Rush Limbaugh to host Trump in "virtual rally"

[davideduardo]

From the FCC website at https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting#OBJECTIONABLE

Political Broadcasting: Candidates for Public Office. In recognition of the vital role that broadcasting plays in the electoral process, the Communications Act and the Commission’s rules impose specific obligations on broadcasters regarding political advertising

• Reasonable Access. Section 312(a)(7) of the Communications Act and Section 73.1943 of the Commission’s rules require commercial broadcast stations to provide reasonable access to candidates for federal elective office. This means that commercial television and radio stations must allow legally qualified federal candidates to purchase reasonable amounts of broadcast time throughout their campaigns in all dayparts (i.e., in all parts of the broadcast day), including television prime time and radio drive time. The right bestowed upon federal candidates to purchase broadcast time is not absolute. Stations may take into account certain factors in determining whether a request to purchase broadcast time is reasonable. Reasonable access does not extend to state and local candidates, and stations have discretion whether to accept or refuse requests for the purchase of broadcast time by candidates running in state and local elections.
• Equal Opportunities. Section 315(a) of the Communications Act and Section 73.1941 of the Commission’s rules require that if a station allows a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use its facilities (i.e., make a positive identifiable appearance on the air for at least four seconds), it must give equal opportunities to all other candidates for that office to also use the station. Equal opportunities apply to all commercial and non-commercial stations, as well as all legally qualified candidates for public office (federal, state, and local) throughout their campaigns. Stations are prohibited from censoring ads that are paid for or sponsored by legally qualified candidates and their authorized organizations. As a consequence, stations are protected from liability if these ads contain defamatory material. Certain news-related programs are exempt from equal opportunities. Therefore, an appearance by a legally qualified candidate on a bona fide newscast, regularly scheduled bona fide news interview program, certain documentaries, and on–the–spot coverage of a bona fide news event (including debates and political conventions) does not trigger equal opportunities for opposing candidates.

 

[TheBigA]

As long as a sitting office holder can justify that a press conference or activity was related to the office they hold, there is a tenuous but reasonable position for radio and TV stations to consider that equal opportunity is not required.

"Tenuous" is a good word. It's whatever you can get away with. Under that same concept, he's using the DOJ and taxpayer money to defend himself against rape charges.

This is also how people justify cheating on their taxes. All the time you & I spend talking about radio on a computer message board is a tax deduction. The time I spend, the tools I use, and the building I do it in all can be reasonably used as a job related tax deduction.

 

[TheBigA]

Therefore, an appearance by a legally qualified candidate on a bona fide newscast, regularly scheduled bona fide news interview program, certain documentaries, and on–the–spot coverage of a bona fide news event (including debates and political conventions) does not trigger equal opportunities for opposing candidates.

This is also why any complaints the president's supporters have about news coverage on MSNBC or CNN is invalid. The fact is they spend 95% of their time talking about the president. Most of it isn't complimentary, but legally that doesn't matter. He gets more coverage than his opponent because he's the one in power. He's an expert in turning a disadvantage into an advantage. He claims the media is biased against him, but just saying that fires his base, and gets more coverage on the very media he's complaining about. If they really were biased, they'd ignore him.

 

[Tibbs4]

This is also why any complaints the president's supporters have about news coverage on MSNBC or CNN is invalid. The fact is they spend 95% of their time talking about the president. Most of it isn't complimentary, but legally that doesn't matter. He gets more coverage than his opponent because he's the one in power. He's an expert in turning a disadvantage into an advantage. He claims the media is biased against him, but just saying that fires his base, and gets more coverage on the very media he's complaining about. If they really were biased, they'd ignore him.

This has been a very interesting discussion. Sounds like you see there is, for a better word, a "pattern" that is likely to ensure another four years? I am certainly not sure of a Trump victory. It does make me ask the question of how similar coverages of Clinton, Bush and Obama would have "favored" the president over the opposing candidate and the influence of actual voting numbers.

Interestingly enough, all of this discussion should be framed around the fact that radio and TV now has such a small piece of consumers attention, when compared to social media, that all the freedoms or all the rules to allow ownership limits or not, or equal time consideration or not, are relics of a different time and are of little concern to the average voter and how they are influenced. Interesting also that this could be said for how the radio dial sounds in 2020 vs. previous years or decades prior to the internet options. If a radio tower falls in the woods, will anyone hear it or notice it's gone?

 

[TheBigA]

Interestingly enough, all of this discussion should be framed around the fact that radio and TV now has such a small piece of consumers attention, when compared to social media, that all the freedoms or all the rules to allow ownership limits or not, or equal time consideration or not, are relics of a different time and are of little concern to the average voter and how they are influenced.

Interesting also that the ruling party seeks to put those same kinds of controls on social media. Under the guise of "freedom of speech."

 

[Tibbs4]

Both candidates, and their vice-presidents, have made pleas to curb/stop attacks and comments to hurt the other side. I think it's the new American social media universal and you have to wonder if cable/tv news outlets are not behind the curtain attempting to lessen the impact and time spent viewing of social media, as well. They stand to be most hurt.

I know this throws off the discussion, BigA. Are you in favor of any "social media" censorships that have recently played out? Sometimes, I have to scratch my head and say that people in America are smart enough to see through the bull. But, now it is so muddy and people are literally fatigued by so many comments about politics and candidates. The "truth" is often impossible to determine.

I had to deal with an online radio post/comment issue the other day from a person that I know and like who posted a self-created photo of a Trump voodoo doll complete with pins and the words "does Belmont University have a grassy knoll?" It was an attempt at humor and while he obviously doesn't support Trump, it was not intended as an actual threat. But, it didn't take long for it to be taken as a threat against a president and he will indeed be dealing with the ramifications. How would you have handled such a post on FB and what would you say of his error in judgment vs. freedom to post?

 

[TheBigA]

I know this throws off the discussion, BigA. Are you in favor of any "social media" censorships that have recently played out?

Let's put it this way: When the party of big business and deregulation is instead attacking big business and promoting new regulations, that's when my BS meter goes off.

If you believe in less government, that also should apply when you personally don't like the company. What's fair is fair.

The president doesn't want the government interfering in his business. I should get the same treatment if I run Twitter or Facebook.

 

[Tibbs4]

Let's put it this way: When the party of big business and deregulation is instead attacking big business and promoting new regulations, that's when my BS meter goes off.

If you believe in less government, that also should apply when you personally don't like the company. What's fair is fair.

The president doesn't want the government interfering in his business. I should get the same treatment if I run Twitter or Facebook.

Totally agree! 200%. I have various businesses and it is amazing to see so many people literally give the government a list of ways to bust themselves through insane rules and regulations in the attempt to level the playing field.
This is one situation that I would have never believed possible - the government is now fighting something "bigger" than itself for control of the people. Our government in America may well fall by being overthrown by the keyboard.

 

[vchimpanzee]

I had to deal with an online radio post/comment issue the other day from a person that I know and like who posted a self-created photo of a Trump voodoo doll complete with pins and the words "does Belmont University have a grassy knoll?" It was an attempt at humor and while he obviously doesn't support Trump, it was not intended as an actual threat. But, it didn't take long for it to be taken as a threat against a president and he will indeed be dealing with the ramifications. How would you have handled such a post on FB and what would you say of his error in judgment vs. freedom to post?

I actually saw a newspaper article about a teenager accused of wanting to kill Biden.

 

[CTListener]

I actually saw a newspaper article about a teenager accused of wanting to kill Biden.

Many people have seen that story, in newspapers, online, and on TV news.

 

[Dondd]

I had to deal with an online radio post/comment issue the other day from a person that I know and like who posted a self-created photo of a Trump voodoo doll complete with pins and the words "does Belmont University have a grassy knoll?" It was an attempt at humor and while he obviously doesn't support Trump, it was not intended as an actual threat. But, it didn't take long for it to be taken as a threat against a president and he will indeed be dealing with the ramifications. How would you have handled such a post on FB and what would you say of his error in judgment vs. freedom to post?

Social media is media.
No one has the right to go into a radio or TV station and DEMAND the station carry them as a show, just as no one has the right to demand a newspaper or magazine give them a column or space.