Prepare for new FCC rules…

[radiofan2023]

We live in a TikTok world of 30 second gratification.

Talk shows used to move at the pace of a golf tournament…. Now it’s the speed of basketball.

I’d rather go to a golf tournament than watch even 30 seconds of The View….and I don’t like golf tournaments either.

An example of the difference with talk shows is watching Dick Cavett’s ABC talk show vs. any late night show now. Rarely they’ll have one guest for the whole show, like Taylor Swift on Colbert for an entire episode, but one guest for the whole show happened more commonly on his show. He’d also have authors, playwrights, etc. on his show, and same with the Tonight Show and other talk shows.

 

[davideduardo]

If you're equating Fox News with The View, then you're saying both should be subject to equal time rules.

If they apply to one, they should apply to all. As I read it, it applies to candidates for office in the defined campaign periods…. But everything the FCC chairman says is confusing due to his lack of broadcast experience.

 

[Don CT]

If they apply to one, they should apply to all. As I read it, it applies to candidates for office in the defined campaign periods…. But everything the FCC chairman says is confusing due to his lack of broadcast experience.

Isn’t this already on the books with equal time?

 

[K.M. Richards]

Isn’t this already on the books with equal time?

Yes ... sort of. During political campaigns, stations cannot -- other than for news purposes -- have an announced candidate for office on their airwaves without offering an equal amount of time to any and all competing candidates on the ballot.

What Chairman Dumbass, with his aforementioned lack of broadcast experience and knowledge, wants is to apply the Equal Time Rule outside of campaigns and force rebuttals to anything a current office holder disagrees with (*cough cough* provided they are Republicans *cough cough*). Where this will run afoul of the rule as written is that, outside of a campaign, there are no candidates per se so any such comments could not be made by an official "competing candidate".

I expect a challenge just on that basis.

 

[ron772]

Yes ... sort of. During political campaigns, stations cannot -- other than for news purposes -- have an announced candidate for office on their airwaves without offering an equal amount of time to any and all competing candidates on the ballot.

Interestingly, according to our FCC Counsel, this is not exactly the rule. The station has no obligation to proactively "offer" equal time to any and all competing candidates. According to FCC Section 315, the candidate or campaign must formally request equal time within seven days of the appearance of the competing candidate, and the station must decide whether the equal time rule applies. Section 315 also says stations should promptly put the appearance in their public file, but that's if they plausibly believe this was not a bona fide news appearance.

 

[TheBigA]

According to FCC Section 315, the candidate or campaign must formally request equal time within seven days of the appearance

Correct. In fact that's what the president did after Harris appeared on SNL. NBC made a deal with his campaign.

Trump campaign gets equal time from NBC after Harris' 'SNL' appearance

Trump received free one-minute spots during NASCAR and 'Sunday Night Football' after Harris' sketch on 'SNL.'

www.latimes.com

NBC Airs Donald Trump Spot During NASCAR And NFL Coverage Amid Equal Time Concerns Following Kamala Harris’ ‘Saturday Night Live’ Cameo

UPDATED with Trump and NBC comment: Following FCC concerns over Kamala Harris‘ last-minute Saturday Night Live appearance, NBC has given Donald Trump 90 seconds of free ad time. On Sunday, the network...

uk.news.yahoo.com

It was "equal time," not the same time or treatment.

We'll see how this FCC interprets its role in this process. They seem to feel they can determine who does what.

 

[K.M. Richards]

Interestingly, according to our FCC Counsel, this is not exactly the rule. The station has no obligation to proactively "offer" equal time to any and all competing candidates. According to FCC Section 315, the candidate or campaign must formally request equal time within seven days of the appearance of the competing candidate, and the station must decide whether the equal time rule applies. Section 315 also says stations should promptly put the appearance in their public file, but that's if they plausibly believe this was not a bona fide news appearance.

I was simplifying it for the original questioner. You are correct ... I left out the requirement that the candidate who feels they are entitled to equal time must ask for it. The station has no obligation to proactively offer it (and I can see that my choice of verbiage could make it seem like that is the case).

Your last sentence, to me, suggests the real problem is not the Equal Time Rule as written. Despite Chairman Blowhard's posturing over all of this, if a station and its legal counsel believe the appearance in question is bona fide news, the requestor of equal time can be told to pound sand.

And, as I said earlier, this is only a factor when campaigns are in force. Carr seems to believe there is some mysterious mechanism to trigger it outside of election season, and the wording of Section 315 clearly states the opposite. All buy itself, that inconvenient fact makes it obvious that this is an attempt to silence criticism of a sitting office holder, and that's making it more of a First Amendment issue than anything else.

 

[tall_guy1]

While it may be difficult for you to see in a one-sentence comment, I find it hard to believe that his choice of words can be misinterpreted as a fact:


That verbiage is an opinion. Period.

RD is a discussion board. One has to presume most posts are opinions, especially one which has no factual references and was all of 14 words long.

Are you saying that we have to say "this is my opinion" every time we post, just so you won't perceive us as "thinking it is fact"? Okay, then: In my opinion, the sky is green. Feel free to rebut.

No, what he was saying is what he thought was fact which deserves a rebuttal. Its speculation, not pure opinion. Which is exactly why he needed a REBUTTAL. In some ways, you should know better than that. His "opinion" would be "I don't think Democrats like going there." Not "Democrats don't go on there, because they get ambushed." K.M. Richards where did he go? | RadioDiscussions https://share.google/aHs7dvicjoorVM4pb Here's a thread that was a couple years ago where people relayed some concerns about your posts.

 

[K.M. Richards]

Fine. You don't like me, you don't have to respond to my posts.

Sounds to me like there is some ax, unknown to me, that you are trying to grind. Why else would you dredge up a previous thread criticizing me, from a time when I wasn't actively participating here and therefore not in a position to reply and/or defend myself?

 

[K.M. Richards]

I am going to try this again, and maybe we can put the whole thing to rest.

Here is the original post, the reply to same, and my comment on the reply:

The Democrats won't go on the conservative stations because they can't take the questioning.

So you admit that they will only be asked gotcha questions. While they tee up softballs to Trump.

I don't think that you can "admit" something when it is expressed as an opinion and not fact ...

"So you admit" is the kind of language one uses when they are catching someone posting an opinion that is contrary to what they have said in the past. @desertaire had made no previous posts on the subject.

While I probably could have phrased my comment better, the point is that there was nothing for @desertaire to "admit".

And ... could it not be said that my comment was itself an opinion? Hmmmmm?

 

[vchimpanzee]

If you're equating Fox News with The View, then you're saying both should be subject to equal time rules.

I seem to recall "The View" having at least one conservative. I don't know if that has always been true.

 

[ron772]

Correct. In fact that's what the president did after Harris appeared on SNL. NBC made a deal with his campaign.

Trump campaign gets equal time from NBC after Harris' 'SNL' appearance

Trump received free one-minute spots during NASCAR and 'Sunday Night Football' after Harris' sketch on 'SNL.'

www.latimes.com

NBC Airs Donald Trump Spot During NASCAR And NFL Coverage Amid Equal Time Concerns Following Kamala Harris’ ‘Saturday Night Live’ Cameo

UPDATED with Trump and NBC comment: Following FCC concerns over Kamala Harris‘ last-minute Saturday Night Live appearance, NBC has given Donald Trump 90 seconds of free ad time. On Sunday, the network...

uk.news.yahoo.com

It was "equal time," not the same time or treatment.

We'll see how this FCC interprets its role in this process. They seem to feel they can determine who does what.

I wonder if every NBC affiliate was advised to quickly put the Harris SNL skit in their public file. I suppose we can check, but I bet some might not have it in there?

 

[davideduardo]

I was simplifying it for the original questioner. You are correct ... I left out the requirement that the candidate who feels they are entitled to equal time must ask for it. The station has no obligation to proactively offer it (and I can see that my choice of verbiage could make it seem like that is the case).

A good example might be the KNX general manager editorials of 25 or more years ago. Each of them invited the participation of those with different viewpoints at the tail end of the editorial. But I was told that the station did not notify persons or entities holding different perspectives; it was up to those entities to discover the editorial and then formulate a response.

Your last sentence, to me, suggests the real problem is not the Equal Time Rule as written. Despite Chairman Blowhard's posturing over all of this, if a station and its legal counsel believe the appearance in question is bona fide news, the requestor of equal time can be told to pound sand.

As is usual in similar situations, the cost of litigation vastly exceeds the benefit perception. So station management tries to avoid such areas for a purely financial... and not political... reason.

And, as I said earlier, this is only a factor when campaigns are in force. Carr seems to believe there is some mysterious mechanism to trigger it outside of election season, and the wording of Section 315 clearly states the opposite.

As has been said before in various fashions, Carr does not understand broadcasting. Like Trump, he stands on the broad public perception that the FCC controls networks and uses that misconception to make political points.

 

[K.M. Richards]

As has been said before in various fashions, Carr does not understand broadcasting. Like Trump, he stands on the broad public perception that the FCC controls networks and uses that misconception to make political points.

Methinks he is in for a rude awakening.

 

[K.M. Richards]

A good example might be the KNX general manager editorials of 25 or more years ago. Each of them invited the participation of those with different viewpoints at the tail end of the editorial. But I was told that the station did not notify persons or entities holding different perspectives; it was up to those entities to discover the editorial and then formulate a response.

I wanted to reply to this separately to give an example of why "equal time" never has meant "precisely equal". Your reference to George Nicholaw's editorials reminded me of when their sister television station (with the calls KNXT at the time) used to air their editorials at 6:55pm, right ahead of Walter Cronkite and the network newscasts. They dutifully gave the "opposing views" disclaimer ...

... but the "editorial replies" used to air right before sign off, at around 2:00am.

 

[xkxrx]

... but the "editorial replies" used to air right before sign off, at around 2:00am.

Johnny Carson's take, Floyd R. Turbo, an occasional segment on the Tonight Show.

 

[radiofan2023]

KMBC still has editorials by the President/GM, but I’ve never actually seen one on air:

Editorials

Editorials & Opinions from kmbc.com - Kansas City, MO

www.kmbc.com

 

[Mark Roberts]

KMBC still has editorials by the President/GM, but I’ve never actually seen one on air:

Editorials

Editorials & Opinions from kmbc.com - Kansas City, MO

www.kmbc.com

Dino Dinovitz used to do them on-air, but that was back in the 1990s before he went to KRON in San Francisco.

Looks like he's back working for Hearst, this time for their charitable foundation: https://www.hearstfdn.org/staff

 

[Megatron]

It's time to do away with The FCC in my opinion as it's just political hacks on the board to begin with. The rule will see a whole lot of lawsuits in my opinion.

 

[ted chittenden]

It's time to do away with The FCC in my opinion as it's just political hacks on the board to begin with. The rule will see a whole lot of lawsuits in my opinion.

While I agree with your second sentence, I don't agree with your first. Historically, before there was an FCC or even a Federal Radio Commission (FRC, between 1927 and 1934), radio stations just popped on and off frequencies at will and sometimes overpowering other local stations on the same frequencies. Because of limited frequency space available, you do need a government agency to determine who gets what frequency and at what power rate. Even if there are fewer bidders for the available frequencies (because of the wide availability of the Internet), you still need to regulate who gets what where and at what power levels.