Removed from dying AM radio

[davideduardo]

But there are few Canadians legally living in Canada who only speak French, and they mostly tend to live in one specific region.

You stated that most Canadians spoke both English and French. When confronted with the dimensions of your lie, you change the argument to one of geography. You do this over and over and over, probably hoping that, when unchallenged, your agenda will be furthered by spreading non-truths.

In America, we're plagued with large numbers of people who only speak Spanish scattered all over the country, and far too many of them are illegal aliens.

There are, by best estimates, about 12 million undocumented immigrants in the US. Of those, about 7 million are Spanish speakers. That means that of 50 million Hispanics in the US, less than 15% are not here legally. So your statement about "far too often" falls short on a credibility check. You are not just engaging in hyperbole here... you are guilty of gross exaggeration. It's obvious what your agenda is.

The key point of my post regarding Canada is that Canada is not suffering from a plague of French-speaking illegal aliens invading their nation.

Canada has had much better immigration policy and enforcement than the US over the last few decades, but they have admitted many non-English speaking persons. Radio broadcasting has been adapted, with AM in the major cities being re-purposed to serve ethnic communities such as Asians in Vancouver and immigrants from many nations in Toronto (to name just two areas). This is in the fine tradition of Canadian stations like Toronto's CHIN which long served the Italian and other European communities in the market.

As usual, you nitpick a minor, beside-the-point issue and ignore the important point. America is being invaded by Spanish speaking illegal aliens who have no business being here.

If you look at the population figures, the growth of the Hispanic population in the US over the last 15 years has been just under 30% from immigration and 70% from internal growth. And the "internal growth" means second generation and beyond.

With all immigrant groups, whether Germans and Italians in the late 1800's or Hispanics today, most do not learn anything beyond basic English. The second generation is bilingual and the third loses most of the heritage language skills. This is why, even with the huge growth in population among Hispanics, less that half consider themselves Spanish Dominant while the rest are bilingual or English Dominant. And the percentage of Spanish Dominants is falling every year as the recession pretty much stopped most immigration.

And don't give me that lame "freedom of speech" argument. If the government can tell me that there are certain words I cannot say over the airwaves or I'll lose my license to operate a radio station, then the government can also decree that the public airwaves are to be used for the entire public good, and some stations cannot be used fir only illegal aliens who won't learn English.

It's a freedom of press argument to begin with, as well as freedom of speech.

Just as there are restrictions on freedom of assembly when such activities result in violence and mayhem, there are restrictions on freedom of speech when that freedom is abused. The classic law school case is a person standing in a town's public square yelling obscenities and making offensive statements about passersby; it's the distinction between use of privilege and abuse of privilege.

Those who listen to Spanish language radio are not only "illegals". Just look at the radio rating; in Los Angles, for example, over 25% of listening goes to Spanish language stations. There are not 2.5 million illegal Hispanics in LA so most of the listening must be by legal residents who like music and entertainment in Spanish better than offerings in English.

And, of course, that is without taking into account that illegal residents from any nation and culture don't generally participate in surveys where they must reveal their address, identity and even income and education level. Of course, for a PPM radio study, they must also provide a Social Security number if the compensation for meter carrying exceeds the limit that requires a Form 1099. In other words, the huge listening reported in the ratings to Spanish language stations is predominantly and overwhelmingly by legal residents who prefer entertainment in Spanish.

If you look at the Italian migrations... which pretty much stopped before W. W. I... we find that in the US we had Italian programming in many markets well into the 70's and New York had two nearly fulltime Italian stations until the late 50's. Obviously, few of the listeners were recent immigrants and by the 50's most were second and even third generation Italo-Americans who enjoyed Italian music and content over other options. Those stations with Italian shows or formats did not stop the assimilation of Italians into American society... many believe they helped.

Which brings us back to the point that broadcasters have always been given the freedom to adopt the program format that seems best to them to both serve the public and to make a profit. There are huge Spanish speaking audiences in many areas of the US, and they deserve some kind of service. Broadcasters are not immigration officers, so we can't reserve the right of admission to only legal residents of the country.

Making radio programming into a Tea Party issue is just not going to work.

 

[davideduardo]

That was simply excellent advice...

In your opinion.

In my opinion it is bad advice based on distorted information and lies.

 

[davideduardo]

Frankly, I expect that there will soon be a strong, grass-roots backlash against some of the current policies of the current administration, and things might change a great deal.

It sounds like today you let your "inner Sarah Palin" come out to play.

 

[Avid Listener]

You are ignoring the First Amendment implications, which are not just about freedom of speech but also about freedom of the press.

And with the ongoing decline in newspapers and other printed material, reducing or eliminating non-English language radio would deprive communities of their voice... and action that would be politically unpopular.

Then I would counter that saying **** on the air is also about freedom of speech. If the moderators allow the seventh word in the preceding sentence to stand, then a case could be made about "freedom of speech". If they delete it, or admonish me about using it, then that demonstrates that freedom of speech is not absolute in this case. The same example applies to freedom of speech on the public airwaves. Either it exists or it doesn't. If the FCC can fine a broadcaster for allowing the seventh word in my first sentence to be broadcast over the public airwaves, then there really isn't any freedom of speech (or the press) on the radio.

As for "depriving communities of their voice", they'd still have newspapers and the freedom to peaceably assemble and talk to each other.

(Note, the seventh word in the first sentence was automatically censored by the board software. That still demonstrates my point.)

And to remind everyone once again, the topic of this thread, as defined by the anonymous lurker who started it and ran away, is this:

AM radio is approaching the graveyard. HD AM won't help.

other nations are moving AM station to FM it seems.
When will the USA do it ?

Not the second badly capitalized and typed sentences. The context of this thread is "other nations" taking action, and the question about when will the United States do the same thing. That means this thread is about government action to close down AM.

 

[davideduardo]

Then I would counter that saying **** on the air is also about freedom of speech. If the moderators allow the seventh word in the preceding sentence to stand, then a case could be made about "freedom of speech". If they delete it, or admonish me about using it, then that demonstrates that freedom of speech is not absolute in this case.

Freedom of speech guarantees under the Constitution do not extend to private property. I don't have the right to enter your residence and swear because your residence is private property. This board is private property, too. So the owners and their delegates can establish whatever policy they wish.

The same example applies to freedom of speech on the public airwaves. Either it exists or it doesn't. If the FCC can fine a broadcaster for allowing the seventh word in my first sentence to be broadcast over the public airwaves, then there really isn't any freedom of speech (or the press) on the radio.

There is no freedom of speech on the radio because station owners are allowed to set their own policies as long as they are legal and applied with equality. The FCC restrictions apply to the licensee's responsibility to conform to community standards, just as my example of a person swearing in a public square relates to the same standards.

As for "depriving communities of their voice", they'd still have newspapers and the freedom to peaceably assemble and talk to each other.

Newspapers are becoming anachronisms, and must be supported by advertising. Advertisers know that newspapers are far less effective today.

At the moment, the most practical way to give a voice to a community is a radio station. Perhaps in some years the Internet will preclude this need, but for the moment radio is a good way of serving the many different language groups in the US. Of course, you have not addressed Native American language stations and programs, and Spanish language stations in places where Spanish is the principal language (Puerto Rico and some US-Mexican border areas) or the "original" European language (Most of the Southwest).

Not the second badly capitalized and typed sentences. The context of this thread is "other nations" taking action, and the question about when will the United States do the same thing. That means this thread is about government action to close down AM.

How many nations have "closed down" AM?

In most cases, market forces have done this. Stations that were on AM have applied for FM licenses and closed the AM operations. Canada has had a policy of encouraging moves to FM and the closure of the underlying AM over the last several decades, but there are still AMs left and some new uses have been made of abandoned AM channels in larger markets. Mexico has done a fast track version beginning about 2 years ago, but there are still going to be many AMs left. In El Salvador, all the major commercial broadcasters moved to FM, but AM remains, populated by many, many evangelical and Catholic religious stations and some specialized services. In other nations, the herd has been thinned by the voluntary closure of the lesser stations while the better facilities continue to provide service and are viable economically.

In many nations, government stations have moved totally or partially to FM in places like Canada, South Africa and Austria. In others, such as Burkina Faso, government AMs have begun FM simulcasts with networks of repeaters; in these cases it is due to the fact that many nation's only commercial stations are on FM and that is where listeners have gone.

There is little to support the idea that many nations are "closing FM". Sure, there is a refocusing of their usage but that contemplates ongoing use of the band.

In this discussion, Mexico's change is rather relevant. In areas where there are significant speakers of languages other than Spanish (Mexico has, depending on how you count languages and dialects) about 120 different linguistic groups, ranging from 1.5 million Náhuatl speakers to just a few hundred for some other tongues. The move to FM by about 85% of all Mexican stations purposely left the AMs in areas where the larger of these linguistic groups live as they are predominantly rural and in areas of more rugged terrain. While no new commercial AMs can be licensed in Mexico, new native language stations can be granted.

 

[davideduardo]

(Note, the seventh word in the first sentence was automatically censored by the board software. That still demonstrates my point.)

It does no such thing. This board is private property, and First Amendment rights are tempered by that fact.

 

[landtuna]

Actually, bilingualism has worked reasonably well for Canada as a whole, since the French speaking Canadians are mostly in Quebec, and most Canadians speak both French and English.

Most Canadians speak only English.

 

[TheBigA]

Speaking a particular language is not the same thing as using an obscenity. The courts take context into account in these things.

But as I said earlier, the courts have already thrown out the FCC obscenity rules. Very likely if such rules somehow got through Congress that the courts would do the same here.

 

[FredLeonard]

English and French are both the official languages of Canada. Immigrants to Canada are required to speak one of them.

However, the Province of Quebec has gone out of its way to eliminate English from all business and government in the province, in the name of protecting the French language.

When the British took over Acadia (now Halifax, New Brunswick and PEI), they expelled the Francophones. Unfortunately, when they took over Quebec, they not only let them stay but let them keep speaking French. This decision has caused problems ever since.

 

[landtuna]

English and French are both the official languages of Canada. Immigrants to Canada are required to speak one of them.

However, the Province of Quebec has gone out of its way to eliminate English from all business and government in the province, in the name of protecting the French language.

When the British took over Acadia (now Halifax, New Brunswick and PEI), they expelled the Francophones. Unfortunately, when they took over Quebec, they not only let them stay but let them keep speaking French. This decision has caused problems ever since.

Back in the 70's (if memory serves me right) there was a movement to make Quebec entirely French. In response, a number of large businesses packed up and moved to Ontario (Sun Life of Canada sticks in my mind as one of the most prominent). This cost Quebec dearly in terms of employment and finance. It did not cause much upheaval in the remainder of Canada. Quebec has made life difficult for its own citizens but the effect upon the remainder of the nation has been minimal. The western provinces have resources that are not present in Quebec so language and customs are largely non-issues for them.

Living in New York then, I used to travel quite frequently into Quebec and Ontario then and once familiar with traffic signs in French had no significant issues. The people there almost always understood and spoke some English and although business and legal documents were required to be in French it made little difference in day to day contact. The problem it created for Quebec residents is one of isolation. If a person is limited to speaking French only they have essentially restricted themselves to the province of Quebec and immediate surrounding areas and cannot take advantage of careers that exist outside these areas. It is exactly the same as with American Indian tribes that educate their people only in their native languages. They have isolated and restricted those people to a reservation of sorts.

In North America the default language is English and anybody who wants to live and work here had better have a working knowledge of that language. There are many places where you can live satisfactorily using another language but you are limiting your opportunities and experiences by doing so.

 

[TheBigA]

In North America the default language is English and anybody who wants to live and work here had better have a working knowledge of that language. There are many places where you can live satisfactorily using another language but you are limiting your opportunities and experiences by doing so.

Putting that in the context of radio, radio reflects the community, not the other way around. People who think they can force culture or language on others by restricting radio are only hurting radio. Because the people will find what they want even if it is through illegal means. Bad laws just create criminals. We saw it with prohibition. I know of several illegal pirate radio stations that operate to serve specific cultural or ethnic communities because the legal radio stations don't. So forcing rules on radio won't change people. If that's the intent, it won't work.

 

[davideduardo]

In North America the default language is English and anybody who wants to live and work here had better have a working knowledge of that language. There are many places where you can live satisfactorily using another language but you are limiting your opportunities and experiences by doing so.

Mexico is in North America, and the "default language" is Spanish. Anyone who wants to live there and work there needs to know the language.

In the US, there have historically been many self sustaining communities of Germans, Poles, and Italians where one could live a good and prosperous life with no knowledge of English. Now, there are Spanish, Chinese, Korean and other language based communities where no knowledge of English is needed to be very prosperous.[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[Avid Listener]

Are we still talking about AM?

Seems like you guys rialed off topic & talking about Canada, French and what not

Maybe you should read all of the posts.

Mexico is in North America, and the "default language" is Spanish. Anyone who wants to live there and work there needs to know the language.

And in the year 2014, in the United States, anyone who wants to live and work here needs to know the English language. And, since the public airwaves are owned in common by the entire nation, for the good of the entire nation, they should be used to educate and inform people, including legal immigrants, in how to communicate in English. That's a prime example of broadcasting "in the public interest". Helping immigrants cling to the language (and cultures) they allegedly left behind to become Americans is not something that is "in the public interest".

If AM radio cannot broadcast "in the public interest", except to pander to aliens and immigrants who don't want to assimilate, then it would be right and proper for the government to simply pull the plug.

The illegal pirates fill the void for a large part of the community that is not well served by the licensed stations.

Haitians would be "well served" by teaching them English.

 

[davideduardo]

Putting that in the context of radio, radio reflects the community, not the other way around. People who think they can force culture or language on others by restricting radio are only hurting radio. Because the people will find what they want even if it is through illegal means.

A good example... or many of them... can be seen in the Miami MSA. There is only limited Kreyol programming on the radio, so there are numerous pirates catering to the Haitian population which numbers in the several hundreds of thousands. To most commercial stations, serving the Haitian audience is not attractive as the language and cultural differences are great and the perception of Haitians as low-income consumers is also large (not unlike the way Hispanics were viewed several decades ago).

The illegal pirates fill the void for a large part of the community that is not well served by the licensed stations.

 

[davideduardo]

And in the year 2014, in the United States, anyone who wants to live and work here needs to know the English language.

No you don't.

If you are in Puerto Rico, nearly all business and education is conducted in Spanish. If you are in Miami, you will likely be more prosperous if you know Spanish (and the average household income among Hispanics in the Miami MSA is higher than that of non-Hispanic whites).

I had a friend who passed away recently in LA. He died a multi-multi-millionaire with no English at all. He had a chain of about 50 restaurants. His second generation children stepped in and helped with the matters that required English. I can think of hundreds of such examples from Miami to Dallas to LA.

And, since the public airwaves are owned in common by the entire nation, for the good of the entire nation, they should be used to educate and inform people, including legal immigrants, in how to communicate in English.

Commercial stations are not specifically chartered to educate. Inform, maybe. Entertain, definitely. And part of doing that is to identify groups of people a station can serve and to give them good programming tailored to their preferences.

That's a prime example of broadcasting "in the public interest". Helping immigrants cling to the language (and cultures) they allegedly left behind to become Americans is not something that is "in the public interest".

What you obviously don't get is how hard it is for adults to become proficient in another language. There is a wealth of data about how language abilities decline rapidly after early adolescence and by adulthood are very difficult except for a select few.

Immigrants who come to the US to seek a better future tend to have more minimal educations and little exposure to other languages. By the time they get here, they have to work long hours and have little time to attend classes. They pick up minimal English on the job, but do not think in English and are definitely not bilingual.

And if a person is not able to think in another language, they are not going to be entertained by media in that language. "Modern Family" or "NCIS" is not entertaining to a person who can't think in English and who is also not native to the culture. But that does not mean they can not be economically assimilated and be valuable members of our society.

Anecdotally, I am not entertained by most genres of music in English, so I listen to stations that play the kind of music I like or I listen to my MP3s. I am not entertained by most sitcoms because they are culturally too distant... and thus not funny... to me because, until 20 years ago, I spent my adolescence and first half of my adult life in a Spanish speaking environment... and still speak Spanish in the home and with my children and family. I am reasonably proficient in English but in my personal life I prefer the language I am comfortable with... Spanish.

Consider that most "bilinguals" who grew up in Spanish speaking homes will see things in a manner different than you want them to.

If AM radio cannot broadcast "in the public interest", except to pander to aliens and immigrants who don't want to assimilate, then it would be right and proper for the government to simply pull the plug.

Your definition of assimilation is not on track with American history. The Italians who came to the US as immigrants did not rapidly become bilingual...that was the second generation. And they kept their customs, culture, music and entertainment long after they assimilated into American societal customs such as respect for different laws and different public behaviour. This is what we are seeing with Hispanics, who also assimilate at the same rate over multiple generations.

Again, you put too much weight on language which is not necessary for most aspects of assimilation. And you ignore the realities of language learning for adults.

Haitians would be "well served" by teaching them English.

Many of the Haitians, particularly those allowed in as political refugees, have below Junior High School educations, and they work tedious, strenuous entry level jobs. Just exactly when are they going to spend the long hours needed to even learn the most basic English?

 

[landtuna]

David,

I lived for several years in the New York area and noticed that among first immigrant generations it was the woman (mothers) of those families who quickly learned conversational English (at a minimum) because it was necessary to converse with other English speaking people. The men who generally worked in ethnic occupations tended to remain with their mother tongue and never left their original culture.

I also noticed as I got older that being submersed in a culture will drive learning of their language much, much faster than trying to learn out of a book. I saw this with my own Romanian daughters. It took one about six weeks before she could make herself understood in English and I did the same while in Japan some years ago. The other thing about learning language "on the streets" is that you learn both culture and slang along the way, neither of which is taught in language classes.

 

[mimo]

To answer a question posted a couple of pages back, yes French is a mandatory class in most of Canada. When I spent 9th grade in Vancouver, it was not a mandatory course. From Alberta east it is, up to a certain point, then it becomes an elective. In Quebec, English is a mandatory course.

And yes learning a foreign language as you get older becomes much more difficult. Over the age of 17, you won't learn a foreign language without an accent, and there are very few exceptions to that rule. I happen to be one of them. I didn't learn Spanish until in my 20's and speak with a perfect Mexican accent like you would encounter in most of central Mexico (yes even different Mexican states have differing accents).

I remember WIND Chicago having some talk programming in the 90's that did help newer immigrants with learning to live in the United States, whether it was immigration issues or other issues new and recent immigrants might encounter. I'm sure they weren't the only station helping their community to assimilate into their new home. That's one advantage to programming in foreign languages, they get the news form home plus news of their adopted country. It helps more than hinders assimilation. Imagine if you placed yourself in a country different from your own. You'd want something from home, just to feel more comfortable.

 

[davideduardo]

I lived for several years in the New York area and noticed that among first immigrant generations it was the woman (mothers) of those families who quickly learned conversational English (at a minimum) because it was necessary to converse with other English speaking people. The men who generally worked in ethnic occupations tended to remain with their mother tongue and never left their original culture.

That's totally different than my experiences with Hispanic groups ranging from New York and Miami to Chicago to Dallas to the West Coast. The woman was more likely to be in the home and in the neighborhood, and if they lived in a "barrio" the opportunities for coming in contact with non-Spanish speakers was minimal.

The men would be in the workforce, and generally had to deal with both English and Spanish speakers, so they picked up "occupational Spanish".

In Miami, there was never any stigma to speaking Spanish, so among the first generation, there was no incentive to learn English.

I also noticed as I got older that being submersed in a culture will drive learning of their language much, much faster than trying to learn out of a book. I saw this with my own Romanian daughters. It took one about six weeks before she could make herself understood in English and I did the same while in Japan some years ago. The other thing about learning language "on the streets" is that you learn both culture and slang along the way, neither of which is taught in language classes.]

It's very different with children and early adolescents. Language learning becomes much slower and harder as one approaches adulthood. There is also the issue of being ridiculed for not speaking well, which does not exist in a family environment.

 

[davideduardo]

I remember WIND Chicago having some talk programming in the 90's that did help newer immigrants with learning to live in the United States, whether it was immigration issues or other issues new and recent immigrants might encounter.

That would have been in the period when I was responsible for the programming of WIND. We did similar programs on a number of stations in the group that directly or indirectly helped people understand the system, immigration issues and things like buying something on credit, credit scores and all that kind of thing. We were quite proud of that effort, too.

I'm sure they weren't the only station helping their community to assimilate into their new home.

Yes, many stations incorporated these issues into regular programming, even in music shows. Having an immigration expert of a personal finance advisor or a doctor on a "morning zoo" type show was not unusual, and shows the cultural differences.

That's one advantage to programming in foreign languages, they get the news form home plus news of their adopted country. It helps more than hinders assimilation. Imagine if you placed yourself in a country different from your own. You'd want something from home, just to feel more comfortable.

It certainly helps, and makes people feel more at ease when "they have a friend on the radio". In my case, I got to Ecuador in '64, alone, and with no media of any kind in English. Time magazine arrived a month late, and foreign newspapers cost $5 and were only to be found at the luxury hotels. Most of the few English speakers were at the US Embassy or various CIA cover organizations, and I stayed far away from them. While that certainly forced me to assimilate, it was much more difficult than if I had a little more of a familiar environment. On the other hand, had I been any older, I would not have lasted there...

 

[davideduardo]

And yes learning a foreign language as you get older becomes much more difficult. Over the age of 17, you won't learn a foreign language without an accent, and there are very few exceptions to that rule. I happen to be one of them. I didn't learn Spanish until in my 20's and speak with a perfect Mexican accent like you would encounter in most of central Mexico (yes even different Mexican states have differing accents). .

I'm assuming that you already spoke both French and English? Learning additional languages is considered much easier for bilinguals than for monolinguals once in adulthood. One of my daughters, who was a polygolot (English Spanish and Portuguese) had no difficulty picking up French when she got accepted in a post graduate course in Paris, and then acquired German and Italian under similar circumstances... all when she was over 20.