|
My understanding is that the FCC administrates the private use-for-profit of
the 'Public Airwaves' delivering network television content.
If one were to become convinced that the network news organizations were
abusing the privilege by broadcasting large portions of politically biased
editorializing (disguised as news) instead of reporting the 'straight' news
(a beneficial-to-all public service), what action could be taken.
Isn't this the FCC's responsibility? (I'll ask about PBS later...)
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004, "RKT" <ssanow@bellsouth.net> wrote:
[Is it correct] that the FCC administrates the
private use-for-profit of the 'Public Airwaves'
delivering network television content[?]
This will depend on what you think you mean by "administrates" bearing
in mind that what the FCC actually does (more or less) is to
administer the federal Communications Act of 1934 as thereafter
amended/modified/extended by later federal legislation including by
licensing television broadcasters.
If one were to become convinced that the network
news organizations were abusing the privilege by
broadcasting large portions of politically biased
editorializing (disguised as news) instead of reporting
the 'straight' news (a beneficial-to-all public service),
what action could be taken.
Apart from the sollipsistic nature this "question" forumluated in this
manner (there is not necessariliy or, in many cases, even remotely any
connection between what someone has "become convinced" of and what is
the fact), this is an apparently classic example of "begging the
question" since you appear to presume (as meanwhile you do not in any
way attempt actually to define) that expressing opinion (regardless
whether "politically biased") is not a core element of the license
granted and seem also to presume (if so: incorrectly in the
law-technical sense) that broadcasting what you refer to as
"'straight' news" is the (law-required) standard for the
public-interest broadcasting elements of TV station licenses.
Isn't this the FCC's responsibility?
Insofar as relevant to your query, it is the FCC's responsibility to
issue and to supervise compliance with congressionally authorized
licenses in a manner that is consistent with the First Amendment to
the U.S. constitution.
Among the "action[s that] could be taken" by an individual who
contends that a TV or radio station is not broadcasting in a manner in
conformity with its license or with otherwise applicable law is to
complain to the FCC during the regulatorily required license review
periods and to object to a renewal.
(I'll ask about PBS later...)
(And don't forget about Fox, Clear Channel, ABC-AM radio, Pacifica, or
any of many others that disgruntled listeners/viewers might disagree
with if such consumers aren't capable of solving and then acting on
the solution to the Riddle, "Why did God invent the
channel/station-changing switch and on/off switch?"
|
| |
| |
"sollipsistic"
Yes, but one behaves based on their convictions - determination of fact is
up to someone else, hopefully objective and later in the process.
"begging the question" - "...you do not in any way attempt actually to
define"
Exactly. I phrased it as a hypothetical because I don't want to engage the
group in an argument on the topic. I want to know if it is an issue to the
FCC *if* the 'public airwaves' become an arm of a political party.
"...complain to the FCC during the regulatorily required license review
periods and to object to a renewal"
This is useful info.
"And don't forget about Fox, Clear Channel..."
Yes, but aren't the three networks held to 'tighter public-service
obligations' (pls. - just accept the casual lay phrase for how you know I
intend it.) than the others you mention?
Do the three networks any taxpayer funding (like PBS)?
If so, is there any distinction between their taxpayer funding and the
others (cable, talk-radio, etc.)?
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004, "RKT" <ssanow@bellsouth.net> wrote:
This will depend on what you think you mean by "administrates" bearing
in mind that what the FCC actually does (more or less) is to
administer the federal Communications Act of 1934 as thereafter
amended/modified/extended by later federal legislation including by
licensing television broadcasters.
Apart from the sollipsistic nature this "question" forumluated in this
manner (there is not necessariliy or, in many cases, even remotely any
connection between what someone has "become convinced" of and what is
the fact), this is an apparently classic example of "begging the
question" since you appear to presume (as meanwhile you do not in any
way attempt actually to define) that expressing opinion (regardless
whether "politically biased") is not a core element of the license
granted and seem also to presume (if so: incorrectly in the
law-technical sense) that broadcasting what you refer to as
"'straight' news" is the (law-required) standard for the
public-interest broadcasting elements of TV station licenses.
Insofar as relevant to your query, it is the FCC's responsibility to
issue and to supervise compliance with congressionally authorized
licenses in a manner that is consistent with the First Amendment to
the U.S. constitution.
Among the "action[s that] could be taken" by an individual who
contends that a TV or radio station is not broadcasting in a manner in
conformity with its license or with otherwise applicable law is to
complain to the FCC during the regulatorily required license review
periods and to object to a renewal.
(And don't forget about Fox, Clear Channel, ABC-AM radio, Pacifica, or
any of many others that disgruntled listeners/viewers might disagree
with if such consumers aren't capable of solving and then acting on
the solution to the Riddle, "Why did God invent the
channel/station-changing switch and on/off switch?"
|
| |
| |
RKT wrote:
"sollipsistic"
Yes, but one behaves based on their convictions - determination of fact is
up to someone else, hopefully objective and later in the process.
Exactly. I phrased it as a hypothetical because I don't want to engage the
group in an argument on the topic. I want to know if it is an issue to the
FCC *if* the 'public airwaves' become an arm of a political party.
I don't know. We're slouching toward fascism, insofar as a small
cadre of corporations have gone a long way toward controlling what we
read, see, and hear. I've given up on the mainstream media entirely,
except perhaps as entertainment.
"...complain to the FCC during the regulatorily required license review
periods and to object to a renewal"
This is useful info.
You can do it, but don't expect action. We've had the FCC crawl down
the ass of a non-profit religious station, and they got religion *REAL*
fast, but taking away a license is almost unheard-of.
Yes, but aren't the three networks held to 'tighter public-service
obligations' (pls. - just accept the casual lay phrase for how you know I
intend it.) than the others you mention?
Probably not. A licensee is a licensee is a licensee, and they have
the same obligations under law. They all have a license to broadcast in
the public interest; the airwaves are technically still ours.
Do the three networks any taxpayer funding (like PBS)?
If so, is there any distinction between their taxpayer funding and the
others (cable, talk-radio, etc.)?
Remember that the networks don't hold the licenses; the affiliates
do, and until recently, they were generally privately held. Going after
CBS would be useless, as they were limited to ownership of five
stations; if they didn't like how things were going, they could switch
affiliations.
|
| |
| |
RKT wrote:
Yes, but aren't the three networks held to 'tighter public-service
obligations' (pls. - just accept the casual lay phrase for how you know I
intend it.) than the others you mention?
No.
|
| |
| |
|
