How should they decide? With a vote?
Sam, I don’t see how you draw the connection between drastically reducing the number of stations under the control of one owner, and some sort of anti-Limbaugh pogrom.
While the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine was certainly a necessary condition to the rise of Rush and his wannabes, he rose to prominence under the old 40-station ownership limit on radio stations that was repealed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Ratings represent a statistical sample that are consistent and viable enough to be used to value commercial time. It is far more accurate than a diversity hit squad.
Since this is only aimed at radio airwaves and not television it is obviously a ploy to silence the one venue dominated by the right. There is ample bandwidth to add stations that cater to the left so it isn’t a function of a finite use of airways. It’s a function of what people want to listen to.
This is an attack on free speech for political reasons and should be treated as such.
Small correction. It’s for the F.C.C. to decide, based on public input (hearings, comments, etc.).
One notes that recent events 9Yes on 8, town hall disruption, etc.) suggest that the Right is quite as capable as the Left at community organization and getting the public to speak out, if they so wish.
And of course Clear Channel has no more intrinsic right to the public airwaves than Georgia Pacific does to the public forests – they need to demonstrate that they can make proper use, in the public interest as well as their own bottom line, of any resources owned by the public which they are licensed to use.
Again, there are plenty of frequencies available for those who wish to put on their own programs. If there were real public interest issues then same rules would apply to broadcast TV. Since it’s not, it is nothing but a blatant attempt to silence the right.
Sure, if you want to broadcast in North Dakota.
But in our major cities, the broadcast frequencies are all filled up. Why else would one company spend nontrivial money (as Clear Channel repeatedly did when they were amassing their current radio empire, amassing large piles of debt in the process) to buy another company’s broadcast license, rather than simply starting a new station of their own?
Is ‘Diversity Czar’ an administration term for this guy or something made up by his detractors? The term is used repeatedly between the OP and thread title. Personally, I’m getting tired of the term and suspect it’s being used by the Right as a scare-mongering tactic to imply that some random guy will have absolute control over some sphere of government.
Well, czar is a Russian word, and everyone knows that Russian=communist and communist=evil, so obviously anyone who is a czar is an evil communist… duh.
:rolleyes:
:dubious:
:smack:
Given ClearChannel’s numbers, it’s not clear that wingnut radio can compete in the marketplace of ideas either:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125184915050077813.html
Maybe the internet will be less competitive with radio next year! 
Unlike with the banks, I don’t think anyone is going to try to claim that ClearChannel is too big to fail.
Then, in the interests of diversity, we can force NPR to fund them.
Regards,
Shodan
So what? Is this the same SCOTUS that passed Dred Scott, Plessy, and Bowers, among other infamous decisions? Attitudes change, especially on the Supreme Court, which seems to change its mind at least once a generation on some big issue. So passing Constitutional muster before SCOTUS is not the end of the discussion.
Anyway, as with every other issue, people laud the ideas that they support and condemn the ones they don’t. This is no different. I personally subscribe to the idea that the marketplace should decide what is aired. If there were a demand for so-called “liberal” radio, wouldn’t it have succeeded by now? Forcing a business to carry money-losing programming can only lead to the closure of countless radio stations, all in the name of “fairness”, which is so unfair that it’s almost self-parodying.
Ultimately, it’s not as though “conservative” radio is crowding out everything else. You are free to get a license and broadcast what you like. You are also free to change the station anytime you like, which is what I do. How, precisely, is that “unfair”?
Aside from the licensing term, the last two items are already required. Stations are required to maintain a “public file” that is open to public inspection. The public file contains documentation as to how the station serves its community. This file is also to be available for FCC inspection on demand.
Also, starting six months before the license is due to expire, the station has to air announcements with standardized language to the effect that its public file is available for inspection by the public, and that the public has the option of commenting on the suitability of the station’s owners to keep the station’s license.
That said, “public interest” isn’t about giving the public the programming it wants. Even the local NPR affiliate can ignore the public interest if all they offer is entertainment programming, with lip service paid to local issues.
And they’re all filled up with the same programs? I think not.
In other words, this guy is trying to hold broadcasters responsible for what they do and do not put on the air. You know, like they are already supposed to be. Except that they’re really not responsible to anyone but their stockholders these days, and that, of course, is flat-out wrong.
Broadcasters are incredibly privileged to be able to make big bucks by exercising exclusive control over a public resource. In return for this, they are required to perform a public service because they “serve” at our pleasure. (Many people on this Board and elsewhere either can’t seem to grasp this or willfully ignore it).
There are a lot of folks who would love to get their hands on a broadcast license, but there are only a limited number to go around. That’s part of the reason why it’s wrong for certain corporations to hold so many licenses–because it greatly shrinks the “marketplace of ideas” and the diversity of broadcast media. And that’s why, for most of the history of U.S. broadcasting, corporations and other entities were a lot more limited on the quantity and location of licenses they could hold. That was a good thing, and this Lloyd guy seems to be pushing for a return to that. This is good news for everyone (except those who would put greed in front of the public interest).
Since the 1980’s, Congress has steadily caved-in to the broadcast lobbyists and allowed corporations to own more and more licenses and to shirk more and more their duties.
It simply sounds to me like Lloyd would like to return the mandate of broadcasters back to where it should (and used to) be… that is, to benefit all demographics present in local communities.
It doesn’t break up networks.
-
There are limitations on how many stations a company can own in a given market–that is, a locality. ClearChannel can own stations in every market in North America, just not a majority of stations in any one.
-
In any case, even if they did break up wholly owned networks, there could still be networks in the sense of stations with shared programming, & even licensed affiliates.
Those of us who know how networks work aren’t worried about this, because we’ve seen networks built under these same restrictions!
{{{slythe}}}
The repuibs killed the" Fairness Doctrine" which allows broadcasters to air one side with no rebuttal. Then they killed rules limiting how big a percentage of a market one owner could buy up. That again limits rebuttal and allows one viewpoint to dominate. How does that serve free speech? It entrenches the power of the airwaves to serve a single viewpoint. That is wrong because the airwaves belong to the people. The company that runs it should be forced to provide for the public good. If they do not, they should lose their station rights permanently.
It of course in not just radio. They gobble up TV stations and newspapers too.
Columbia Journalism Review This shows how far the owners have been allowed to go.
What’s a “diversity hit squad”? Is that some new emo band?
As a Bolshevik, I’m really insulted by that.
It’s amazing what you can do with a monopoly, isn’t it?