Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
October Baby here.
Ten Mile Island
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Requiring Americans To Purchase Alcohol
I'm for it. Imagine America where there's booze everywhere. Nirvana.
Take the flip-side; banning the purchase of alcohol. What would it take to ban the production and consumption of alcohol?
In America's case, it required a Constitutional Amendment. Then, another to repeal.
Requiring an American to do a thing is possible under our system of government. But it does require an Amendment to our Constitution.
The rules are out there. If you've ever read the Constitution.
Take the flip-side; banning the purchase of alcohol. What would it take to ban the production and consumption of alcohol?
In America's case, it required a Constitutional Amendment. Then, another to repeal.
Requiring an American to do a thing is possible under our system of government. But it does require an Amendment to our Constitution.
The rules are out there. If you've ever read the Constitution.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Thursday, March 8, 2012
"All Linky"
Ever wonder about the constraints our Constitution imposes on military action?
Don't worry.
Don't worry.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
"All Linky"
It's good to be busy. I'm not complaining.
Here's stuff you should know.
Chasing Andrew.
It's the economists, stupid.
Will CNBC ever put a leash on Steve Liesman?
Here's stuff you should know.
Chasing Andrew.
It's the economists, stupid.
Will CNBC ever put a leash on Steve Liesman?
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Ever Wonder About Media Bias? Three.
In 2008, the FCC released information pertaining to the specifics of "localism."
Localism. Sounds harmless. One of the fundamentals for broadcasters, whether radio or television has been "local, local, local." That is, they focus on issues and events that occur within the framework of what they view as the local market. Given the large footprints of Portland's television stations, that view of what is local will include areas as far apart as Lincoln City to The Dallas, north of Longview to Mossyrock or Morton, south to Albany, Lebanon and Corvallis. For a radio broadcaster in Salem or Tillamook, the idea of what constitutes local is going to be greatly constrained, due primarily to the signal strength of a small market radio station. If your station is in Tillamook, local is Tillamook. You might run a news story on Garibaldi or Short Sands, but really, pretty much all you're concerned with is the doin's in T-Mook. Your advertisers are there, their families go to school at Tillamook High School, and chances are you either own a cow, or know someone who does.
So, the FCC wants broadcasters to conform their efforts to serve their local market to rules issued by the Commission. What's wrong with that?
Let's look at KXYZ, a Tillamook radio station. Owned by a man and his wife, he takes care of the day-to-day engineering, she takes care of the bookkeeping and making sure that the spots that will run are scheduled correctly. Maybe they have a couple of folks who work on-air for three hours a day, and sell spots the rest of the day. They are committed to providing local listeners with the highest quality entertainment they are able to provide. And there are a lot of hidden caveats in that statement. It doesn't always work out, as planned. Things break. Tubes wear out. Power outages occur. Then there's the problem of talent. You can have the greatest intention in the world to be an amazing entertainer, and, by buying a radio station you may provide yourself with your own first step to stardom, but really? Some guys are legends in their own minds. So, the quality of the show may be, errm...okay, not so good. Yet, you have a killer playlist, and you know folks are listening for the music, and pretty much without regard for what that playlist is, if your station is recognized for being there, dependably and consistently, with some sort of information about what's happening in your community, high school sports scores, that kind of thing, folks are going to listen.
Is this enough for the Commission? As the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (.pdf)outlines, "...some broadcasters devote significant amounts of time and resources to airing programming that is responsive to the needs and interests of their communities of license.”
Some is not all. "At the same time time, in written comments and testimony received during six related field hearings, many other commenters have raised serious concerns that broadcasters’ efforts, as a general matter, fall far short from what they should be."
A couple of questions form, such as, "who are these "other commenters" and what is their agenda, and, here's a guy and his wife, a couple of employees spinning discs and selling spots in the community, all paid for out of the owner's pocket, and some "commenters" are willing to suggest that Pop isn't doing enough to devote significant amounts of time and resources to airing programming that is responsive to the needs and interests of their communities of license?
Wouldn't you rather think, that Pop spends most of every waking, and much of his time sleeping, worrying about whether or not the performance of his station is leading to a stable and growing listening audience, and a stable and growing advertiser base? Does Pop spend more time pining for the chili found in Austin, or the Sharp, up the road?
"Specifically, the record indicates that many stations do not engage in the necessary public dialogue as to community needs and interests and that members of the public are not fully aware of the local issue-responsive programming that their local stations have aired."
Necessary. Television stations and radio stations are, in fact, required to demonstrate that they provide "significant" on-air treatment of community needs and interests that have been determined to be worthy of such significance. Public awareness of local problems, areas of need.
Each station is currently doing such things, understood to be an obligation of the holder of a license to use the Spectrum. Necessary public dialogue. Pop and his wife, their two employees, are out in the community each day. Talking to their neighbors and friends. Picking up the phone to ask a question of a school board member, or the director of the port. Getting answers to questions the guy at the flooring store asked about the county highway. Local, local, local. But "...members of the public are not fully aware of the local issue-responsive programming that their local stations have aired."
The Commission must fix this. "Against this backdrop, the Commission proposes certain changes to its rules and policies that will promote both localism and diversity." Yeah. Because Pop doesn't have a clue that having contact with the community, having contact with his audience, and providing a consistent and dependable source for entertainment, news, sports and weather is important. "We also discuss ways to encourage broadcasters to improve programming targeted to local needs and interests, and to provide more accessible information about those on-air efforts to the people in their communities."
All great stuff! And, it looks good on paper. But how to get it into practise?
"Because the centerpiece of localism is the communication between broadcasters and the members of the public that they are licensed to serve, the Report also addresses current efforts undertaken by both broadcasters and the Commission itself to make relevant information concerning broadcasters’ efforts to serve their communities readily available to the public. The record here suggests that the dialogue
between broadcasters and their audiences concerning stations’ localism efforts is not ideal." To the guy writing this. We're asked to come to a mythical place, where a guy who built his radio station with his own hands and money, relies upon his performance to dependably and consistently entertain and inform, who relies upon his relationships with the jobs creators and economic movers and shakers in his market for his survival, doesn't exist. Because there isn't the level of "dialogue" deemed by the Commission to warrant their approval.
And you ever wonder about media bias? How do you avoid the kind of nightmarish schemes proposed by the Commission? Well, you show how you're doing what they want, voluntarily. You go into your community and create a list of community organizations and advocacy groups that you will inform when you plan to hire an additional full-time employee. Of course, that this makes you a potential target for retaliation if you don't hire a referred potential hire is unimportant to the Commission. (Just joking.) "As a result, the actions discussed herein will allow greater diversity in what is seen and heard over the airwaves, and ensure that communities have access to valuable, locally responsive programming."
Ensure that communities have access to valuable, locally responsive programming." As you read through the NPR, you'll find these types of slippery slopes all over the place. It isn't enough for Pop to spend his own time and money bringing this unique resource to his listeners, free, at his own expense, but the Commission wants to make sure that the content of his programming meets standards developed by them, not the owner/operator, his listeners, his advertisers.
How to do it? "Creation of advisory boards whereby stations regularly meet with community leaders and individuals from all sectors of the community...Providing for improved access to station decision-makers by the leadership of all local community groups." So, folks who have absolutely no idea of how to run a show, are going to be telling the guys who run the show, how to run the show. Brilliant. Every radio station must sound like KBOO or NPR, or else. "We do tentatively conclude, however, that the same fundamental objectives can be achieved through other means, including regular, quarterly licensee meetings with a board of community advisors and improved access by the public to station decision makers." Ah! The Paris Commune! Of course! It's just what every broadcast executive wants, meeting with a "board of community advisors" in order to further the access goals of the board. Forget the show! Forget entertaining the audience. We must have priorities!
You ever wonder why there's bias in the media?
One last note; none of this applies to newspapers, books and magazines. Broadcasters have no First Amendment rights. The content of what broadcasters may broadcast is regulated. A broadcaster affirms that he will voluntarily abide by the rules of the Commission, as a condition of his licensure. If the Commission wills it, broadcasters must abide.
More, at Broadcast Law Blog.
Localism. Sounds harmless. One of the fundamentals for broadcasters, whether radio or television has been "local, local, local." That is, they focus on issues and events that occur within the framework of what they view as the local market. Given the large footprints of Portland's television stations, that view of what is local will include areas as far apart as Lincoln City to The Dallas, north of Longview to Mossyrock or Morton, south to Albany, Lebanon and Corvallis. For a radio broadcaster in Salem or Tillamook, the idea of what constitutes local is going to be greatly constrained, due primarily to the signal strength of a small market radio station. If your station is in Tillamook, local is Tillamook. You might run a news story on Garibaldi or Short Sands, but really, pretty much all you're concerned with is the doin's in T-Mook. Your advertisers are there, their families go to school at Tillamook High School, and chances are you either own a cow, or know someone who does.
So, the FCC wants broadcasters to conform their efforts to serve their local market to rules issued by the Commission. What's wrong with that?
Let's look at KXYZ, a Tillamook radio station. Owned by a man and his wife, he takes care of the day-to-day engineering, she takes care of the bookkeeping and making sure that the spots that will run are scheduled correctly. Maybe they have a couple of folks who work on-air for three hours a day, and sell spots the rest of the day. They are committed to providing local listeners with the highest quality entertainment they are able to provide. And there are a lot of hidden caveats in that statement. It doesn't always work out, as planned. Things break. Tubes wear out. Power outages occur. Then there's the problem of talent. You can have the greatest intention in the world to be an amazing entertainer, and, by buying a radio station you may provide yourself with your own first step to stardom, but really? Some guys are legends in their own minds. So, the quality of the show may be, errm...okay, not so good. Yet, you have a killer playlist, and you know folks are listening for the music, and pretty much without regard for what that playlist is, if your station is recognized for being there, dependably and consistently, with some sort of information about what's happening in your community, high school sports scores, that kind of thing, folks are going to listen.
Is this enough for the Commission? As the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (.pdf)outlines, "...some broadcasters devote significant amounts of time and resources to airing programming that is responsive to the needs and interests of their communities of license.”
Some is not all. "At the same time time, in written comments and testimony received during six related field hearings, many other commenters have raised serious concerns that broadcasters’ efforts, as a general matter, fall far short from what they should be."
A couple of questions form, such as, "who are these "other commenters" and what is their agenda, and, here's a guy and his wife, a couple of employees spinning discs and selling spots in the community, all paid for out of the owner's pocket, and some "commenters" are willing to suggest that Pop isn't doing enough to devote significant amounts of time and resources to airing programming that is responsive to the needs and interests of their communities of license?
Wouldn't you rather think, that Pop spends most of every waking, and much of his time sleeping, worrying about whether or not the performance of his station is leading to a stable and growing listening audience, and a stable and growing advertiser base? Does Pop spend more time pining for the chili found in Austin, or the Sharp, up the road?
"Specifically, the record indicates that many stations do not engage in the necessary public dialogue as to community needs and interests and that members of the public are not fully aware of the local issue-responsive programming that their local stations have aired."
Necessary. Television stations and radio stations are, in fact, required to demonstrate that they provide "significant" on-air treatment of community needs and interests that have been determined to be worthy of such significance. Public awareness of local problems, areas of need.
Each station is currently doing such things, understood to be an obligation of the holder of a license to use the Spectrum. Necessary public dialogue. Pop and his wife, their two employees, are out in the community each day. Talking to their neighbors and friends. Picking up the phone to ask a question of a school board member, or the director of the port. Getting answers to questions the guy at the flooring store asked about the county highway. Local, local, local. But "...members of the public are not fully aware of the local issue-responsive programming that their local stations have aired."
The Commission must fix this. "Against this backdrop, the Commission proposes certain changes to its rules and policies that will promote both localism and diversity." Yeah. Because Pop doesn't have a clue that having contact with the community, having contact with his audience, and providing a consistent and dependable source for entertainment, news, sports and weather is important. "We also discuss ways to encourage broadcasters to improve programming targeted to local needs and interests, and to provide more accessible information about those on-air efforts to the people in their communities."
All great stuff! And, it looks good on paper. But how to get it into practise?
"Because the centerpiece of localism is the communication between broadcasters and the members of the public that they are licensed to serve, the Report also addresses current efforts undertaken by both broadcasters and the Commission itself to make relevant information concerning broadcasters’ efforts to serve their communities readily available to the public. The record here suggests that the dialogue
between broadcasters and their audiences concerning stations’ localism efforts is not ideal." To the guy writing this. We're asked to come to a mythical place, where a guy who built his radio station with his own hands and money, relies upon his performance to dependably and consistently entertain and inform, who relies upon his relationships with the jobs creators and economic movers and shakers in his market for his survival, doesn't exist. Because there isn't the level of "dialogue" deemed by the Commission to warrant their approval.
And you ever wonder about media bias? How do you avoid the kind of nightmarish schemes proposed by the Commission? Well, you show how you're doing what they want, voluntarily. You go into your community and create a list of community organizations and advocacy groups that you will inform when you plan to hire an additional full-time employee. Of course, that this makes you a potential target for retaliation if you don't hire a referred potential hire is unimportant to the Commission. (Just joking.) "As a result, the actions discussed herein will allow greater diversity in what is seen and heard over the airwaves, and ensure that communities have access to valuable, locally responsive programming."
Ensure that communities have access to valuable, locally responsive programming." As you read through the NPR, you'll find these types of slippery slopes all over the place. It isn't enough for Pop to spend his own time and money bringing this unique resource to his listeners, free, at his own expense, but the Commission wants to make sure that the content of his programming meets standards developed by them, not the owner/operator, his listeners, his advertisers.
How to do it? "Creation of advisory boards whereby stations regularly meet with community leaders and individuals from all sectors of the community...Providing for improved access to station decision-makers by the leadership of all local community groups." So, folks who have absolutely no idea of how to run a show, are going to be telling the guys who run the show, how to run the show. Brilliant. Every radio station must sound like KBOO or NPR, or else. "We do tentatively conclude, however, that the same fundamental objectives can be achieved through other means, including regular, quarterly licensee meetings with a board of community advisors and improved access by the public to station decision makers." Ah! The Paris Commune! Of course! It's just what every broadcast executive wants, meeting with a "board of community advisors" in order to further the access goals of the board. Forget the show! Forget entertaining the audience. We must have priorities!
You ever wonder why there's bias in the media?
One last note; none of this applies to newspapers, books and magazines. Broadcasters have no First Amendment rights. The content of what broadcasters may broadcast is regulated. A broadcaster affirms that he will voluntarily abide by the rules of the Commission, as a condition of his licensure. If the Commission wills it, broadcasters must abide.
More, at Broadcast Law Blog.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Ever Wonder About Media Bias? Two
Broadcasters, even with the best intentions, face incredible pressures to meet the rules and regulations of their Master, the Federal Communications Commission.
Who is it that owns a radio or television station? The costs and expenses of owning a broadcast facility are enormous. To be fair, the costs of owning and operating a radio station are clearly lower than the costs associated with operating a television station. Given, that the television station is in a large market. There are small, rural television stations that make do with budgets that almost unseemly, when compared to major market television stations. But, small market TV does make do. Locally produced shows show the lack of technical quality of the major stations, but they exist. Local television, whether in small markets or LPTV stations exist, and fill a niche for their viewers. Is it "HD" TV? Nope. But, putting pictures together with content is still an important source of information for the viewer. A camera that would have cost $15-thousand dollars fifteen years ago is one helluva camera. Video toasters are a dime a dozen, today. Good shooting, decent graphics, point is, whether you're small market or LPTV, you can perform for pennies on the dollar for what is produced by major market television stations.
And yet, most of the rules, of either television or radio, are the same. The guidelines for what a radio or television must do--repeat MUST DO--are typically the same in each and any occasion. There are a few exemptions, such as the radio or television station that employs fewer than five employees. And yes, I'm sure that there are television stations with fewer than five, full-time employees. (There are some clear bifurcations of the rules governing television and radio, and maybe I'm "stepping in it," but from my past brushes with FCC regs, I don't think I'm mis-characterising the situation. If I am, sorry. Do some research, that at this moment, I'm unwilling to do. Laziness.)
Last post, I wrote about how the FCC required broadcasters to demonstrate their adherence to rules that purport to advance a notion of community outreach. This is an important issue, since it relates to why the media has the bias it has, when reporting current events, or more importantly, how it reports the news. Diversity is the aim of current FCC regs, and the question must be asked, why?
How is it that a broadcaster must address issues of diversity, when that broadcaster is engaged in serving a certain number of viewers/listeners in his broadcast footprint?
This is a copy of a coverage map for KGW television (RabbitEars.Info)
What kind of diversity exists within the area described by this map? The Great Northwest! Portlandia!
Not much. Seventy-three percent white. Nine percent Hispanic or Latino. Eight percent Asian. Eight percent Black. About three percent from the Tribes. Three and an half percent, anything else.
But, that's just race. When it comes to sex, men are the minority, with a ration for every 100 women 18+, there are 97.8 males. When it comes to age, those who are between the ages of 25 to 44 are the plurality, with 34.7 percent of the population. 18 to 24, ten-point-three. 45-64, 22.4 percent, and around eleven and a half percent for people 65 and older.
A government mandated policy of diversity would needs include such statistical data. But, what about religious discrimination? What about education discrimination? What about sexual preference discrimination?
What would a "perfectly diverse" company look like? In my opinion, like a zoo. Representative elements from each of these "diverse" populations. It's not my opinion of what a company should even attempt to adopt. What value can there be to a company, to be able to show diversity, without showing that there are elements of cohesion that drive the company? Are those elements of cohesion racial, sexual, gender purity?
Of course not. That's nutty. But the Commission's take on diversity is therefore, nutty, too.That no one is willing to take on the Commission speaks volumes for the power the Commission has over Broadcasters. And as re-licensing time is just around the corner for broadcaster in this state, adherence to the intent of the Commission is firmly in the minds of those who operate broadcast operations within the state.
On the 17th, the FCC announced a new audit for broadcasters. Two-hundred radio stations and 75 television stations are to be audited by the FCC to "assure the FCC" about these stations' compliance with the Commission's EEO rules "requiring wide dissemination of information about job openings and supplemental efforts to educate their communities about job opportunities in the media industry." (Broadcast Law Blog.)
Hit the link, and follow the links on their page. And imagine, if you will, the effects of these rules on your business, were you to engage in such simple things as making widgets, shoes, or growing potatoes.
How does the FCC get away with requiring such things as "wide dissemination" and "supplemental efforts"? Because Broadcasters don't have First Amendment Rights. Broadcasters can't defend themselves against intrusive regulations from the FCC behind the cover of the First Amendment. Broadcasters don't have a First Amendment guarantee of freedom. They, instead, have duties. Duties described by FCC regulations. And one of the more important duties of Broadcasters is to insure that they are not complicit with any effort to restrict the diversity of its employees, or of its programming. (Slippery Slope warning; there is not yet a rule in effect that requires Broadcasters to demonstrate that their programming matches their program content with the rules for outreach to diverse groups in their hiring practices. But that step is on the lips of every Commissioner, and every owner of any Broadcast property.)
The camel's nose is in the tent. Broadcasters, and the businesses that they have built to educate, inform and entertain us, stands on the edge of a precipice. Broadcasters, being timid, are attempting to hold at bay the rules that would take from them the principles of good service to their clients, whether viewers/listeners, or advertisers. No Broadcaster of any sense at all would wish to offend any segment of a possible viewer/listener base. But, let's be practical; to be Number One means providing service to the greatest number possible, whether viewers or listeners. That certain segments of the population would, therefore, be under-served speaks not about the failure of Broadcasters to work to provide the best possible service to their communities, but more about the "under-served" population to adopt the values and expectations of the dominant mores of the community that surrounds them.
Pay special attention to the link "Today's Public Notice announcing the audit, containing the form audit letter and listing the stations subject to the audit is here ." Click the link. These radio and television stations must be s*itting bricks. None of the rules promulgated by the Commission gives anyone adequate notice of what compliance is. If you're in a town of five thousand people, most of whom are church going, white folks, what kind of diversity outreach is necessary to comply with the Commission's rules? If there's one gay guy, do you need to have a gay outreach? If there's one embittered Socialist, must you have a Socialist outreach? Do you have an atheist? A retired union representative?
What clear meaning do the rules of the Commission have?
Well...none. But they are the rules. And, the rules must be enforced. And there is no argument with the Commission. They, after all, hold the keys to your license renewal. And all the time, effort and expense the owners of these broadcast outlets are held to the whims of the Commission.
And you wonder why Broadcasters are reluctant to voice clear concerns over the actions and efforts of the elites in our governments? Threaten a Broadcaster's license, and you control the behaviour of the Licensee.
Who is it that owns a radio or television station? The costs and expenses of owning a broadcast facility are enormous. To be fair, the costs of owning and operating a radio station are clearly lower than the costs associated with operating a television station. Given, that the television station is in a large market. There are small, rural television stations that make do with budgets that almost unseemly, when compared to major market television stations. But, small market TV does make do. Locally produced shows show the lack of technical quality of the major stations, but they exist. Local television, whether in small markets or LPTV stations exist, and fill a niche for their viewers. Is it "HD" TV? Nope. But, putting pictures together with content is still an important source of information for the viewer. A camera that would have cost $15-thousand dollars fifteen years ago is one helluva camera. Video toasters are a dime a dozen, today. Good shooting, decent graphics, point is, whether you're small market or LPTV, you can perform for pennies on the dollar for what is produced by major market television stations.
And yet, most of the rules, of either television or radio, are the same. The guidelines for what a radio or television must do--repeat MUST DO--are typically the same in each and any occasion. There are a few exemptions, such as the radio or television station that employs fewer than five employees. And yes, I'm sure that there are television stations with fewer than five, full-time employees. (There are some clear bifurcations of the rules governing television and radio, and maybe I'm "stepping in it," but from my past brushes with FCC regs, I don't think I'm mis-characterising the situation. If I am, sorry. Do some research, that at this moment, I'm unwilling to do. Laziness.)
Last post, I wrote about how the FCC required broadcasters to demonstrate their adherence to rules that purport to advance a notion of community outreach. This is an important issue, since it relates to why the media has the bias it has, when reporting current events, or more importantly, how it reports the news. Diversity is the aim of current FCC regs, and the question must be asked, why?
How is it that a broadcaster must address issues of diversity, when that broadcaster is engaged in serving a certain number of viewers/listeners in his broadcast footprint?
What kind of diversity exists within the area described by this map? The Great Northwest! Portlandia!
Not much. Seventy-three percent white. Nine percent Hispanic or Latino. Eight percent Asian. Eight percent Black. About three percent from the Tribes. Three and an half percent, anything else.
But, that's just race. When it comes to sex, men are the minority, with a ration for every 100 women 18+, there are 97.8 males. When it comes to age, those who are between the ages of 25 to 44 are the plurality, with 34.7 percent of the population. 18 to 24, ten-point-three. 45-64, 22.4 percent, and around eleven and a half percent for people 65 and older.
A government mandated policy of diversity would needs include such statistical data. But, what about religious discrimination? What about education discrimination? What about sexual preference discrimination?
What would a "perfectly diverse" company look like? In my opinion, like a zoo. Representative elements from each of these "diverse" populations. It's not my opinion of what a company should even attempt to adopt. What value can there be to a company, to be able to show diversity, without showing that there are elements of cohesion that drive the company? Are those elements of cohesion racial, sexual, gender purity?
Of course not. That's nutty. But the Commission's take on diversity is therefore, nutty, too.That no one is willing to take on the Commission speaks volumes for the power the Commission has over Broadcasters. And as re-licensing time is just around the corner for broadcaster in this state, adherence to the intent of the Commission is firmly in the minds of those who operate broadcast operations within the state.
On the 17th, the FCC announced a new audit for broadcasters. Two-hundred radio stations and 75 television stations are to be audited by the FCC to "assure the FCC" about these stations' compliance with the Commission's EEO rules "requiring wide dissemination of information about job openings and supplemental efforts to educate their communities about job opportunities in the media industry." (Broadcast Law Blog.)
Hit the link, and follow the links on their page. And imagine, if you will, the effects of these rules on your business, were you to engage in such simple things as making widgets, shoes, or growing potatoes.
How does the FCC get away with requiring such things as "wide dissemination" and "supplemental efforts"? Because Broadcasters don't have First Amendment Rights. Broadcasters can't defend themselves against intrusive regulations from the FCC behind the cover of the First Amendment. Broadcasters don't have a First Amendment guarantee of freedom. They, instead, have duties. Duties described by FCC regulations. And one of the more important duties of Broadcasters is to insure that they are not complicit with any effort to restrict the diversity of its employees, or of its programming. (Slippery Slope warning; there is not yet a rule in effect that requires Broadcasters to demonstrate that their programming matches their program content with the rules for outreach to diverse groups in their hiring practices. But that step is on the lips of every Commissioner, and every owner of any Broadcast property.)
The camel's nose is in the tent. Broadcasters, and the businesses that they have built to educate, inform and entertain us, stands on the edge of a precipice. Broadcasters, being timid, are attempting to hold at bay the rules that would take from them the principles of good service to their clients, whether viewers/listeners, or advertisers. No Broadcaster of any sense at all would wish to offend any segment of a possible viewer/listener base. But, let's be practical; to be Number One means providing service to the greatest number possible, whether viewers or listeners. That certain segments of the population would, therefore, be under-served speaks not about the failure of Broadcasters to work to provide the best possible service to their communities, but more about the "under-served" population to adopt the values and expectations of the dominant mores of the community that surrounds them.
Pay special attention to the link "Today's Public Notice announcing the audit, containing the form audit letter and listing the stations subject to the audit is here ." Click the link. These radio and television stations must be s*itting bricks. None of the rules promulgated by the Commission gives anyone adequate notice of what compliance is. If you're in a town of five thousand people, most of whom are church going, white folks, what kind of diversity outreach is necessary to comply with the Commission's rules? If there's one gay guy, do you need to have a gay outreach? If there's one embittered Socialist, must you have a Socialist outreach? Do you have an atheist? A retired union representative?
What clear meaning do the rules of the Commission have?
Well...none. But they are the rules. And, the rules must be enforced. And there is no argument with the Commission. They, after all, hold the keys to your license renewal. And all the time, effort and expense the owners of these broadcast outlets are held to the whims of the Commission.
And you wonder why Broadcasters are reluctant to voice clear concerns over the actions and efforts of the elites in our governments? Threaten a Broadcaster's license, and you control the behaviour of the Licensee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)