First Amendment, Round Two: Talk Radio Restricted

Status
Not open for further replies.
seems to me, that one side here is trying to explain the FCC RULES and LAWS

while the other side is trying to explain THE CONSTITUTION


lately, as you've probably noticed, the constitution has been losing.


nevertheless, I don't recall the constitution saying ANYTHING about equal time. It only says the government shall not make any law abridging the freedom of speech, which is pretty friggin clear.

it doesn't matter that DJs don't have an enumerated right to speak via mass media, or over a technology that has finite capacity, such that all 290 million americans can't aire our opinions equally.

one could reasonably argue that the tenth amendment gives the states the ability to dole out bandwidth or otherwise make laws...

but as long as the F in FCC stands for Federal, then regardless of political realities, an argument that this stinks, based on a reasonable interpretation of the constitution, is iron-clad.
 
Yes speech has a dollar value. Especially when it's on my dime (the public).
Click to expand...

The government may controle the airwaves but they aren't financing the infrastructure.

Let the market decide who succeeds.

If someone owns 20 stations in Chicagoland and wants to put AirAmerica radio on all 20, more power to them. I doubt their combined numbers would touch Rush Limbaugh's ratings on the one station he is on in Chicago.

Free to succede and free to fail.
 
Flyboy you can sniff all you want.

There are almost 80 stations in Los Angeles alone. 50 are on the air. Clear Channel owns 11 of these stations. As of last year, there were over 13,000 licensed radion stations in the US.

You cannot go out tomorrow and start up a radio station without going through the FCC. That is a fact. You can argue it all you want. Anyone can go out and publish a newspaper or magazine without government interaction. That is a significant difference.

Clear Channel Communication owns almost 1200 stations, almost 10% of the total focused in 191 markets across the US. 133 of these are news stations. Arbitron numbers show they control almost 30% of the radio market across the US. These stations share news, media, broadcasts, ect. 3,161 stations in the US are owned by 20 companies. Of the 80 stations in North Dakato, 23 are owned by Clear Channel. There are 24 stations in Phoenix, Arizona. Clear Channel owns 8 of them. In San Diego, there are 25 stations. Clear Channel owns 9.

Radio is no longer a local entity. The original governing charter for the FCC was the promotion of fair and equitable access withing a local area. Under FCC deregulation, stations no longer have to produce news broadcasts locally. Broadcast corporations are canning media and sharing it among their stations across the US in a cookie cutter approach.

As for your Tennessee example, it doesn't wash. The public calling in is very different from a station or a DJ from using their show as a bully pulpit at the public expense.
 
Flyboy you can sniff all you want.

There are almost 80 stations in Los Angeles alone. 50 are on the air. Clear Channel owns 11 of these stations.
Click to expand...
Excellent. Please, explain to me how this constitutes "hundreds of stations even in the same market."

That's what I thought.

I'm not denying that there's substantial conglomeration in the broadcast industry. I'm just taking issue with your position that one company--or even one viewpoint--controls all of the broadcast media. Your own numbers for ClearChannel, the largest radio conglomerate, say that they own up to about a third of the market. That leaves fully two-thirds for others. You said twenty companies--are you honestly suggesting that all twenty are homogenous in their political viewpoints, and that this prevents alternative viewpoints from being heard?

Believe me, I'm no fan of the "cookie-cutter" approach to radio; the music, by and large, sucks out loud (pun intended), and it all sucks in the same way. That's why I have a CD player, and am investigating XM. To suggest, though, that I can't find alternative viewpoints on the radio is patently absurd. My radio tunes Rush Limbaugh and NPR, and I could probably find Boortz and Air America if I cared enough to try.

BTW, Boortz has been going on lately about eminent domain abuse. Specifically, he's promoting the view that it's wrong, and needs to be stopped. Think he ought to be censored?
 
...we staunch Second Ammendment supporters may now FINALLY get some help from those who wish to support the First Ammendment. They have not been much help before now. You think this just MIGHT wake them up?
Click to expand...

Might rain nickels, too: leftist extremists always believe they're special exceptions.
 
Government needs to keep pushing us and push a little harder so we can get this thing on and over with. Not everyone understands it yet. There are still Neville Chamberlains among us.
 
Flyboy you caught me. I don't type very well. One company can own hundreds of stations, including multiple stations in the same market. Better now?

As to Boortz and other issues, the point our two illustrious DJ's got caught up in is that they were in essence advertising for a specific campaign/vote issue.. That is very different then airing a program debating a generic issue; eminent domain, the war, freedom of the press, etc.

It's not a matter that there isn't the possibility of hearing alternative views. The issue is that the general public does not have access to air an opposing view to counter what is broadcast over public airwaves.
 
As to Boortz and other issues, the point our two illustrious DJ's got caught up in is that they were in essence advertising for a specific campaign/vote issue.. That is very different then airing a program debating a generic issue; eminent domain, the war, freedom of the press, etc.
Click to expand...
It's not just that issue. Consider how strongly pro-Bush and anti-Kerry Boortz, Limbaugh, and others were. They weren't just discussing issues, they were clearly, repeatedly, and publicly endorsing one candidate over another.

Should they be censored for that? Should they be told they're not allowed to lend their support to a candidate? Are you actually suggesting that we should allow--nay, require--the government to determine what they are and are not allowed to say?
 
There is no easy answer. We could debate this ad naseum.

I not convinced the judges ruling was anti-first amendment. The two DJ's appear to have been in effect airing free political advertisement and the rules are this are pretty clear. If you do so, you must provide the opposition with the same opportunity.

I don't want the government to interfer with the media, but I am also very concerned about the power of the media when it remains unchecked. Radio belongs to you and I, and everyone else on this forum, but our ability to control it is severly limited. When local markets are dominated by one source, and in many markets it is, news and information is filtered and controlled.

We rail against the print and TV media bias on a regular basis here, but typically support radio because conservative radio dominates the airwaves. I think that's wrong on both sids and I don't believe those who wrote the constitution or those who framed the original FCC rules would support what we have created today.
 
GNR:
I don't believe those who wrote the constitution or those who framed the original FCC rules would support what we have created today.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting claim. I don't give a rat's patooty what the FCC rules writers had to say, but I quite doubt that you can find support for your opinion in the Constitution or the Federalist Papers. I'll wait for you to research it and report back here.

GNR:
The two DJ's appear to have been in effect airing free political advertisement and the rules are this are pretty clear. If you do so, you must provide the opposition with the same opportunity.
Click to expand...
No. That foolish law (Equal Time) was repealed years ago and led to a Renaissance (seen first in talk radio) in political opinion which broke the chokehold liberals held in the other media. Requiring a producer to schedule equal-time appearances for every politico who might be offended by random and not so random statements made by a host or even a DJ would now, and did then, quash lively debate (which is what the movers and shakers want when we attempt to stop their power grabs). Heck, most conservative talk hosts *beg* the opposition to come on their shows but the offer is rarely taken up.

GNR:
You cannot go out tomorrow and start up a radio station without going through the FCC.
Click to expand...
It sounds as if your argument is that since fed.gov has decided to control radio frequency distribution, they then need to control radio frequency distribution (and, hence, the political content therein).

A circular argument if ever there was one.

Of course, if Congress decided not to allow FCC to control the radio spectrum, I guess the talk radio hosts would be free to voice their opinions. If Congress decided to regulate trees and pulp from National Forests (public property) or ink, would that suffice to trigger sanctions under Mc-Feingold?

I wonder if pro-tax talk radio hosts (on NPR or the local "Air America" affiliate") have been enjoined into silence on this issue, lest they contribute Voice$$ to the pro-tax campaign? And what about the callers who call in? A conservative radio station will have the vast majority of its listeners call in from the conservative side. Is that a $$ contribution when they dare to open the phone lines? Talk radio is the only medium which routinely allows callers to voice their opinions rather than having Walter Cronkite telling us what we should think on a subject. I like it better this way, don't you?
Bill of Rights

Article I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...
If a group of people gather on a public sidewalk carrying anti-tax signs, is that contributing to the campaign as well?

The Bill of Rights and the Constitution as a whole continue to be gutted. It would be nice if Justices would apply those documents in a technology-neutral manner. Just as ownership of fax machines, computers and high-capacity printers are protected by the words of the Founders who knew only the wonders of movable type printing presses.

Rick
 
It sounds as if your argument is that since fed.gov has decided to control radio frequency distribution, they then need to control radio frequency distribution.

A circular argument if ever there was one.

-----------------------
Because the FFC regulated frequency distribution, their decision to deregulate station ownership is a problem of their own creation.

The airwaves are defined as a finite resource. By allowing unregulated ownership of this finite resource, they have essentially created a monopoly on broadcast media.

Now if you want to make it a free for all, that changes everything. He who controls the biggest transmitter wins.

As for equal time, it has morphed into equal rates/lowest published rate and the rules that an ad must announce who sponsored/paid for it's airing.
 
I don't disagree that it was probably a violation of the rules.

I maintain, however, that the rules themselves violate the First Amendment, and are, ipso facto, wrong. McCain-Feingold is just plain wrong. President Bush even said so, right before he said "hand me my pen." And the High Court, as usual, lived up to that moniker in upholding it.

As far as the lack of opportunity to rebut the broadcast media, I think the fact that we have so many avenues available to speak our minds renders the limited number of channels a nonissue. You mention it yourself--conservative talk radio opposes the liberal mainstream media. Nothing says that any given viewpoint has to be opposed in the same medium, on an adjacent channel (or the same channel); TV and radio are complementary; newspapers add another option. Saying that they shouldn't go "unchecked" raises the issue of "who does the 'checking?'" Call me crazy, but I think the last people who should be controlling political speech are the politicians (and controlling by disapproval or "balancing" are just as restrictive as specific approval, at least in the long term).

Further, the internet gives us all--each of us, individually--the opportunity to rebut even a monolithic mainstream media. Consider the case of Dan Rather and the memos about Bush's National Guard service. Commoners, working from their homes and day jobs, for no pay, and with no resources other than those they bought themselves, managed to completely debunk a major story hyped by the "big three" networks, and did so well at it that the anchor who took point on the story was removed from his position in (quiet) disgrace. And now the government wants to regulate blogs as well. Why? Because they've shown that they have real power, and that scares politicians.

We needn't worry about "unchecked" media, in any form; it's the "checks" and government "fairness" controls that deserve our concern.
 
This is not an equal time case. The equal time rules are dead.

This is a case apparently based on rules similar to McCain-Feingold. (I would like someone to post the relevant rules. I think that would put an end to a lot of the talking past one another.) I would also like to see the judge's decision in print to see what law or regulation it's based on. I suspect it will be overturned on appeal, but then I thought McCain-Feingold would be held unconstitutional.

It makes no sense to me to say a radio DJ opposing a bill is a campaign contribution. By that reasoning so is a newspaper editorial. The "gov controls the airways" argument is irrelevant to whether it's a campaign contribution or not.
 
Macain-Feingold is a giant POS.

I will admit to a strong bias having grown up in radio. Perhaps I'm too close to the issue.

I see the last 10 years of deregulated radio as an abused media where DJ's have turned their air time into their personal bull horn on the publics air waves.

Listening to Barbra Streisand or Sean Penn vomit their garbage on the TV is no better then so dimwit DJ who decides that having a golden voice has made him the enlightened spokesperson of the people.

Radio as a media is a shell of it's former self. FM music lists and formats are a joke. Computer controlled and selected. Local programming and production have been slashed. Radio is very local due to broadcast range, but in most areas it's controlled by folks in locations far away from the audience.

As to the comment regarding op ed articles, you can't compare print media to TV and radio. Anyone with paper and ink can publish. Only a few have access to the airwaves.
 
Interesting, I live in the area and listen to Wilbur and Carlson's shows. Most of the time they have guests and callers that disagree with the host's position on the initative. :scrutiny:

The law in our state does clearly protect journalist spouting their opinions. The judge in Thurston county chose to ignore the law on the books in his ruling. Then again what do I know? I'm not in radio, politics, or law. But surprisingly, am capable of thinking for myself. (Even if I can't spell)
 
their decision to deregulate station ownership is a problem of their own creation.
Click to expand...
I don't see it as a problem, you do.

By allowing unregulated ownership of this finite resource, they have essentially created a monopoly on broadcast media.
Click to expand...
You attempt to justify your circular argument by offering up yet another circular argument. The fed.gov decides to regulate the distribution of newspaper pulp therefore they are justified in regulating political content? Mmmm, no.
Now if you want to make it a free for all, that changes everything. He who controls the biggest transmitter wins.
Click to expand...
Or the network with the most TV affiliates, or the newspaper with the largest distribution system.

Very weak arguments if your aim is to justify shredding the First Amendment, GNR. Perhaps you'll be supporting the purchase by eminent domain of Justice Souter's New Hampshire property for the construction of a Blimpie franchise?

Rick
 
The feds don't regulate pulp so you're supporting your position with BS.

The rules regulating TV are much more defined then those for radio. Again, you're arguing using BS examples.
 
The question is, if they *did* regulate tree products such as pulp under interstate commerce (or ink) -- tree-huggers, limited resources, and all --your theory would justify the regulation of newspaper content, would it not? The fed.gov would be creating a public media utility, as it where, correct? With a duty to make sure that content is balanced, correct?

That's a question for you to answer, it is not "my position" as a support for an argument. I'm just asking if you can apply one regulatory scheme to another. If not, why not? Since you see it backing you into a corner, you refuse to address the point.

Rick
 
How are you backing me into a corner arguing a hypothetical?

If the government DID regulate paper, it would be their duty to ensure that it was used in the best interest of the public who have entrusted it with the power to regulate it.

As long as we have given the power to regulate the airwaves to the fed's, their duty is to ensure it is used in the best interests of the public. Thanks to the big $ and lobbying efforts of the NAB over the objections of those in the industry, we now have unregulated airwaves where the majority of public domain is controlled by large corporate entities.

But hey, if you're happy with that, enjoy.
 
their duty is to ensure it is used in the best interests of the public
Click to expand...
And you propose that it is "in the best interest of the public" to let the politicians determine what political expression is acceptable?
 
Last edited:
I guess I left myself wide open for that.

No. No I do not. At least not as they show themselves to be now. I'd like to believe (naively as it sounds), that this wasn't always the case.

However, we allow for the government to protect us with a military and to provide other functions "in our best interests".

We are a nation and not a group of individuals.
 
I know I'm probably starting to sound like a troll, but that's not my intent. I want to understand your position, and make sure you understand the full implications of what you seem to be proposing.

A) If you don't think the current politicians (and, from what I've read, not much has changed in the last, oh, eternity) should be in charge of deciding what speech is acceptable on radio/TV, who should, and how should he exercise that power?

B) What are your thoughts on the power of the internet to give a voice to the common man? I'm particularly interested in your thoughts as regards the Bush service memos, in which the "common man" took down none less than Dan Rather, and embarassed the Big Three media outlets, who, together, own quite a bit more than 30% of the TV outlets in the country. Does this (relatively) new outlet, with its remarkably low barrier to entry, affect your position on the need to "check" the broadcast media?
 
To my mind the 1996 deregulation of radio did a list of damages to an industry and to the local communities they serve.

Deregulation sounds great. Get the government out of the business. However, in this case, they are the controll for the business. Licensing is set by the government. Deregulation on paper means more people can get involved in a local media. The reality is that deregulation allowed corporate giants to purchase blocks of public media (and these blocks are growing) so that locally owned small stations can't compete and local businesses have been replaced with corporations. Radio has become the WalMart and Home Depot replacing local drug stores and hardware stores.

In regards to this case in Washington, there are different versions of what happened. One side is accusing the DJ's of going beyond simply airing their opinions on the radio during their show, but instead using their time while working for the station to help coordinate and direct political action. If that is the case, I do believe that is a problem. Providing contributions to a campaign does not simply have to be $. Your labor, your advise, etc. are also worth $. While radio stations are private companies, they work in a public arena, the public airwaves.

The internet is a can of worms I don't think anyone can get their hands around. On one hand, I think it's amazing what positive work it can do. On the other, it's used to spread crap immediately across the globe. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.
 
I'm not very well informed about radio licensing and ownership distribution, but...

(Wait, was that what this thread started out discussing? Oops, I'm off topic.)

So, the radio show hosts are gagged by the judge because they had the audacity to fight a stupid, wasteful government program.

<sarcasm> Yes, I can see how silencing those loudmouths promotes the public good. </sarcasm>

The premise of McCain-Feingold is that efforts to oppose established government (elected, appointed, or otherwise) is illegal. 1A, rest in peace.
 
Many radio talk shows, all of the local ones I listen to included, fight for specific issues - issues like a specific tax (a tobacco tax for example).

To ban them from talking about a specific issue is to shut them down entirely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
UW Student Senate rejects memorial for Pappy Boyington
2 3 4 5
Replies
122
Views
5K
engineer151515
E
2
  • Locked
Why the First Amendment is Considered a Weapon
Replies
1
Views
297
Don Gwinn
D
C
  • Locked
Man with grenade fatally shot at Seattle courthouse
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
c_yeager
C
C
  • Locked
Request for donating emails and calls to a radio show here
Replies
0
Views
292
Cesiumsponge
C
B
  • Locked
A lone voice - scathingly accurate SanFran piece
Replies
7
Views
1K
ReadyontheRight
R
Back
Top