Trust me, I have much bigger issues with WBEN than someone sharing on social media an interview that has a dirty word in it.
And I agree, WBFO is far better.
-
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
WBEN is a disgrace
- Thread starter flybynight
- Start date
Trust me, I have much bigger issues with WBEN than someone sharing on social media an interview that has a dirty word in it.
And I agree, WBFO is far better.
This is a great point. I've long though some of these stations could play farting noises 24x7 and still get ratings. I think some people just don't know how to tune anywhere else. Have long wondered if some of these stations had stuck with a more full service approach instead of full on talk if the ratings would have held up for that reason (maybe they would have lost what were then the younger listeners in the '90's though). Of course with news/talk programming it is a lot easier to put in more commercials cause it is just more talking and blends in more.
Old habits die hard I suppose.
Indeed they do. But a number of 45-64 year olds tune the station. It's where they get their red meat. They believe it's the station that "gives the finger" to liberals, progressives, the status quo and the rest of the rational citizenry.
Here's a very serious question to consider, if Biden wins the election, will the local and national hosts call for insurrection or will they advocate a peaceful, traditional transfer of power. The path chosen will be the tell as to the station's responsibility to the community and the rule of law. If the hosts in any way, shape or form support insurrection or militias to interfere with the vote count or peaceful transfer of power, the license should be pulled. To undermine the rule of law would truly be, as the title of this thread notes, "a disgrace."
With all the blathering about TOP I honestly don't think it will be the big deal the media is making it out to be. TOP is something bigger than one person. It WILL happen.
The more realistic question is how many riots will we see no matter who wins. I'm bracing for a ton of them.
They could also be criminally charged with inciting violence.
Who will press those charges? Trump won't even condemn the plot to kidnap the Michigan Governor. Radio won't police itself.
Right Wing Talk Radio will rail against non existent voter fraud if Trump loses. That's the problem with Alternative Facts (Lies). People are living in a twisted reality when they listen to Limbaugh vitriol...
Yours is a very serious and valid observation.
It should be noted that the balance of commissioners of the FCC weighs in favor of the current administration. As such, it's quite likely that the words of Limbaugh, Hannity (now on WLVL) and local talk show hosts will be defended as free speech, rather than held accountable for inciting turmoil, resulting in fines to the licensee or revoking a license.
It's my hope that the seriously offered question posed in my earlier post does not force this thread into oblivion. This is a serious issue as it connects radio to governance (above politics) and the responsibility of broadcasters, as individuals and ownership to uphold the rule of law.
Many of us remember the chaos brought forth by Bush v Gore, and the maelstrom whipped up by Limbaugh and other local talk show hosts, many of whom did not understand the intricacies of the count, the ruling of the Florida Courts and the (5-4) ruling of the Supreme Court as it pertained to counting votes in Florida. An awareness of history is essential.
More than a few historians and policy experts (notice I did not write political experts) have offered the opinion that the transfer of power, should it be the will of the voters, will be contested; in the streets and in courts. The courts will be looked to in order to weigh judgment, as we have already seen with cases involving Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and North Carolina. Talk radio, in this case WBEN, will be a sounding board and serve as either call to chaos in the streets, or a call to reason under rule of law as decided by the courts.
I'm not sure that the FCC would have a role in such a decision. Typically the FCC stays out of programming matters unless they violate obscenity rules. Local police, on the other hand, could be involved.
The FCC will never get involved in deciding the veracity of claims heard all over talkradio. However that is exactly where radio ownership has failed this nation.
There is no way that managers locally, regionally or nationally don't realize the incredibly dubious nature of the material being espoused daily on talkradio coast to coast. They could've kept their hosts honest, but let go of the reins.
There was always that lunatic fringe/conspiracy nut contingency in that audience, but they became increasingly catered to, so that we now have the inmates basically running the asylum. There are layers upon layers of misinformation going back more than a generation now. Many of those core listeners are irretrievably down a rabbit hole that talkradio allowed to be dug.
It wasn't necessary. It was the result of sheer laziness and a lack of integrity.
Seems hard to blame radio when the real problem is a whole lot bigger. Radio could go away, and the problem would remain.
One thing is to regulate claims of advertisers. But to try to control free speech is not going to be possible, starting with our Constitution.
Trying to make a claim against radio, TV or the press (print or electronic) always borders on the First Amendment, and will bring out all kinds of volunteer attorneys and free press organizations as well as civil right defenders. I don't think the local DA would let such a case progress unless someone was on the air very directly saying to harm someone or destroy property.
And the voices who say such things will claim they were not correctly interpreted.
"I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him" is a famous public address where it appears Marc Antony is supporting the murder of Caesar but he actually incites the crowd against the conspirators he lead. In the case of a talk host, all they have to say is that what they say is an allegory or a figure of speech. It's terribly hard to prove abuse of freedom of speech.
Talk Radio has certainly fanned the flames for the past 20 years. Civil discourse was replaced by the echo chamber of warped reality. It's true that the vitriol also exists on social media, but Radio has done damage by encouraging division. The Limbaugh worshippers are a lost cause.
"Free Speech" doesn't mean freedom from consequences. There are limitations on irresponsible or reckless actions
(Yelling Fire in a Theatre). You can verbally abuse your boss, but you may lose your job. Some Radio hosts have been terminated for "Moral Turpitude" violations...
All this hand-wringing over WBEN is simply silly. Yes, it reaches some listeners. How many people hang on its every word and are likely to act based the inflammatory statements of wingnut hosts? Dozens? Hundreds? Sheesh. There are Facebook groups bigger than that who are much more vehement (and demented). They're way more dangerous than WBEN.
Freedom of Speech is a tenet of our Constitution. If you don't believe in that, you only believe the the right of free speech for those who agree with you. That's not freedom, that's propaganda, 1984, government control, and totalitarianism. The intolerance of those preaching "tolerance" never ceases to amaze me.
Freedom of Speech is a tenet of our Constitution. If you don't believe in that, you only believe the the right of free speech for those who agree with you. That's not freedom, that's propaganda, 1984, government control, and totalitarianism. The intolerance of those preaching "tolerance" never ceases to amaze me.
The constitutional "freedom of speech" does not apply to private property. At work, you are not guaranteed freedom of speech... your kids at home do not have that guarantee, either. Any consequences of not behaving are not a "free speech" issue as there was no free speech in those private places to begin with.
And, unless you threaten imminent harm to others, you definitely can say whatever you want in public places.
Try it out sometime. Go scream insults at someone. You can say what you want, but there may be consequences like getting beat up or shot.
Boot Hill is filled with guys who "Said Stuff" and lost the fast draw...
You can even come on discussion forums and "Say Stuff", no matter how inane. You may draw the ire, eyerolls, or derision of other posters, however.
Remember ... the U.S. Constitution is a set of rules for how the Government will operate. It is only about the Government, not the citizens.
As said by Frank, freedom of expression is about government, not the action of other people.
All the First guarantees is that the government will not forbid or prohibit free expression in public places. National, state and local lawmakers can regulate how this applies. For example, a public library is a public place, but its purpose does not allow for giving speeches, carrying placards and the like so the government limits such. But on the corner, outside, you can hold a rally. But if the rally is so big it endangers passersby, then you may need a permit. And so on.
Freedom has rules.
- Status