WMFE/Orlando sold to Univ. of Cent. Florida; big PBS switch to be reversed

[nathannah]

All I have to say about this is that the brain trust at Community Communications in Orlando should've probably just done this in the first place; they would've avoided the publicity hit of trying (and failing) to sell to Daystar, and pretty much making their station a non-factor airing V-me under automation for a year. Basically, they're selling their station to the University of Central Florida, a move everyone in Orlando wanted in the first place when WMFE put the station up for sale. UCF currently programs the market's PBS station on WBCC Cocoa, which has the false calls WUCF-TV, and that deal will likely end as WUCF takes over the WMFE assets (everything but the studio building).

So, WMFE will become the real WUCF and Channel 24 gets PBS back, WBCC goes back to being a secondary PBS affiliate, everyone gets to reset their PBS DVR season passes again, and both WMFE and Daystar look like complete idiots for putting the market through a year-long detour of PBS to another channel.

 

[dhett]

and both WMFE and Daystar look like complete idiots for putting the market through a year-long detour of PBS to another channel.

I haven't been able to follow the events of the attempted sale of WMFE to Daystar, and didn't even know that it had fallen through. I just took some time to read the comments filed to the FCC concerning the sale, mostly from WMFE donors upset that the transaction took place without them even knowing that the station was having financial troubles, and correspondence from and to the FCC regarding the sale. Only eight comments were published by the FCC; they claim to have received 530 comments in opposition, many questioning Daystar's eligibility to buy the station.

As far as I can tell, Daystar attempted to buy the station, but the FCC raised questions about ownership and the nature of the programming that don't appear to have been raised in previous attempts by Daystar to buy NCE stations. Two days after the FCC sent the letter of inquiry to Daystar, the seller, CCI, informed the FCC that they were exercising their right to cancel the sale. Daystar never had a chance to respond to the FCC's inquiry.

Station sales fall through all the time and for various reasons - how does this make Daystar look like an idiot? I'm curious to know why you think so.

 

[nathannah]

and both WMFE and Daystar look like complete idiots for putting the market through a year-long detour of PBS to another channel.

Station sales fall through all the time and for various reasons - how does this make Daystar look like an idiot? I'm curious to know why you think so.

Because they attempted a purchase they knew would raise hackles in the community and went along with WMFE's inept general manager in pushing through the sale despite everyone in Orlando trying to find a Plan B for them before WMFE ended PBS carriage. The near same thing happened with KOCE in Orange County/LA a few years back and had that went through without the brokered agreement to go on DT3, with KCET dumping them, PBS would have had to stitch something together with the LAUSD's station. The situation they had in Waco was also questionable, and with all of the ways to get must-carry on cable these days through broadcast via subchannel, surely there was a better way to get a bigger Orlando presence.

Instead, they went with a broadcaster with no backup plan and declining support in the Orlando community. At this point being a V-me robot, WMFE was lucky to get $3 million from CFU.

 

[azumanga]

Speaking of Waco -- anything new regarding KDYW (KWBU)? Apparently, they haven't signed back on under Daystar (or anyone else). The way things are going, either the station will end up being sold to another party (just like WMFE-TV), or worst case, have its license cancelled.

Personally, if that station was brought back to the block, I would like to see KNCT buy it -- after all, it was them who introduced channel 34 into Waco as a LPTV.

 

[dhett]

Daystar buying any existing NCE station that was owned by a secular organization would raise hackles. There are many people who just flat-out don't want any religious organizations owning and running television stations. The public didn't own WMFE and still doesn't, but if the donors had a problem with CCI putting the station up for sale, that's a reflection on CCI, not Daystar. If I'm Daystar, I wouldn't feel bad at all because some people objected to my purchasing a station. There were 530 complaints to the FCC, some of which consisted of no more than people who didn't like the fact that a religious organization was buying the station. If they had mobilized the church population, Daystar could have easily persuaded people to submit even more comments in favor of the purchase. As it is, the FCC only mentioned that there were 530 objections; they never gave the number of supportive comments that were filed. What had hurt Daystar is that they had never filed responses to any of the objections - CCI did, but not Daystar.

RE: Waco, the questions raised against Daystar for WMFE were also raised against KDYW, and that sale was even more questionable, because although four of the six board members who would have bought WMFE were clearly from the Orlando area (Marcus and Joni Lamb were the other two), and some, quite prominent, such as Stephen Strang, owner of Strang Communications, publisher and former editor of some of the largest Christian magazines, the FCC couldn't verify that the four KDYW board members purported to be local were actually from the Waco area - again, with the Lambs making up the other two board members. To date, Daystar has not responded to the FCC's inquiry, putting the sale of that station at risk.

As for KOCE, Daystar got screwed on that deal. They had the largest cash bid, which was the criterion for winning, but Coast Community College District changed the rules so that KOCE-TV Foundation could win the bid. The courts ruled the sale illegal. I believe that it was blatant anti-religious discrimination. KOCE-TV's Wikipedia article has an accurate description of what happened, with reliably-sourced references.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth.

 

[nickp]

WUCF stepped into the void and serviced the area after station manager Jose Fajardo (and the board) decided to “sell” WMFE-TV and leave Orlando without a PBS outlet

 

[TexasTom]

Daystar buying any existing NCE station that was owned by a secular organization would raise hackles. There are many people who just flat-out don't want any religious organizations owning and running television stations.

There are nuances to these situations -- I think that the more accurate statement is that "many people don't want religious organizations owning and running non-commercial television stations", because that seems to be the situation that really stirs people up. Compare the level of controversy over KOCE and WMFE to the response when religious organizations have bought commercial stations, such as WGTW in Philadelphia. I don't recall the same level of upset over that sale.

Aside from that, it seems that whenever a public TV station gets sold to a non-public TV operation, that stirs people up. So to some extent this isn't limited to just sales to religious organizations. The example that I think of is an old one, which was the sale of Tacoma's KCPQ-TV to Kelly Broadcasting in 1979. This was a public TV station owned by a school district that operated on a commercial channel...and had only been on that channel for three years at the time that the sale was proposed (the station had previously been a commercial independent as KTVW). Nonetheless, local community groups were quite incensed by the sale, and ended up delaying it for a year. While the sale did ultimately get approved by the FCC, Kelly Broadcasting also ended up paying a significant sum of money to support public TV in Tacoma in order to get opponents to drop threatened appeals.

Today, of course, the station serves as Seattle's Fox affiliate...but at the time, the sale was very controversial.

 

[dhett]

Daystar buying any existing NCE station that was owned by a secular organization would raise hackles. There are many people who just flat-out don't want any religious organizations owning and running television stations.

There are nuances to these situations -- I think that the more accurate statement is that "many people don't want religious organizations owning and running non-commercial television stations", because that seems to be the situation that really stirs people up. Compare the level of controversy over KOCE and WMFE to the response when religious organizations have bought commercial stations, such as WGTW in Philadelphia. I don't recall the same level of upset over that sale.

You are absolutely correct: religious organizations buying commercial stations doesn't raise the blood pressure as much as them buying non-commercial stations, although I still read people whining and moaning over WGTW even today. Still, I stand by my statement that there are those who don't want religious organizations owning any stations.

The thing is, non-commercial is non-commercial, whether religious or secular. There's no reason why a religious organization shouldn't have the same right to buy an NCE station than any other non-profit organization. A Daystar station devotes more time to educational programs than any PBS station. Although some in this forum have argued that religious instruction isn't education, it most certainly is. One doesn't have to agree with it - I don't always - and it may not be for everybody, but it's still education. Saying that a secular organization has a right to own an NCE station but a religious organization doesn't is - in the words of one songwriter - "a religious apartheid". It's discrimination, period.

Let me say here that the Crouches and the Lambs don't make it easy for me to maintain my position - there's a lot of corruption there that needs to be rooted out, and in both cases, that's actually happening. And all of the religious networks need to focus more on promoting local ministries in each community, but "non-commercial" still must apply to all non-commercial, non-profit organizations.

 

[EricStein]

You are absolutely correct: religious organizations buying commercial stations doesn't raise the blood pressure as much as them buying non-commercial stations, although I still read people whining and moaning over WGTW even today. Still, I stand by my statement that there are those who don't want religious organizations owning any stations.

I really didn't think there was much outrage over the sale of WGTW, given it was a low-rated independent station. Nothing was said when Daystar purchased WMAK in Knoxville, since that was a struggling station as well. Now, if it was the case of one of them buying a station that once had some kind of history behind it (let's say San Francisco's struggling KRON), there might be a negative reaction from a majority of the public.

 

[sdwulfdawg]

As for KOCE, Daystar got screwed on that deal. They had the largest cash bid, which was the criterion for winning, but Coast Community College District changed the rules so that KOCE-TV Foundation could win the bid. The courts ruled the sale illegal. I believe that it was blatant anti-religious discrimination. KOCE-TV's Wikipedia article has an accurate description of what happened, with reliably-sourced references.

It makes me sick how these so-called "religious broadcasters" get some kind of break in terms of taxation and living under "non-commercial" rules.

The Daystars and TBNs of the world are commercial television time brokers who live off the profits of the unwary shutins who buy the gooble-de-gook of nothing being purveyed by the Jimmy Swaggarts, Jon Osteens, Pat and Jan Crouches, Benny Hinns, of the world who pocket the money for a luxurious lifestyle tax-free all in the name of religion. They have way too much money to build super duper television and broadcast transmission facilities peddling "Jeeeeeezus."

If a television station wants to claim a status as a "religious broadcaster" they should, 1) be required to present a full schedule of belief systems not just Christianity. They should be required to seek out and present Muslims, Buddhists, Judaism, Hindus, based on local DMA census data within their broadcast schedule. There needs to be a VERY SERIOUS accountability of how funds are collected and serious accounting and reporting standards.

 

[dhett]

The Daystars and TBNs of the world are commercial television time brokers who live off the profits of the unwary shutins who buy the gooble-de------- of nothing being purveyed...

That's a tired old generalization that you couldn't possibly prove accurate. I doubt very much that more than a few people contributing to such ministries are unwary or shutins. Certainly the people I do know that contribute, or had contributed, are neither. Instead, they contribute above and beyond what they give to their local church. I tend to believe that you would find that the economic demographic of religious broadcast contributors very closely parallels that of PBS contributors. Nobody's being wronged here.

If a television station wants to claim a status as a "religious broadcaster" they should, 1) be required to present a full schedule of belief systems not just Christianity. They should be required to seek out and present Muslims, Buddhists, Judaism, Hindus, based on local DMA census data within their broadcast schedule.

And who would enforce that? The government? That would run afoul of the Constitution, something that, based on your previous posts, I'm surprised that you would favor.

There needs to be a VERY SERIOUS accountability of how funds are collected and serious accounting and reporting standards.

You'll get no argument from me - we are in complete agreement there. But, again, let's do that for all non-profits and not just single out religious institutions. I have a funny feeling that a lot of PBS member organizations wouldn't fare so well under such scrutiny, either. It doesn't look like CCI, the former licensee of WMFE, was doing such a good job handling donations either.

 

[sdwulfdawg]

The Daystars and TBNs of the world are commercial television time brokers who live off the profits of the unwary shutins who buy the gooble-de------- of nothing being purveyed...

That's a tired old generalization that you couldn't possibly prove accurate. I doubt very much that more than a few people contributing to such ministries are unwary or shutins. Certainly the people I do know that contribute, or had contributed, are neither. Instead, they contribute above and beyond what they give to their local church. I tend to believe that you would find that the economic demographic of religious broadcast contributors very closely parallels that of PBS contributors. Nobody's being wronged here.

If a television station wants to claim a status as a "religious broadcaster" they should, 1) be required to present a full schedule of belief systems not just Christianity. They should be required to seek out and present Muslims, Buddhists, Judaism, Hindus, based on local DMA census data within their broadcast schedule.

And who would enforce that? The government? That would run afoul of the Constitution, something that, based on your previous posts, I'm surprised that you would favor.

There needs to be a VERY SERIOUS accountability of how funds are collected and serious accounting and reporting standards.

You'll get no argument from me - we are in complete agreement there. But, again, let's do that for all non-profits and not just single out religious institutions. I have a funny feeling that a lot of PBS member organizations wouldn't fare so well under such scrutiny, either. It doesn't look like CCI, the former licensee of WMFE, was doing such a good job handling donations either.

How can you say that? I very much doubt that someone who enjoys Nova, Nature, Masterpiece Theater or Great Performances, is going to be in the same league who believes the absolute crap driveling from the mouth of these so-called "pastors" or charlatans.

The IRS puts severe restrictions on churches on what can be uttered from a pulpit if they want to maintain their non-profit status. (Churches, anyway, need to be taxed as giving them a break is unconstitutional as it is a violation of the separation of church/state...in my opinion.)

 

[dhett]

The Daystars and TBNs of the world are commercial television time brokers who live off the profits of the unwary shutins who buy the gooble-de------- of nothing being purveyed...

That's a tired old generalization that you couldn't possibly prove accurate. I doubt very much that more than a few people contributing to such ministries are unwary or shutins. Certainly the people I do know that contribute, or had contributed, are neither. Instead, they contribute above and beyond what they give to their local church. I tend to believe that you would find that the economic demographic of religious broadcast contributors very closely parallels that of PBS contributors. Nobody's being wronged here.

How can you say that? I very much doubt that someone who enjoys Nova, Nature, Masterpiece Theater or Great Performances, is going to be in the same league who believes the absolute crap driveling from the mouth of these so-called "pastors" or charlatans.

The IRS puts severe restrictions on churches on what can be uttered from a pulpit if they want to maintain their non-profit status. (Churches, anyway, need to be taxed as giving them a break is unconstitutional as it is a violation of the separation of church/state...in my opinion.)

I can say that because it's true. You seem to have this opinion that the religious are uneducated and uncultured, and completely lacking in intellectual curiosity. In truth, the religious are a cross-section of the population in general, with all sorts of interests and avocations. Some are narrow-minded and bigoted, only spouting what they're told, others approach new ideas with an open mind and carefully weigh them against the Scriptures, and most fall somewhere in between. Likewise, Christian television isn't much different than secular television: some junk, some nonsense, but some that is actually good. As with all television programs, one man's trash is another man's treasure. Another thread on this board discusses British programs on American TV, touching mostly on the Britcoms that air on PBS; I don't care for them. The same is true of shows like Antiques Roadshow - I find it a complete waste of TV time, but others love the show. I watch shows like American Experience, Frontline, Nova, Nature, The McLaughlin Group (which many abhor), and Arizona Horizon, but also find interesting ministers such as Joel O'Steen, Creflo Dollar (that was his given name at birth), Joseph Prince, and several others. Do I like everything I hear? No, but I know enough to separate the good from the bad. But if your opinion is formed only from generalizations, you'll never understand that.

As far as taxation, you have a right to hold your opinion, but it's inconsistent with conservative thought. By the way you phrase your opinion, you're telling me that the government has a right to the money, and when something is not taxed, it's a "break" handed out by a magnanimous government that is doing religion a favor. Conservatism tells me that the opposite is true: the money belongs to the people, and government levies taxes by permission of the people. In return, the people are entitled to representation in government. The principle of "separation of Church and State" means that the government does not have power over the church, meaning they do not have a right to tax the church, nor does the church have a right to official representation within government. Furthermore, to state that a secular non-profit organization should not be taxed, while a religious non-profit organization should be, is to advocate a double standard, a concept that should be anathema to a true conservative.

 

[sdwulfdawg]

Excellent points, Dave!

You're fun to debate!

 

[dhett]

Taking you at face value, thank you.

And thank you for challenging me to think - I hope I did the same.

 

[Nate Wesley]

A Daystar station devotes more time to educational programs than any PBS station.

Proof?

 

[dhett]

A Daystar station devotes more time to educational programs than any PBS station.

Proof?

Most PBS stations have their Britcoms and other general entertainment shows, such as Austin City Limits. As far as I know, Daystar airs no such shows. Their entire schedule is some form of religious instruction. If you have proof to the contrary, I'd be happy to take a look.

Self-correct: I think Daystar does air weekly musical specials from the Gaithers, but add PBS's Doo-Wop specials, and I think you will still find the percentage of general entertainment programming to be higher on PBS than on Daystar.

 

[Nate Wesley]

A Daystar station devotes more time to educational programs than any PBS station.

Proof?

Most PBS stations have their Britcoms and other general entertainment shows, such as Austin City Limits. As far as I know, Daystar airs no such shows. Their entire schedule is some form of religious instruction. If you have proof to the contrary, I'd be happy to take a look.

Self-correct: I think Daystar does air weekly musical specials from the Gaithers, but add PBS's Doo-Wop specials, and I think you will still find the percentage of general entertainment programming to be higher on PBS than on Daystar.

I wasn't sure how to respond to this until I remembered something else you said in the same post I quoted:

Although some in this forum have argued that religious instruction isn't education, it most certainly is. One doesn't have to agree with it - I don't always - and it may not be for everybody, but it's still education.

I took the time to look at Daystar's programming list, even clicking through to many of the sites of the hosts. 'Religious instruction' isn't a bad description, actually. But to equate it with the educational programming on PBS is a little...problematic. (Strangely, this very subject has come up lately.) To the point that Daystar's shows have educational value, they're aimed toward a very tight niche of people--and that slate wouldn't replace what most people expect out of stations owned by states and universities. Would Nova ever air on Daystar? Can we expect Neil deGrasse Tyson as a guest?

In the broadest sense of what is usually meant by 'educational television', I don't think anyone objective would say Daystar has more of it.

 

[w9wi]

In the broadest sense of what is usually meant by 'educational television', I don't think anyone objective would say Daystar has more of it.

The FCC would, having clearly stated they feel religion is a valid subject for an "educational" station to educate on. I attended a church school, and we attended classes on religion, conducted on the same basis as the math, reading, and science classes, graded the same way; classes we had to pass to go on to the next grade, just like any other subject. It may not be a part of *every* American's education, but it is a part of *many* Americans' educations.

IMHO we need both religious and "traditional" educational stations in the mix. They complement each other.

 

[dhett]

I took the time to look at Daystar's programming list, even clicking through to many of the sites of the hosts. 'Religious instruction' isn't a bad description, actually. But to equate it with the educational programming on PBS is a little...problematic. (Strangely, this very subject has come up lately.) To the point that Daystar's shows have educational value, they're aimed toward a very tight niche of people--and that slate wouldn't replace what most people expect out of stations owned by states and universities. Would Nova ever air on Daystar? Can we expect Neil deGrasse Tyson as a guest?

In the broadest sense of what is usually meant by 'educational television', I don't think anyone objective would say Daystar has more of it.

I think you both understate the intent of Daystar programming and overstate that of PBS. To say that Daystar's programming is "aimed toward a very tight niche of people" ignores its evangelical intent. When I say, "religious instruction", I don't mean instruction aimed solely at the religious, I mean instruction in religious principles that is aimed at all - believer and unbeliever alike. The fact that very few people actually watch it doesn't change its intent as programming to the general audience. Ask NBC about that. Likewise, both PBS apologists and critics state that PBS is, in fact, intended as niche programming. Proponents claim that government funding of PBS is needed because its programming consists of shows that, due to limited audience, would never make it on commercial television. Meanwhile, opponents claim that its programming is just aimed at rich, white people. As a PBS critic, I wouldn't go so far as to agree with that claim, but if you look at their schedule, aside from the children's programming, PBS fare does tend to be designed to appeal to a middle- to upper-class audience, and there isn't a lot out there that one would immediately associate with minority populations in the U.S. In short, their programming is designed to appeal to their private donors.

What you claim to be the "broadest sense of what is usually meant by 'educational television'", is hardly an objective assessment. It immediately favors secular education over religious due to both ignorance of the latter, and bias against the latter. FCC regulations aside, objectivity would recognize that Daystar programming fits the definition of "educational" as well as PBS programming.

No, I wouldn't expect to see either Nova or Neil deGrasse Tyson on Daystar because both have biases that are incompatible with Daystar's own biases. Tyson's belief in evolution stands in contrast to standard evangical teaching against evolution, and so the only way I would see him would be as an example of someone in opposition to Daystar's position. Likewise, while PBS might discuss theories of the end of the world, I would not expect to see Jack Van Impe or Hal Lindsey featured on the show in any other sense than as crackpot. My local PBS station airs a show about religion and ethics; not surprisingly, it has a point of view diametrically opposed to evangelical teachings.