Then you mean the median age, which is not necessarily the same as an average (or mean).
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Religious Radio Organization Cheers Upcoming Opportunities to Acquire More Signals
- Thread starter Delete My Account
- Start date
I don't hear them on the radio but all the episodes up to the late 90s are available through the NPR web site. Those are new to me since back then all I listened to was the Puzzler.Was a great show. But those cars mentioned by the callers are getting pretty old by now since the new episodes stopped 13 years ago.
Yes, I titled the thread hyperbolically. But it's consistent with how many (not all) religious broadcasters have behaved over the decades. Here's a few things I've observed.
EMF filing against the creation of LPFM services because, in the rationale in their filing, their fundraising and ability to provide service on their 250 watt translator network (back when they were still a fairly small concern in Rocklin) would be hampered if a local church could operate a local station at 100 watts. In other words, they believed their right to something that was (admittedly legal, but a loophole not in spirit of the original intent of the translator service) should be protected over local religious groups. In other words, now that we've found a good angle, protect us from the smaller organizations. Some might call that greed.
AFR (American Family Association) has been mentioned before, they engaged in "filing-fare" to counter the University of Arkansas Fayetteville getting a non-commercial frequency for their students. They also engaged in filing for multiple and redundant frequencies in other locations, including parts of Lousiana which knocked off translators for regional NPR affiliates. While this was "legal" the tactics were pretty clear. Wildmon has always been clear about his views on NPR. But in the case of UAF, AFA wasn't even lobbying against NPR because UAF already had an NPR news and classical station - KUAF. So make no mistake, public radio music stations that play jazz or rock aren't exempt from the culture war. Things that are non-commercial, independent or "cultured" are regarded as inherently liberal enterprises. You'll see it on the social media of prominent music outlets like KEXP. They're "woke" for playing programming in support of civil rights and ethnic diversity and discussing mental health.
EMF's argument for removal of "main studio" requirements prior to the main studio rule being scrapped completely was that without the waiver, impoverished EMF might be forced to not provide service to said community. Yet the reason EMF was able to grow into a national network to begin with was the savvy use of a service (translators) that was primarily created to extend service to more remote and less profitable communities lacking broadcast service. So it became a matter of "now that we have something that we weren't entitled to, we're entitled to protection."
Remember the "great translator invasion?" Over four thousand applications (without application fees) for FM translators nationwide by one party. Calvary Chapel was behind that one. They did very well for themselves selling off many of those translators to commercial stations because of AM revitalization.
Posters in this thread will argue that AFR and Calvary are no longer particularly relevant or aggressive in their radio operations. They'll argue that EMF is a different organization now than it was then. Both fair points. And that those and other organizations are perfectly entitled to broadcast. That's definitely true.
But none of this changes that some religious broadcasters have embraced turf war (on broadcast spectrum) as a part of a culture war. They don't believe CPB should be funded, aggressively call out perceived bias or abuse of underwriting but they themselves want to retain non-commercial spectrum, more lax regulations and 501C3 protection while engaging in political speech, or to promote taxpayer funding of schools teaching their respective beliefs.
None of this is criticism of all religious broadcasters, churches, Christianity or believers. It's not even criticism of the programming of say, K-Love. It's merely pointing out that there is a historic pattern of a not insignificant number of religiously affiliated groups viewing the public airwaves as something they need to not only participate in, but dominate. It's absolutely possible non-commercial operators on a smaller level have engaged in similar conduct. Doesn't make it right. In a religious context, it's even more egregious because it's often done for financial enrichment and misrepresented to the faithful who are asked to fund it in the name of a higher cause or purpose.
EMF filing against the creation of LPFM services because, in the rationale in their filing, their fundraising and ability to provide service on their 250 watt translator network (back when they were still a fairly small concern in Rocklin) would be hampered if a local church could operate a local station at 100 watts. In other words, they believed their right to something that was (admittedly legal, but a loophole not in spirit of the original intent of the translator service) should be protected over local religious groups. In other words, now that we've found a good angle, protect us from the smaller organizations. Some might call that greed.
AFR (American Family Association) has been mentioned before, they engaged in "filing-fare" to counter the University of Arkansas Fayetteville getting a non-commercial frequency for their students. They also engaged in filing for multiple and redundant frequencies in other locations, including parts of Lousiana which knocked off translators for regional NPR affiliates. While this was "legal" the tactics were pretty clear. Wildmon has always been clear about his views on NPR. But in the case of UAF, AFA wasn't even lobbying against NPR because UAF already had an NPR news and classical station - KUAF. So make no mistake, public radio music stations that play jazz or rock aren't exempt from the culture war. Things that are non-commercial, independent or "cultured" are regarded as inherently liberal enterprises. You'll see it on the social media of prominent music outlets like KEXP. They're "woke" for playing programming in support of civil rights and ethnic diversity and discussing mental health.
EMF's argument for removal of "main studio" requirements prior to the main studio rule being scrapped completely was that without the waiver, impoverished EMF might be forced to not provide service to said community. Yet the reason EMF was able to grow into a national network to begin with was the savvy use of a service (translators) that was primarily created to extend service to more remote and less profitable communities lacking broadcast service. So it became a matter of "now that we have something that we weren't entitled to, we're entitled to protection."
Remember the "great translator invasion?" Over four thousand applications (without application fees) for FM translators nationwide by one party. Calvary Chapel was behind that one. They did very well for themselves selling off many of those translators to commercial stations because of AM revitalization.
Posters in this thread will argue that AFR and Calvary are no longer particularly relevant or aggressive in their radio operations. They'll argue that EMF is a different organization now than it was then. Both fair points. And that those and other organizations are perfectly entitled to broadcast. That's definitely true.
But none of this changes that some religious broadcasters have embraced turf war (on broadcast spectrum) as a part of a culture war. They don't believe CPB should be funded, aggressively call out perceived bias or abuse of underwriting but they themselves want to retain non-commercial spectrum, more lax regulations and 501C3 protection while engaging in political speech, or to promote taxpayer funding of schools teaching their respective beliefs.
None of this is criticism of all religious broadcasters, churches, Christianity or believers. It's not even criticism of the programming of say, K-Love. It's merely pointing out that there is a historic pattern of a not insignificant number of religiously affiliated groups viewing the public airwaves as something they need to not only participate in, but dominate. It's absolutely possible non-commercial operators on a smaller level have engaged in similar conduct. Doesn't make it right. In a religious context, it's even more egregious because it's often done for financial enrichment and misrepresented to the faithful who are asked to fund it in the name of a higher cause or purpose.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
That was an excellent analysis of the situation, Andy. It encompasses many of my own feelings about the state of things.
The religious broadcasters gamed the system and now cannot be reined (or should that be "reigned", given the frequent use of the royal term Lord to describe God?) back in. They do indeed give off an air of superiority, as if they were entitled to more use of the public airwaves than the rest of us.
I think they should be mindful of some of the past scandals that took down ministries that were highly dependent on radio and television. *cough* Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Robert Tilton, Creflo Dollar *cough*
The religious broadcasters gamed the system and now cannot be reined (or should that be "reigned", given the frequent use of the royal term Lord to describe God?) back in. They do indeed give off an air of superiority, as if they were entitled to more use of the public airwaves than the rest of us.
I think they should be mindful of some of the past scandals that took down ministries that were highly dependent on radio and television. *cough* Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Robert Tilton, Creflo Dollar *cough*
Any licensee is very protective of their turf. At KYND we tried to do a rooftop AM at 6 watts for nighttime only to have it challenged by KOKC in Oklahoma City who said they protected and challenged anything on 1520 anywhere. It's not just Christian stations. And when it came o LPFM NPR trid to get it booted as did the NAB and many others. They even presented a bogus recording to Congress of interference LPFM would cause full power broadcasters. Later they said it was bogus. And so you know, LPFM was to be a 1,000 watt commercial entity for small broadcasters to super serve smaller areas. And you could have more than one. All of tht was nipped in the bug to arrive at 100 watts at 100 feet and only one to a non-profit organizaion making them non-commercial.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
Scandals, hell yes! Jimmy Swaggart was a good one, geting caught not once but twice with a 'lady of the night'.
My Dad (who worked for the Methodist Publishing House/Cokesbury Bookstore) saw the office where ladies went through bags of mail and removing the money before discarding the letter unread on a visit to Oral Roberts.
There was a TV evangelist out of Dallas, I think, that a network caught discarding unread leters after removing checks.
Another who claimed gold fell from the ceiling in his events was found to be the con he was.
I'm a Christian but those mentioned and many more are claiming the name but are not Christian. I suppose that is what is so irritating. The ones who complain about Christians put us in that group of cons. We're not.
My Dad (who worked for the Methodist Publishing House/Cokesbury Bookstore) saw the office where ladies went through bags of mail and removing the money before discarding the letter unread on a visit to Oral Roberts.
There was a TV evangelist out of Dallas, I think, that a network caught discarding unread leters after removing checks.
Another who claimed gold fell from the ceiling in his events was found to be the con he was.
I'm a Christian but those mentioned and many more are claiming the name but are not Christian. I suppose that is what is so irritating. The ones who complain about Christians put us in that group of cons. We're not.
I'll concur that NPR was no supporter of LPFM, either.
The angle I found egregious on the part of EMF was the "local churches having LPFMs would reduce our fundraising take and we might not be able to sustain our service in these markets."
My reaction was "so what?" If a local church is providing a local ministry, good for them. I thought the whole argument of "we should have a 250 watt translator but the local non-profit shouldn't have a 100 watter, because, interference" was a con regardless of what group used it as a lobbying argument.
The angle I found egregious on the part of EMF was the "local churches having LPFMs would reduce our fundraising take and we might not be able to sustain our service in these markets."
My reaction was "so what?" If a local church is providing a local ministry, good for them. I thought the whole argument of "we should have a 250 watt translator but the local non-profit shouldn't have a 100 watter, because, interference" was a con regardless of what group used it as a lobbying argument.
I'll give you a little comparison from another nation and another type of format. In 1966, I operated several AM stations in Quito, Ecuador. I used low power FM as a studio-transmitter link, which the government had approved just like other governments had done all the way from Mexico to Perú and Bolivia.
On a visit to the telecommunications office that regulated us, I took the "chief" to get coffee. I told him I had worked as a kid at an FM in the United States, and asked if I could get a license for an FM-only station with higher than the 10 watts used for STLs.. He said he might be convinced to authorize that proposition. We determined the necessary "convincing" fee, and he then asked "how many to you want?"
Being told I could have "more than one FM" I thought that I should have lots and lots of them everywhere. I got 20 licenses, starting with two each in the biggest cities and a few in smaller markets... enough to cover essentially about 80% of the nation's population.
So, in my case: I could have as many as I wanted, and I asked for them. That way not only did I have them, but I could be in each market first and use good programming to dominate. With the upgradable STLs in Quito, I had 5 FM licenses because I could.
And why shouldn't they be? If frequencies become available because the prior operator decides to cease operation, then any party that would like to have any or all of those channels will be ready to buy the station or apply for the licenses.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
I would conditionally accept the idea of religious broadcasters taking over any frequency below 92MHz that a public radio station would have to sadly abandon.
But they would have to sell their station in the commercial band to a commercial broadcaster as a condition.
Let's see if they'd agree to that.
If you look at the radio dials for Canada and Australia at radiostationworld.com (and no, I cannot vouch for its accuracy), the one thing that really pops out is how few religious outlets are in those countries and how most of them are not tagged to U.S. broadcasters. For example, EMF has no presence in Canada or Australia; the same can be said for VCY, AFR, Calvary, the Bott radio network, and a whole host of other U.S.-based religious networks. In fact, I couldn't find any U.S.-based religious networks in Canada and only one, 3ABN, has a few low-power transmitters in Australia.
So what gives. Why does the U.S. have so many religious outlets on the radio bands. The answer, I think, has to do with how many of the original U.S. colonies were founded. While there were exceptions, many of the original colonies that eventually became the U.S. were founded by religious miscreants. These were people who were determined to convert other Europeans to their ways of thinking even if governments forbade it and even if the populations targeted for conversion resented it. The Puritans of Massachusetts, the forerunners of today's Calvary groups, were the prime example of this mindset.
After the U.S. breakaway from the UK in 1783 and the establishment of the First Amendment's freedom of religion in 1787, evangelists of all persuasions, as documented by Kevin Phillips and others, used that freedom to hit the frontier and try to convert everyone (at least every white person) in sight. And I suspect that the growth of religious radio stations plus the mindset of the station's owners can be traced directly back to these religious roots and the belief that they have the absolute right to convert anybody within hearing range to their way of thinking.
Compare that kind of religious history to those of Canada and Australia and you can see why, most likely, religious radio never really took off in either country.
So what gives. Why does the U.S. have so many religious outlets on the radio bands. The answer, I think, has to do with how many of the original U.S. colonies were founded. While there were exceptions, many of the original colonies that eventually became the U.S. were founded by religious miscreants. These were people who were determined to convert other Europeans to their ways of thinking even if governments forbade it and even if the populations targeted for conversion resented it. The Puritans of Massachusetts, the forerunners of today's Calvary groups, were the prime example of this mindset.
After the U.S. breakaway from the UK in 1783 and the establishment of the First Amendment's freedom of religion in 1787, evangelists of all persuasions, as documented by Kevin Phillips and others, used that freedom to hit the frontier and try to convert everyone (at least every white person) in sight. And I suspect that the growth of religious radio stations plus the mindset of the station's owners can be traced directly back to these religious roots and the belief that they have the absolute right to convert anybody within hearing range to their way of thinking.
Compare that kind of religious history to those of Canada and Australia and you can see why, most likely, religious radio never really took off in either country.
David, I respect you, but that assertion infuriates me.😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡
The more devout religious groups, including I would assume most religious broadcasters, overwhelmingly supported the Orange Taco in the last election. One of the promises the Orange Taco made was that he would destroy public broadcasting.
Thus religious broadcasters worked to destroy public radio so they could then snatch up the stations.
Shall we note that in any given market anywhere in this country there are far more religiously formatted stations than there are public radio stations? Yet the religious broadcasters want more more more more more more more more more more more more.🤮🤮🤮
Heaven forbid there be a counterpoint to all the right wing voices that dominate radio today. The extreme right seems to have a stranglehold on spoken word formats.
And please don’t give me the old argument that taxpayers shouldn’t have to subsidize public media. My taxes go to many things I don’t like (bailouts and tax breaks for billionaires, for example) but that is part of the game of living in a supposedly pluralistic society.
All this drives home the suspicion that much of religious broadcasting is about politics, money and power. They push political agendas while enjoying tax free status.
And broadcasters need to consider this: If radio becomes stuffed with religious formats, that the ratings show most people don’t listen to, then the audience is going to be driven to non-broadcast platforms where they have personal control over what they listen to, not what somebody wants to force feed. And radio will fall into irrelevance.
Agree. Perhaps we need to keep non-comms out of the 92-108 MHz band.
That is like saying "there are too many musically formatted station". As even Ted has mentioned, there are many different faiths, all with their own specific and often exclusive ideology.
"Dominate" is a strong word where conservative talk in most markets gets less than 5% of listening. A good example is LA, where KFI is NOT conservative... although rather centrist... and the talkers on 1150 and 870 and 790 don't together get even two full shares generally.
Only because, even in the most liberal or progressive markets, the left has not been able to develop viable "audience magnet" formats. The fact that there are lots of mostly lower rated conservative talk stations on AM appealing to mostly folks over 60 or so is not the fault of regulation but of economics.
We keep seeing reference to subsidies for oil companies where those are actually "depletion allowances" that are the equivalent of "depreciation" that every business can and does deduct. Most, if not all, of those claims about "billionaires" fall under a simple lack of understanding of business and economics.
I don't listen a lot, but the former PD of a commercial station I hired and supervised is now GM of a local station of one of the religious groups. Using that one as an example, I see that what they do is organize everything from prayer meetings to food banks, but nothing political.
Religion will dominate radio when "normal" commercial stations become non-viable.
How many mass appeal radio formats are needed? How many more niche formats are now more viable online?
In any case, as long as there is one significant station in each of the viable formats in each market, who cares what the rest do?
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
My friend, I have been saying that for decades now.
I'm reading this again and it just amazes me that a Christian radio network is effectively centered on a long-term grudge held against public broadcasting and they aren't even trying to hide that grudge.
There's too much here to respond to individually, so I will summarize: This. Is. Bad.
If I were the owner/operator of a public radio station reeling from the loss of CPB funding, and EMF/K-Love, VCY or the like were attempting a hostile takeover of my station, I would rather take it dark permanently and surrender the license than let the likes of them have it.
They have plenty of signals already. Why do they need more?
Orange is a reference to this person's color, which is a strange, sickly, orangeish hue, and Taco refers to the fact that this person always seems to chicken out on their worst threats at the last possible second, rendering their already tenuous credibility virtually moot.
c
If I were the owner/operator of a public radio station reeling from the loss of CPB funding, and EMF/K-Love, VCY or the like were attempting a hostile takeover of my station, I would rather take it dark permanently and surrender the license than let the likes of them have it.
They have plenty of signals already. Why do they need more?
Basically, an Orange Taco, in this context, refers to a certain person in a certain office who's actions have instigated much of what what has been discussed on these five pages.
Orange is a reference to this person's color, which is a strange, sickly, orangeish hue, and Taco refers to the fact that this person always seems to chicken out on their worst threats at the last possible second, rendering their already tenuous credibility virtually moot.
c