announcements that Phillips used to
> broadcast will know be handled by another member of the
> broadcast staff. Where is it written that there must be a
> single voice dedicated to the public affairs stuff?

Valid point. But what I envision Clear Channel doing is the modern trend among stations, especially within the last 10 years: have news count as the public service requirement, and have done with it. And if you notice, most stations are getting away with canned "cluster" news in AM drive and that's it.

So, what: the AM drive news on Kiss-FM, already about as short and fast as possible, gets a story slot replaced by a charitable work. Not a problem, but why not have both?

> The article states "Phillips was a beloved, if sometimes
> corny, daily reflection" of the community. Perhaps they were
> exaggerating about the "beloved" part, and that the
> "sometimes corny" part meant that his personality and style
> no longer fulfilled the needs of the community and/or Clear
> Channel. Maybe CC decided that someone who was less corny
> would do a bette and more effective job. Do you know if that
> is or isn't the case?

Again, valid point. I don't know, and you may well be right.

> In any event, I don't see how you can expect anyone to make
> a thoughtful response to your challenge unless you can
> provide more information to work with.

What kind of information? The story wasn't meant as anything more than what it was: an example of modern trends in public service requirements. Kill the separte and fold it into "news".

 

[Radio_Realist]

> It's not enough just to look at the FCC rules and
> regulations on public service requirements. You also have
> to look at FCC decisions applying them--for example, in
> license applications, renewals, etc. In our common law
> system, the decisions applying, defining, revising the
> statutes/rules have as much force as the statutes/rules
> themselves.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was taught that common law applied in civil cases between individuals. For example, if one party sued another for cause, then common law would apply, and would be decided by a judge and jury. Since when do bureaucratic regulators from the Executive Branch of the government have the power to judge common law? This isn't something I've studied at length, but I'm not aware of any cases in which a challenge to a radio station's license ended up in court being heard by a judge and jury.

I ca't even imagine how anyone could possibly prove standing in order to file a civil suit to challenge a station's license.

> I'm not sure that matters or is germane to the discussion of
> public service requirement. While I agree with everything
> you wrote here, the issue is whether the radio stations have
> a duty (statutory or regulatory) to help these charities
> (e.g.--I'm not saying that charities are the only ones or
> way they must help.) The status of the charities is
> immaterial (unless they are a known fraud, even then CC
> isn't helping ANY charities under this new system.)

The wording of the regulations, which I imagine that even common law judgements must derive from, simple states "the public interest". I do not see any language that gives not-for-profit organizations any sort of special status as guardians of the public interest. Given the vagueness of regulations that aren't written, a sound case could be made that there are a host of ways that a radio station can serve the "public interest" without ever once doing anything for any organized charity.

> > For example, I applaud the goal of "Stop Child Abuse", an
> > organization mentioned in the article. I do not know if
> they
> > are effective at accomplishing that goal or not. And
> knowing
> > whether or not they are effective is critical in deciding
> > whether they deserve the donation of resources.
> >
> > In any case, my contention that public service
> requirements
> > are "bogus" is based on the fact that they are vague and
> > ambiguous, not on the fact that broadcasters shouldn't be
> > required to perform certain clearly defined requirements
> for
> > service to all of those who live within the range of their
>
> > signals.
>
> Ok, if that's your position, I misunderstood your original
> posts from last week. That's alot more reasonable than the
> misapprehension I had, that you believed there were no
> public service requirements.
>
> > The story also doesn't include any information on whether
> or
> > not Jerry Phillips was still effectively doing his job.
> From
> > the article you cite:
> >
> > "We're taking a new direction," said Bennett Zier, Clear
> > Channel's regional vice president. "Jerry is moving on."
> >
> > Zier said his stations, which currently have no news
> staff,
> > will add "personality-based news for our morning shows,"
> > including some public affairs content.
> >
> > End quote.
> >
> > So, maybe after 35 years on the air, Phillips was simply
> > past his sell-by date, and it was time for him to go. They
>
> > promised "personality-based news" for their morning shows.
>
> > Perhaps the kind of announcements that Phillips used to
> > broadcast will know be handled by another member of the
> > broadcast staff. Where is it written that there must be a
> > single voice dedicated to the public affairs stuff?
>
> Valid point. But what I envision Clear Channel doing is the
> modern trend among stations, especially within the last 10
> years: have news count as the public service requirement,
> and have done with it. And if you notice, most stations are
> getting away with canned "cluster" news in AM drive and
> that's it.

And news should indeed "count" as public interest broadcasting. Conveying the news to the members of the public is one of the highest examples of serving the public interest. Journalists are often cloaking themselves in the mantle of "the public's need to know". Fulfilling that "need to know" is most definitly serving the public interest.

For that matter, so is informing the public of traffic conditions, the local weather conditions, and where they might find bargains on food.

> So, what: the AM drive news on Kiss-FM, already about as
> short and fast as possible, gets a story slot replaced by a
> charitable work. Not a problem, but why not have both?

Because not enough people listen to the one. Because there are only so many minutes in a day, and once one is used for one purpose, it is lost and gone forever.

> > The article states "Phillips was a beloved, if sometimes
> > corny, daily reflection" of the community. Perhaps they
> were
> > exaggerating about the "beloved" part, and that the
> > "sometimes corny" part meant that his personality and
> style
> > no longer fulfilled the needs of the community and/or
> Clear
> > Channel. Maybe CC decided that someone who was less corny
> > would do a bette and more effective job. Do you know if
> that
> > is or isn't the case?
>
> Again, valid point. I don't know, and you may well be
> right.
>
> > In any event, I don't see how you can expect anyone to
> make
> > a thoughtful response to your challenge unless you can
> > provide more information to work with.
>
> What kind of information? The story wasn't meant as
> anything more than what it was: an example of modern trends
> in public service requirements. Kill the separte and fold
> it into "news".

I assume that you were taking some sort of a stand on that example. It appears that you are contending that the trend to roll "public service" into news is a bad thing (the word "kill" is a dead giveaway). And given that there are no rules or regulations other than what a judge and jury decide based on which of two contending parties present a better or more convincing argument, then the discussion of whether or not rolling "public service" requirements into news casts, and whether reporting the news that the public needs to know is, in and of itself, serving the public interest is should be the cornerstone of the discussion.

So, what's your case for why not running special programming for news of interest to the public is a failure to serve the public interest? How is integrating news that serves the public interest into a regularly scheduled newscast a failure to comply with the regulations, while devoting the same amount of time but in a different program segment proper conformance with the regulations?

 

[BarryMcCockiner]

You're wrong. The commonlaw isn't just the purview of civil cases and you know it.

Common law is one of the two forms of law operating in the United States. The other is statutory. All law that is not derived from the statutory regulations of the legislative codifications is thus derived from the common law, another way of saying the opinions and policies of the judiciary. Common law does NOT derive from the written law; it is instead the living law, the lifelike evolutionary law body that doesn't have to be planned by any congress. This is because the judiciary in America is not supposed to "make law" in the same sense the legislature is, but a natural consequence of having a branch of government that reviews the actions of the executive and legislative branches, as well as of all citizens in society, is that judicial policies will be enacted. Those judicial policies and/or customary actions are known as the common law.

The FCC is, at times, what is known in the law as a "tribunal". That is to say, it is a commission with administrative duties but that it is also a judicial arbiter. Any citizen in America has "standing" to file a complaint with the FCC. Were you to file a complaint about station WXXX for whatever reason, the FCC would then become the "Court" reviewing your complaint. If, for example, you argued that WXXX was not fulfilling its public interest requirements, the FCC would investigate. If it found say, a flagrant disregard for public interest, perhaps even a station resolution to flout the law, one arm of the FCC would become a prosecutor and another arm the judge, and deliberations and processes would be had towards fine, censure, revocation of license. If a party were unsatisfied with the eventual result, appeals of the administrative tribunal that is the FCC could be had to a local United States District Court or US Circuit Court of Appeals.

When the FCC is, in part, acting in its capacity as a tribunal, or even when it merely issues policy toward its licensure requirements, it is making law. Unless and until a Court reviews FCC policy and strikes it down for whatever reason (e.g. incompatibility with a clause of the Constitution or another federal or state law, overly vague nature, etc.) it IS law.

In any event, I think you're being purposely obtuse and its pretty damned annoying. You know damn well how all this works and why, every American should know his own system of jurisprudence. I'm no lawyer. You know no one is going to sue a radio station like that. You know the complaint process. Or you should. No one is talking about lawsuits, and you obviously don't understand what commonlaw is or how it applies to and includes the actions the FCC makes as a governmental entity, whose business therefore it is, to govern.

Don't feign stupidity because your argument isn't holding water. It doesn't help your argument. Just admit your position isn't currently supported by the present state of policy and/or political interest in Washington and move on. You're in the minority as far as what you think should be done or what was in years gone by. Sorry. Now move on. You can't change it. Have a Merry Christmas.



>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was taught that common law
> applied in civil cases between individuals. For example, if
> one party sued another for cause, then common law would
> apply, and would be decided by a judge and jury. Since when
> do bureaucratic regulators from the Executive Branch of the
> government have the power to judge common law? This isn't
> something I've studied at length, but I'm not aware of any
> cases in which a challenge to a radio station's license
> ended up in court being heard by a judge and jury.
>
> I ca't even imagine how anyone could possibly prove standing
> in order to file a civil suit to challenge a station's
> license.
>
> > I'm not sure that matters or is germane to the discussion
> of
> > public service requirement. While I agree with everything
>
> > you wrote here, the issue is whether the radio stations
> have
> > a duty (statutory or regulatory) to help these charities
> > (e.g.--I'm not saying that charities are the only ones or
> > way they must help.) The status of the charities is
> > immaterial (unless they are a known fraud, even then CC
> > isn't helping ANY charities under this new system.)
>
> The wording of the regulations, which I imagine that even
> common law judgements must derive from, simple states "the
> public interest". I do not see any language that gives
> not-for-profit organizations any sort of special status as
> guardians of the public interest. Given the vagueness of
> regulations that aren't written, a sound case could be made
> that there are a host of ways that a radio station can serve
> the "public interest" without ever once doing anything for
> any organized charity.
>
> > > For example, I applaud the goal of "Stop Child Abuse",
> an
> > > organization mentioned in the article. I do not know if
> > they
> > > are effective at accomplishing that goal or not. And
> > knowing
> > > whether or not they are effective is critical in
> deciding
> > > whether they deserve the donation of resources.
> > >
> > > In any case, my contention that public service
> > requirements
> > > are "bogus" is based on the fact that they are vague and
>
> > > ambiguous, not on the fact that broadcasters shouldn't
> be
> > > required to perform certain clearly defined requirements
>
> > for
> > > service to all of those who live within the range of
> their
> >
> > > signals.
> >
> > Ok, if that's your position, I misunderstood your original
>
> > posts from last week. That's alot more reasonable than
> the
> > misapprehension I had, that you believed there were no
> > public service requirements.
> >
> > > The story also doesn't include any information on
> whether
> > or
> > > not Jerry Phillips was still effectively doing his job.
> > From
> > > the article you cite:
> > >
> > > "We're taking a new direction," said Bennett Zier, Clear
>
> > > Channel's regional vice president. "Jerry is moving on."
>
> > >
> > > Zier said his stations, which currently have no news
> > staff,
> > > will add "personality-based news for our morning shows,"
>
> > > including some public affairs content.
> > >
> > > End quote.
> > >
> > > So, maybe after 35 years on the air, Phillips was simply
>
> > > past his sell-by date, and it was time for him to go.
> They
> >
> > > promised "personality-based news" for their morning
> shows.
> >
> > > Perhaps the kind of announcements that Phillips used to
> > > broadcast will know be handled by another member of the
> > > broadcast staff. Where is it written that there must be
> a
> > > single voice dedicated to the public affairs stuff?
> >
> > Valid point. But what I envision Clear Channel doing is
> the
> > modern trend among stations, especially within the last 10
>
> > years: have news count as the public service requirement,
> > and have done with it. And if you notice, most stations
> are
> > getting away with canned "cluster" news in AM drive and
> > that's it.
>
> And news should indeed "count" as public interest
> broadcasting. Conveying the news to the members of the
> public is one of the highest examples of serving the public
> interest. Journalists are often cloaking themselves in the
> mantle of "the public's need to know". Fulfilling that "need
> to know" is most definitly serving the public interest.
>
> For that matter, so is informing the public of traffic
> conditions, the local weather conditions, and where they
> might find bargains on food.
>
> > So, what: the AM drive news on Kiss-FM, already about as
> > short and fast as possible, gets a story slot replaced by
> a
> > charitable work. Not a problem, but why not have both?
>
> Because not enough people listen to the one. Because there
> are only so many minutes in a day, and once one is used for
> one purpose, it is lost and gone forever.
>
> > > The article states "Phillips was a beloved, if sometimes
>
> > > corny, daily reflection" of the community. Perhaps they
> > were
> > > exaggerating about the "beloved" part, and that the
> > > "sometimes corny" part meant that his personality and
> > style
> > > no longer fulfilled the needs of the community and/or
> > Clear
> > > Channel. Maybe CC decided that someone who was less
> corny
> > > would do a bette and more effective job. Do you know if
> > that
> > > is or isn't the case?
> >
> > Again, valid point. I don't know, and you may well be
> > right.
> >
> > > In any event, I don't see how you can expect anyone to
> > make
> > > a thoughtful response to your challenge unless you can
> > > provide more information to work with.
> >
> > What kind of information? The story wasn't meant as
> > anything more than what it was: an example of modern
> trends
> > in public service requirements. Kill the separte and fold
>
> > it into "news".
>
> I assume that you were taking some sort of a stand on that
> example. It appears that you are contending that the trend
> to roll "public service" into news is a bad thing (the word
> "kill" is a dead giveaway). And given that there are no
> rules or regulations other than what a judge and jury decide
> based on which of two contending parties present a better or
> more convincing argument, then the discussion of whether or
> not rolling "public service" requirements into news casts,
> and whether reporting the news that the public needs to know
> is, in and of itself, serving the public interest is should
> be the cornerstone of the discussion.
>
> So, what's your case for why not running special programming
> for news of interest to the public is a failure to serve the
> public interest? How is integrating news that serves the
> public interest into a regularly scheduled newscast a
> failure to comply with the regulations, while devoting the
> same amount of time but in a different program segment
> proper conformance with the regulations?
>

 

[Radio_Realist]

OK, who hacked his way into "Bury my cöck in her's" account? This is a post that took considerable thought, and actually goes into some level of detail. It's well reasoned and articulately expressed. Clearly, someone else must have posted this.

> You're wrong. The commonlaw isn't just the purview of civil
> cases and you know it.

Actually, I did not know it, not in that level of detail. I was aware that Congress passed statute law, and that the Judiciary made law through the common law process. I was not aware that it was Constitutional for Congress to delegate its law-making powers to an agency of the Executive branch, and to also give the Executive branch the judicial authority to interpret their own regulations as well.

> Common law is one of the two forms of law operating in the
> United States. The other is statutory. All law that is not
> derived from the statutory regulations of the legislative
> codifications is thus derived from the common law, another
> way of saying the opinions and policies of the judiciary.
> Common law does NOT derive from the written law; it is
> instead the living law, the lifelike evolutionary law body
> that doesn't have to be planned by any congress. This is
> because the judiciary in America is not supposed to "make
> law" in the same sense the legislature is, but a natural
> consequence of having a branch of government that reviews
> the actions of the executive and legislative branches, as
> well as of all citizens in society, is that judicial
> policies will be enacted. Those judicial policies and/or
> customary actions are known as the common law.
>
> The FCC is, at times, what is known in the law as a
> "tribunal". That is to say, it is a commission with
> administrative duties but that it is also a judicial
> arbiter. Any citizen in America has "standing" to file a
> complaint with the FCC. Were you to file a complaint about
> station WXXX for whatever reason, the FCC would then become
> the "Court" reviewing your complaint. If, for example, you
> argued that WXXX was not fulfilling its public interest
> requirements, the FCC would investigate. If it found say, a
> flagrant disregard for public interest, perhaps even a
> station resolution to flout the law, one arm of the FCC
> would become a prosecutor and another arm the judge, and
> deliberations and processes would be had towards fine,
> censure, revocation of license. If a party were unsatisfied
> with the eventual result, appeals of the administrative
> tribunal that is the FCC could be had to a local United
> States District Court or US Circuit Court of Appeals.
>
> When the FCC is, in part, acting in its capacity as a
> tribunal, or even when it merely issues policy toward its
> licensure requirements, it is making law. Unless and until a
> Court reviews FCC policy and strikes it down for whatever
> reason (e.g. incompatibility with a clause of the
> Constitution or another federal or state law, overly vague
> nature, etc.) it IS law.
>
> In any event, I think you're being purposely obtuse and its
> pretty damned annoying. You know damn well how all this
> works and why, every American should know his own system of
> jurisprudence. I'm no lawyer. You know no one is going to
> sue a radio station like that. You know the complaint
> process. Or you should. No one is talking about lawsuits,
> and you obviously don't understand what commonlaw is or how
> it applies to and includes the actions the FCC makes as a
> governmental entity, whose business therefore it is, to
> govern.
>
> Don't feign stupidity because your argument isn't holding
> water. It doesn't help your argument. Just admit your
> position isn't currently supported by the present state of
> policy and/or political interest in Washington and move on.
> You're in the minority as far as what you think should be
> done or what was in years gone by. Sorry. Now move on. You
> can't change it. Have a Merry Christmas.

I'm not feigning stupidity. I am advocating making a change in the status quo. It is one thing to keep harping on the way things currently are. I accept that things are what they are. I also contend that the way things are should be changed. And, as a citizen and a voter, calling upon elected officials to change the laws from what they are to what I think they should be is not just a right, it is sometimes even an obligation. And a corollary to that is to attempt to convince other citizen/voters of the correctness of my opinion in hopes that they will join me in attempting to convince those who make the laws to change the current laws for the better.

>
>
> >
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was taught that common law
> > applied in civil cases between individuals. For example,
> if
> > one party sued another for cause, then common law would
> > apply, and would be decided by a judge and jury. Since
> when
> > do bureaucratic regulators from the Executive Branch of
> the
> > government have the power to judge common law? This isn't
> > something I've studied at length, but I'm not aware of any
>
> > cases in which a challenge to a radio station's license
> > ended up in court being heard by a judge and jury.
> >
> > I ca't even imagine how anyone could possibly prove
> standing
> > in order to file a civil suit to challenge a station's
> > license.
> >
> > > I'm not sure that matters or is germane to the
> discussion
> > of
> > > public service requirement. While I agree with
> everything
> >
> > > you wrote here, the issue is whether the radio stations
> > have
> > > a duty (statutory or regulatory) to help these charities
>
> > > (e.g.--I'm not saying that charities are the only ones
> or
> > > way they must help.) The status of the charities is
> > > immaterial (unless they are a known fraud, even then CC
> > > isn't helping ANY charities under this new system.)
> >
> > The wording of the regulations, which I imagine that even
> > common law judgements must derive from, simple states "the
>
> > public interest". I do not see any language that gives
> > not-for-profit organizations any sort of special status as
>
> > guardians of the public interest. Given the vagueness of
> > regulations that aren't written, a sound case could be
> made
> > that there are a host of ways that a radio station can
> serve
> > the "public interest" without ever once doing anything for
>
> > any organized charity.
> >
> > > > For example, I applaud the goal of "Stop Child Abuse",
>
> > an
> > > > organization mentioned in the article. I do not know
> if
> > > they
> > > > are effective at accomplishing that goal or not. And
> > > knowing
> > > > whether or not they are effective is critical in
> > deciding
> > > > whether they deserve the donation of resources.
> > > >
> > > > In any case, my contention that public service
> > > requirements
> > > > are "bogus" is based on the fact that they are vague
> and
> >
> > > > ambiguous, not on the fact that broadcasters shouldn't
>
> > be
> > > > required to perform certain clearly defined
> requirements
> >
> > > for
> > > > service to all of those who live within the range of
> > their
> > >
> > > > signals.
> > >
> > > Ok, if that's your position, I misunderstood your
> original
> >
> > > posts from last week. That's alot more reasonable than
> > the
> > > misapprehension I had, that you believed there were no
> > > public service requirements.
> > >
> > > > The story also doesn't include any information on
> > whether
> > > or
> > > > not Jerry Phillips was still effectively doing his
> job.
> > > From
> > > > the article you cite:
> > > >
> > > > "We're taking a new direction," said Bennett Zier,
> Clear
> >
> > > > Channel's regional vice president. "Jerry is moving
> on."
> >
> > > >
> > > > Zier said his stations, which currently have no news
> > > staff,
> > > > will add "personality-based news for our morning
> shows,"
> >
> > > > including some public affairs content.
> > > >
> > > > End quote.
> > > >
> > > > So, maybe after 35 years on the air, Phillips was
> simply
> >
> > > > past his sell-by date, and it was time for him to go.
> > They
> > >
> > > > promised "personality-based news" for their morning
> > shows.
> > >
> > > > Perhaps the kind of announcements that Phillips used
> to
> > > > broadcast will know be handled by another member of
> the
> > > > broadcast staff. Where is it written that there must
> be
> > a
> > > > single voice dedicated to the public affairs stuff?
> > >
> > > Valid point. But what I envision Clear Channel doing is
>
> > the
> > > modern trend among stations, especially within the last
> 10
> >
> > > years: have news count as the public service
> requirement,
> > > and have done with it. And if you notice, most stations
>
> > are
> > > getting away with canned "cluster" news in AM drive and
> > > that's it.
> >
> > And news should indeed "count" as public interest
> > broadcasting. Conveying the news to the members of the
> > public is one of the highest examples of serving the
> public
> > interest. Journalists are often cloaking themselves in the
>
> > mantle of "the public's need to know". Fulfilling that
> "need
> > to know" is most definitly serving the public interest.
> >
> > For that matter, so is informing the public of traffic
> > conditions, the local weather conditions, and where they
> > might find bargains on food.
> >
> > > So, what: the AM drive news on Kiss-FM, already about as
>
> > > short and fast as possible, gets a story slot replaced
> by
> > a
> > > charitable work. Not a problem, but why not have both?
> >
> > Because not enough people listen to the one. Because there
>
> > are only so many minutes in a day, and once one is used
> for
> > one purpose, it is lost and gone forever.
> >
> > > > The article states "Phillips was a beloved, if
> sometimes
> >
> > > > corny, daily reflection" of the community. Perhaps
> they
> > > were
> > > > exaggerating about the "beloved" part, and that the
> > > > "sometimes corny" part meant that his personality and
> > > style
> > > > no longer fulfilled the needs of the community and/or
> > > Clear
> > > > Channel. Maybe CC decided that someone who was less
> > corny
> > > > would do a bette and more effective job. Do you know
> if
> > > that
> > > > is or isn't the case?
> > >
> > > Again, valid point. I don't know, and you may well be
> > > right.
> > >
> > > > In any event, I don't see how you can expect anyone to
>
> > > make
> > > > a thoughtful response to your challenge unless you can
>
> > > > provide more information to work with.
> > >
> > > What kind of information? The story wasn't meant as
> > > anything more than what it was: an example of modern
> > trends
> > > in public service requirements. Kill the separte and
> fold
> >
> > > it into "news".
> >
> > I assume that you were taking some sort of a stand on that
>
> > example. It appears that you are contending that the trend
>
> > to roll "public service" into news is a bad thing (the
> word
> > "kill" is a dead giveaway). And given that there are no
> > rules or regulations other than what a judge and jury
> decide
> > based on which of two contending parties present a better
> or
> > more convincing argument, then the discussion of whether
> or
> > not rolling "public service" requirements into news casts,
>
> > and whether reporting the news that the public needs to
> know
> > is, in and of itself, serving the public interest is
> should
> > be the cornerstone of the discussion.
> >
> > So, what's your case for why not running special
> programming
> > for news of interest to the public is a failure to serve
> the
> > public interest? How is integrating news that serves the
> > public interest into a regularly scheduled newscast a
> > failure to comply with the regulations, while devoting the
>
> > same amount of time but in a different program segment
> > proper conformance with the regulations?
> >
>

 

[JohnnyMorganWXJX]

Factually, Barry's post was very substantially correct. His language is alot more succinct and "English" (non-legalese) than I could have explained it. Common law is just one of those things that us English-speaking countries have that is kinda archaic, but we like and don't really wish to change.

(Users of common law: US, England, Ireland, Scotland, Australia, South Africa, NZ, Israel, and some other outposts and ex-British possessions. South Korea and Japan also use a modified common law system.)

However, I will mention that common law is NOT to be confused with "judicial activism" or "legislating from the bench". Many times the common law is what has been "common" in society for a long time--think contracts, torts, property, etc. It exists on its own, and has been universally accepted. Statutory law may come about to change it in whole or in part, but unless explicitly stated by the legislature, the common law and statutory law co-exist.

Any more explanation of common law might serve to confuse, so I'll let it rest here.

> > You're wrong. The commonlaw isn't just the purview of
> civil
> > cases and you know it.
>
> Actually, I did not know it, not in that level of detail. I
> was aware that Congress passed statute law, and that the
> Judiciary made law through the common law process. I was not
> aware that it was Constitutional for Congress to delegate
> its law-making powers to an agency of the Executive branch,
> and to also give the Executive branch the judicial authority
> to interpret their own regulations as well.

Ah, here's the thing: what the FCC is making are rules and regulations. That authority has been delegated to them by Congress. Here's the situation: Congress is busy, and it is practically impossible in our technologically and intellectually advanced society for Congress to predict and legislate on every single detail. So, what Congress does (think environmental laws, for example) is to state in the statute/actual law, "THIS shall not happen" or "THIS shall happen". The actual details of the law are left to the executive agency. So, what you have is Congress saying the ENDS, and the agency is meant to regulate the MEANS to get to that end. Hence, Congress says asbestos shall be abated; the EPA issues rules and regulations on the actual abatement procedures.

Now, the agency enforces the law and enforces its own rules and regulations. In the case of the FCC, when misconduct is reported or noticed, an appropriate adversary action is brought. This takes place within the agency, in front of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). These are lawyers appointed by the President, but are NOT approved by Congress (normally). They are different from Article III judges (the federal judiciary). They cannot decide regular cases or controversies, nor are their decisions binding in courts of law.

However, as for that agency and the parties involved, that decision of the ALJ is law for the agency, and exists as precedent to be followed (under the doctrine of stare decisis).

Appeals may be had, in the case of the FCC, to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit (and Article III court). BUT, the case may not go there until the parties have "exhausted their administrative remedies"--that is, all internal agency appeals have been taken and decided in the negative. And the Article III court does not normally overturn agency decisons--there is great deference to agency decisions (the Chevron doctrine), and they are overruled only if they are so outside the scope of agency power such that Congress expressly or implicitly reserved that power from the agency or the statute stated otherwise.

So, as for common law: agency decisions are binding law on the agency, but nowhere else. They are persuasive in an Article III court, but are not binding. And the decisions may be rooted in rule, regulation, statute, tradition, prior practice, or previous decision of the Commission or its ALJs.

 

[Radio_Realist]

> > Actually, I did not know it, not in that level of detail.
> I
> > was aware that Congress passed statute law, and that the
> > Judiciary made law through the common law process. I was
> not
> > aware that it was Constitutional for Congress to delegate
> > its law-making powers to an agency of the Executive
> branch,
> > and to also give the Executive branch the judicial
> authority
> > to interpret their own regulations as well.
>
> Ah, here's the thing: what the FCC is making are rules and
> regulations. That authority has been delegated to them by
> Congress. Here's the situation: Congress is busy, and it is
> practically impossible in our technologically and
> intellectually advanced society for Congress to predict and
> legislate on every single detail. So, what Congress does
> (think environmental laws, for example) is to state in the
> statute/actual law, "THIS shall not happen" or "THIS shall
> happen". The actual details of the law are left to the
> executive agency. So, what you have is Congress saying the
> ENDS, and the agency is meant to regulate the MEANS to get
> to that end. Hence, Congress says asbestos shall be abated;
> the EPA issues rules and regulations on the actual abatement
> procedures.

And, for the most part, that is an excellent system. While perusing the FCC's rules and regulations, I noted that the vast majority covered technical issues. I totally agree that when promulgating standards for frequency allocation, modulation schemes, and other technical matters that keep the traffic on the airwaves operating smoothly, such a system is probably the best that could be determined.

However, there is a world of difference between delegating to an Executive Department branch the authority to regulate the nuts and bolts regulations for orderly operation of radio communications, and using the same system to control the content of what is broadcast over those airwaves. Especially when the department is tasked with enforcing such a vague and ambiguous concept as "the public interest".

I don't even see a problem with the FCC being responsible for enforcing the standards of "the seven words you can't say on television".

But though you and Barry have both presented excellent explanations of what the current status quo is regarding who decides what is or is not in "the public interest", neither of you has presented any sort of case for why the status quo is a good thing and should be retained, and not changed to something different and better.

So, I ask you and everyone else reading this thread, is the current system of determining what the "public interest" is, and for enforcing that determination a good system? Why wouldn't the public be better served by having the FCC solely responsible for technical standards (which is an enormous task in and of itself), and require Congress to accept the burden of writing statute law that defines what content the holder of a broadcast license must include in their programming in order to keep their license.

> Now, the agency enforces the law and enforces its own rules
> and regulations. In the case of the FCC, when misconduct is
> reported or noticed, an appropriate adversary action is
> brought. This takes place within the agency, in front of an
> Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). These are lawyers appointed
> by the President, but are NOT approved by Congress
> (normally). They are different from Article III judges (the
> federal judiciary). They cannot decide regular cases or
> controversies, nor are their decisions binding in courts of
> law.
>
> However, as for that agency and the parties involved, that
> decision of the ALJ is law for the agency, and exists as
> precedent to be followed (under the doctrine of stare
> decisis).
>
> Appeals may be had, in the case of the FCC, to the US Court
> of Appeals for the DC Circuit (and Article III court). BUT,
> the case may not go there until the parties have "exhausted
> their administrative remedies"--that is, all internal agency
> appeals have been taken and decided in the negative. And
> the Article III court does not normally overturn agency
> decisons--there is great deference to agency decisions (the
> Chevron doctrine), and they are overruled only if they are
> so outside the scope of agency power such that Congress
> expressly or implicitly reserved that power from the agency
> or the statute stated otherwise.
>
> So, as for common law: agency decisions are binding law on
> the agency, but nowhere else. They are persuasive in an
> Article III court, but are not binding. And the decisions
> may be rooted in rule, regulation, statute, tradition, prior
> practice, or previous decision of the Commission or its
> ALJs.
>

 

[BarryMcCockiner]

You seem to be missing the point Johnny and I are trying to make to you. Here it is, real simple-like. It's NOT UP TO US to defend the current system. It's UP TO YOU as a would-be proponent of a better system, to tell US what THAT SYSTEM IS and WHY THE CURRENT SYSTEM SHOULD BE REPLACED.

As I believe Johnny asked you quite directly in one of the top posts.

Whether we like the current system or not, and let's just say solely for the sake of this argument that we love it, it's the law now. We don't have to explain to you or anyone else's satisfaction why we think the current law shouldn't be changed. Your right and obligation, as you previously noted, is to criticize the law you don't like. But it doesn't end there. If you want to change the system, you can't just cry for change. You have to bring something to the table. Why do YOU think WE should return to the old ways or to whatever else you propose?


>
> But though you and Barry have both presented excellent
> explanations of what the current status quo is regarding who
> decides what is or is not in "the public interest", neither
> of you has presented any sort of case for why the status quo
> is a good thing and should be retained, and not changed to
> something different and better.
>
> So, I ask you and everyone else reading this thread, is the
> current system of determining what the "public interest" is,
> and for enforcing that determination a good system? Why
> wouldn't the public be better served by having the FCC
> solely responsible for technical standards (which is an
> enormous task in and of itself), and require Congress to
> accept the burden of writing statute law that defines what
> content the holder of a broadcast license must include in
> their programming in order to keep their license.
>
>

 

[fromtheinsideout]

Going back to the original post, it is hard to judge solely based on that one article, whether or not it was a good or bad decision by the radio station to let the public affairs host go. Since that (public affairs/interest) can take a variety of forms (it isn't limited solely to charitable endeavors), it may be simply that the station(s) are looking for ways to meet that requirement that aren't as likely to scare off listeners. It isn't necessarily a matter of changing or not changing the law, it's just that there isn't enough information given to determine whether this was a good decision or not.

 

[Mrmusic]

> Going back to the original post, it is hard to judge solely
> based on that one article, whether or not it was a good or
> bad decision by the radio station to let the public affairs
> host go. Since that (public affairs/interest) can take a
> variety of forms (it isn't limited solely to charitable
> endeavors), it may be simply that the station(s) are looking
> for ways to meet that requirement that aren't as likely to
> scare off listeners. It isn't necessarily a matter of
> changing or not changing the law, it's just that there isn't
> enough information given to determine whether this was a
> good decision or not.
>

Well said. I thought the same thing.

Mr. Music

 

[Radio_Realist]

> You seem to be missing the point Johnny and I are trying to
> make to you. Here it is, real simple-like. It's NOT UP TO US
> to defend the current system. It's UP TO YOU as a would-be
> proponent of a better system, to tell US what THAT SYSTEM IS
> and WHY THE CURRENT SYSTEM SHOULD BE REPLACED.
>
> As I believe Johnny asked you quite directly in one of the
> top posts.
>
> Whether we like the current system or not, and let's just
> say solely for the sake of this argument that we love it,
> it's the law now. We don't have to explain to you or anyone
> else's satisfaction why we think the current law shouldn't
> be changed. Your right and obligation, as you previously
> noted, is to criticize the law you don't like. But it
> doesn't end there. If you want to change the system, you
> can't just cry for change. You have to bring something to
> the table. Why do YOU think WE should return to the old ways
> or to whatever else you propose?

The current system is quite clear in making the vague and ambiguous statement that radio stations must "serve the public interest". Beyond that, the definition of what "the public interest is" and "how that interest must be served" is vague and unclear. It is whatever "common law" says it is at any given moment, and therefore subject to the whims of whoever is making the judgement at the time.

What I brought to the table is the assertion that the definition of what the "public interest" is, and how it must be served, should be set by Congress, by statute. Beyond that, I would be willing to debate the details of what that definition should be.

Those who defend that law based on the premise that "it is what it is" are the same ones who claim that there are too many stations who are not serving the public interest, such as Froggy not carrying the Duquesne football game, or the station in DC firing the guy handled public service broadcasts. Clearly, if one is making the argument that the current law is not working which is why those examples (and others) occurred, then one disagrees with the way the current system works.

I can't see how one can express dissatisfaction with the way the current system functions, and at the same time argue that the current system should be retained, and leave it to those who call for the current system to be changed to make the case for change. I see it as a simple "If, Then, Else" situation. If one is satisfied with the current level of serving the public interest by companies like Clear Channel and infinity, then one would not advocate change. But if one is dissatisfied with the status quo, then the "else" is to advocate changing the system that caused one's dissatisfaction.

I think that the public's interest IS being adequately served without broadcasting high school football games, and without special program segments for charitable institutions. But, if one does want to see a stricter interpretation of the definition of "serving the public interest", why would one defend the system that has created the current definition?

Either one wants change, or one wants to maintain the status quo. If one wants change, then all that remains is discussion the nature of the change. But why would anyone advocate a change in the outcome of a process, yet refuse to consider that changing the process might be the best means of attaining the different outcome?

So, you ask why I want to change the process for determining whether or not a station is operating in the "public interest" or not? I want to change the process to implementing a well-defined statue or written regulation because then everyone concerned, broadcaster and listener alike, who be able to easily compare a station's performance against a clear and unambiguous standard. There would be no controversy over whether or not a station was operating in the "public interest" or not because everyone would know what that phrase meant.

Arguments over whether or not including information about some charitable organization is required or optional, or whether or not a station needs to keep someone on thier payroll or not to satisfy the "public interest" requirements would become moot. One would simply have to look at the laws or regulations, compare performance to those laws or regulations, and that would be that.



>
>
> >
> > But though you and Barry have both presented excellent
> > explanations of what the current status quo is regarding
> who
> > decides what is or is not in "the public interest",
> neither
> > of you has presented any sort of case for why the status
> quo
> > is a good thing and should be retained, and not changed to
>
> > something different and better.
> >
> > So, I ask you and everyone else reading this thread, is
> the
> > current system of determining what the "public interest"
> is,
> > and for enforcing that determination a good system? Why
> > wouldn't the public be better served by having the FCC
> > solely responsible for technical standards (which is an
> > enormous task in and of itself), and require Congress to
> > accept the burden of writing statute law that defines what
>
> > content the holder of a broadcast license must include in
> > their programming in order to keep their license.
> >
> >
>