Weird Scenes Inside The Gold Mind

Wait a minute. You mean there are still stations that play music?

Lame humor aside, in theory radio is different than say, publishing (book stores) or food delivery (grocery stores), because the airwaves are "public," and therefore the government has some sort of mandate/obligation to regulate the practices of radio stations.

But if we're going to apply this payola standard fairly and consistently, then let's take a serious look at the favors being received by various talk show personalities who actively and eagerly promote various political agendas.

What can I say, Mike? Spot on. And that's coming from an ex-DJ.

Rick, The FCC rarely gets involved in radio station programming beyond considering what public affairs programming should be played and when, what constitutes public affairs programming and whether programming is considered "decent". Even then, the FCC does not usually actively go after stations. Usually, there's a complaint first, then a hearing to determine the validity of the complaint.

Secondly, the standard IS being fairly applied. Surely you've heard of the problems Armstrong Williams has had recently for accepting money to promote the adminstration's education policy? He wasn't the only one, but the only one who's name I can recall. Unless, you know of some liberals who are getting away with stuff.

Well, there were people on the other side of the Armstrong Williams issue as well, people like Daily Kos and other Bush Bashers. I'd say, on the whole, both sides are guilty.

But I think Mike is right on about two things. This is a non-story. I work in an office, and I wonder if it's a coincidence that whenever a vendor comes to try to sell us some $1MM+ software package, that the sales team always includes at lease one incredibly hot woman. Or why I get so many free t-shirts and other knick-knacks, when all I'm intersted in is a $29 item. It's the way the world works, it should be no different in radio.

The larger point Mike has is correct, too. Elliot Spitzer is inventing scandals out of thin air, for him to "break." I think the Mutual Fund one was brilliant, and took many years to uncover and prosecute. But you can't run for office if you're a one-trick pony. But why hasn't anyone asked, if it took years to get the first one, why do new ones now come every 3 months?

I don't know nuthin' 'bout what the FCC actually does; I was only addressing the issue of why radio stations are theoretically different from bookstores or grocery stores.

As for Armstrong Williams, as far as I know there were no criminal or civil suits pursued by and government agency against Williams -- or, more importantly, those who paid him to spout their line of rhetoric.

William was criticized, not prosecuted, for his conduct, and I'm pretty sure no one in the Bush administration ponied up $10 million in compensation for their dubious actions.

Here's something that may help us understand why radio seems to be the focus for Payola, Rick.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mpayola.html

Thanks for the link, which provides some interesting historical information. But here's my problem:

I think it's enormously hypocritical of the FCC to insist that it's illegal for a DJ to accept money to play a song, while not applying a similar standard to talk show personalities who take money to promote a political agenda without disclosing their financial incentives for doing so.

As I pointed out in my earlier post, Armstrong Williams may have been criticized for his actions, but AFAIK the FCC didn't sanction anyone in that particularly sordid episode.

Personally, I'm not going to lose any sleep worrying about whether or not my kids are listening to one crappy song on the radio vs. another crappy song simply because Monolithic Records paid more than Megalithic Records for product placement. But I am concerned that some people are unduly influenced by the purchased "opinions" of "journalists" like Armstrong Williams.

Well, there is ONE big difference. Payola is usually "under the table stuff" so no one is going to openly disclose that anyway. ARmstrong Williams was sanctioned by the FCC because technically, it's not payola. He had a contract to promote the "No Child left behind" agenda. Now whether or not that contract was illegal or not is another story, but not under the FCC's jurisdiction. The agreement was above board, just not quite ethical since Mr. Williams didn't disclose his contract with the DOE. Otherwise, there's not much difference between that and Michael Jordan pushing Hanes.

Oh, then I guess it's okay then. I'll stop worrying about the administration paying whores to spout their rhertoric as if it were an unbiased, well-considered opinion without ever mentioning that they were paid to say it -- as long as it's all...you know...legal and stuff.

Just like it's perfect legal for Fox News to spew the most outrageous lies by prefacing them with "According to an article in the Washington Times..."

Then again, Rick, President Bush isn't even from this PLANET ... according to an article in the Weekly World News.

Explains a lot.

And before this degenerates into a debate about free speech, I'd like to make a few clarifying comments:

1.The federal government has taken the position that free speech only kinda/sorta applies to the public airwaves, subject to regulation by the FCC.

2. Advertisers are, in fact, somewhat restricted in the claims they can make about their products, and I'm reasonably sure there are federal regulations that advertisements be clearly identifiable as advertisements (so the underwear analogy really doesn't hold up).

3. Political advertising is perhaps even more strictly regulated than other advertising, requiring an explicit statement that it's paid political advertising, including who paid for it.

The current administration (and perhaps others in the past) has ignored the clear intention of these regulations and exploited technical loopholes to promote their agenda by disguising it as "news" or "commentary". So, I guess if every Armstrong Williams segment were followed by "I'm George W. Bush and I approved this commercial..." with that followed by "This commercial was paid for by the Department of Education..." then, sure, it wouldn't be much different from Michael Jordan shilling for Hanes.

But as it is, it sounds darn close to a violation of federal regulations. But I ain't no lawyer, and apparently no laws were technically broken.

And on the free speech front, I think there's probably a very thin line between Armstrong Williams getting paid to spout opinions that he may already agree with anyway and Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly making more and more outlandish claims simply to keep the numbers -- and their salaries -- pumped up.

I don't believe those guys are stupid enough to believe half the things they say, but I won't dispute their constitutional right to say them, even if they're only doing it for the money.

"And before this degenerates into a debate about free speech, I'd like to make a few clarifying comments:

1.The federal government has taken the position that free speech only kinda/sorta applies to the public airwaves, subject to regulation by the FCC."

">http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/decdoc/public_and_broadcasting.html#FREEDOM

"2. Advertisers are, in fact, somewhat restricted in the claims they can make about their products, and I'm reasonably sure there are federal regulations that advertisements be clearly identifiable as advertisements (so the underwear analogy really doesn't hold up)."

The FCC isn't responsible for enforcing another agency's rules and regulations. In this case the Federal Trade Commission's, if it even applies. So far, I haven't been able to find anything on point.

"3. Political advertising is perhaps even more strictly regulated than other advertising, requiring an explicit statement that it's paid political advertising, including who paid for it.

The current administration (and perhaps others in the past) has ignored the clear intention of these regulations and exploited technical loopholes to promote their agenda by disguising it as "news" or "commentary". So, I guess if every Armstrong Williams segment were followed by "I'm George W. Bush and I approved this commercial..." with that followed by "This commercial was paid for by the Department of Education..." then, sure, it wouldn't be much different from Michael Jordan shilling for Hanes."

But as it is, it sounds darn close to a violation of federal regulations. But I ain't no lawyer, and apparently no laws were technically broken.

Here is the FCC rules on political content.

"Political Broadcasting.

Broadcasts by Candidates for Public Office. When a qualified candidate for public office has been permitted to use a station, the Communications Act requires the station to "afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office." The Act also states that the station "shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast" by the candidate. We do not consider either of the following two categories as a "use" that is covered by this rule:

An appearance by a legally qualified candidate on a bona fide newscast, interview or documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject covered by the documentary); or

on-the-spot coverage of a bona fide news event (including political conventions and related incidental activities).

Political Editorials. Within 24 hours of airing an editorial where the station itself either supports or opposes a candidate for public office, it must transmit the following three things to the other qualified candidate(s) for the same office or to the candidate who was opposed in the editorial: (1) notification of the date and the time of the editorial; (2) a script or tape of the editorial; and (3) an offer of a reasonable opportunity for the candidate or a spokesperson for the candidate to respond on the air."

Nope, nothing about identification. but I'm pretty sure Congress wrote that law, and the Federal Elections Commission is responsible for enforcing it.

And on the free speech front, I think there's probably a very thin line between Armstrong Williams getting paid to spout opinions that he may already agree with anyway and Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly making more and more outlandish claims simply to keep the numbers -- and their salaries -- pumped up.

I don't believe those guys are stupid enough to believe half the things they say, but I won't dispute their constitutional right to say them, even if they're only doing it for the money.

Why not? You apparently believe the things you say. Right? And you do it for free.

I didn't say the FCC was responsible for enforcing general or political advertising regulations, Even if I had explicitly said that or even implied it, it's not really salient to the basic point, which is that there ARE federal regulations that control various aspects of both general and political advertising.

As you sort of acknowledged, federal law as enforced by the FEC has fairly stringent requirements for politcal advertising (including the clear labelling of political advertisements as paid political advertisements) and various federal agencies -- including the FTC and FDA -- have regulations controlling various aspects of other forms of advertising, most of which control advertising in pretty much all media.

I'll happily concede that there may not be any specific regulation concerning the clear identification of non-political advertising, (I may have confused voluntary, self-imposed broadcast practices for children's programming with federal regulations), since that is, once again, not really the main point -- which is that, IMHO, it seems somewhat odd that we have fairly strict regulations controlling political advertising, while it's apparently okay to circumvent those regulations as long as we pretend it's not really politcal advertising. It may be perfectly legal, but I'm not really interested in engaging in a legal debate.

And ignoring your unsubtle insult, once again whether or not I believe what I say for free or Rush Limbaugh et al believe what they say for money is not relevant. The point is that I support their constitutional right to do so.

But let me make this simple (for my sake, because I'm...you know...stupid) in hopes of avoiding another word parsing contest:

I don't think the FCC serves a useful function anymore, if it ever really did. In any event, I certainly don't want to pay a bunch of bureaucrats to sit around worrying about stuff I don't care about (like payola).

And I don't think federal laws controlling political advertising serve a purpose consistent with the founders' intentions. When the founders talked about a "free press," they envisioned the press of their day, which was mostly a vast ocean of highly biased political screeds -- which is exactly what today's television and radio landscape have grown to resemble. So I suspect the founders wouldn't have had much sympathy for the FCC or the current almost humorous disclaimers on political advertising.

I may not like what I see and hear on television and radio, but free speech isn't about what I like -- and I don't think any amount of federal regulation is going to eradicate (or even significantly reduce stupidity, greed, xenophobia, or intolerance anyway.

In short, I think that attempts by the federal government to control the media and political discourse are both hypocritical and futile. I'm not a big fan of unfettered free enterprise, but I do believe in cutting my losses.

" didn't say the FCC was responsible for enforcing general or political advertising regulations, Even if I had explicitly said that or even implied it, it's not really salient to the basic point, which is that there ARE federal regulations that control various aspects of both general and political advertising."

Excuse me Rick, the ONLY federal agency you've even mentioned so far has been the FCC and why they're letting things happen on the airwaves without enforcing some laws. So yeah, you've implied it.

"But let me make this simple (for my sake, because I'm...you know...stupid) in hopes of avoiding another word parsing contest:"

"I don't think the FCC serves a useful function anymore, if it ever really did. In any event, I certainly don't want to pay a bunch of bureaucrats to sit around worrying about stuff I don't care about (like payola)."

I won't call you "stupid", but yes, you're displaying your ignorance about the function of the Federal Communications Commission, most likely because they've brought forth some rulings you disagree with. The FCC also enforces rules and regulations that keep appliances from interfering with your phone reception, computer operation and the like. The keep stations from intering with each other, resolve disputes, and in general, make sure those entities that are LEASING the public airwaves are, in fact, accountable to the PUBLIC, and not just Howard Stern, or Andy and Opie.

A lot of the stuff they're concerned with simply isn't as controversial as fining Howard Stern for opening his big, fat , obnoxious mouth and saying crap just for the sake of shocking people. I'd post a link where you can read this for yourself, but I honestly wonder whether it would be used. You seem to have your mind set in stone about the FCC.

"And I don't think federal laws controlling political advertising serve a purpose consistent with the founders' intentions. When the founders talked about a "free press," they envisioned the press of their day, which was mostly a vast ocean of highly biased political screeds -- which is exactly what today's television and radio landscape have grown to resemble. So I suspect the founders wouldn't have had much sympathy for the FCC or the current almost humorous disclaimers on political advertising."

Have you actually "read" the Constitution? It's mostly a compromise between a limited government and an unfettered one. I have no doubt that were the framers able to see what they have wrought, the language in the Constitution would be a lot more precise than it is now.

And notice that once again, even though I showed you a statement from the FCC about their stance on political speech, that they're the only ones you seem to want to hold accountable for not doing someone else's job.

Okay, so the FCC serves some useful purpose, although I don't think regulating the content of radio or television is one of those things. And I don't hold the FCC accountable for failing to do someone else's job. I hold them hypocritcal for inconsistent standards and regulations -- which they could change if they chose to do so. (Some regulation changes may require congressional approval, but I'm not sure about that.)

And I've not only read the constitution but also a great deal of history concerning the time period in which it was written and the people who wrote it. Maybe you hadn't noticed, but there's a considerable amount of continuing debate about the framers' actual intentions -- and it's my interpretation that, even if the framers had been able to foresee our current media and technology, they would not have been likely to say "Hey, you know what we really need? Some kind of disclaimer on political advertising so people don't get confused, and we know who to blame if those ads contain lies." Because in the framers' day, the "press" contained a very heavy dose of highly biased poltical screeds, and it's likely that this is exactly the kind of press the framers wanted to protect. The Federalists tried to undermine that freedom with the Sedition Act, which made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against government or government officials -- and pretty much put the nail in the coffin of the John Adams presidency due its widespread unpopularity.

I believe the constitution is, and should continue to be, a living, evolving document. That's why we have the ability to amend it, and a judicial branch to interpret it in contemporary context.

And, hey, look, I managed to respond without quoting and disputing each of your individual sentences. And I even managed to state my position on a number of issues.

You should try it some time. You could start with this: Putting aside the issues of federal agency jurisdicition and legality, do you think it's somehow less of a moral/ethical compromise to take money to promote a political agenda without revealing that you've been paid to so than it is to take money to play a song without revealing that you've been paid to do so? And which one do you think is likely to have a greater impact on our society?

I just want your opinion of the moral/ethical issue, not your legal analysis of the responsible government agencies and why therefore X may be legal or Y may be the purview of some other government agency, or even if some government agency should have any control over it in the first place.

And just for the record, the text below is directly from the FCC site. Maybe you could point out the part that explains how "...technically, it's not payola..." because "He had a contract."

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/PayolaRules.html

Federal law, including Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules, requires that employees of broadcast stations, program producers, program suppliers and others who have accepted or agreed to receive payments, services, or other valuable consideration for airing material must disclose this fact to the broadcast licensee airing the material. This is required so that broadcasters have the information they need to disclose to their audiences that the material was paid for.

What the Rules Say
The Communications Act and the FCC’s rules require the following:

When a broadcast licensee has received or been promised payment for the airing of program material, then, at the time of the airing, the station must disclose that fact and identify who paid for or promised to pay for the material. All sponsored material must be explicitly identified at the time of broadcast as paid for and by whom, except when it is clear that the mention of a product or service constitutes sponsorship identification.

Any broadcast station employee who has accepted or agreed to accept payment for the airing of program material, or the person making or promising to make the payment, must disclose this information to the station prior to the airing of the program.

Any person involved in the production or preparation of a program who receives or agrees to receive payment for the airing of program material must disclose this information. Broadcast licensees must make reasonable efforts to obtain from their employees and others they deal with for program material the information necessary to make the required sponsorship identification announcements.

The information must be provided up the chain of production and distribution before the time of broadcast, so the station can air the required disclosure.

These rules apply to all kinds of program material aired over radio and television stations. Some may also apply to cablecasts.

You know, Rick, I dispute your "individual sentences" when and only when I disagree with them or find fault with them. I don't do it to irritate you. I just take them point by point. I quote you because people (not necessarily you) are notorious for taking me out of context. People can spin things anyway they want, but if they do I can refer them back to the proper post and people can get the true account for tthemselves.

Now then, The FCC does not regulate the content of radio or television. You've already stated ( and shown) that you don't know what the FCC does. why not just drop the subject instead not only beating a dead horse, but the wrong one?

And while the Constitution certainly allows for change, judicial activism is not the proscribed route. If we allow the courts to make law, exactly what check or balance is in place to counter it?

I think it's worse to take money for playing the song. It' s illegal and a crime. At most, taking money and not revealing that you've been paid for it is a breach of ethical guidelines, unless they're not reporting the income. Then, yeah, through the bastards in jail. Happy now?

Oh, and I think the song payola has a bigger impact. Ultimately, it makes no difference if Rush announces he's being paid or not to push Bush any more than Al Franken is paid to push Hillary. Their listeners probably won't care. On the other hand, music listeners get mighty pissed off if they know you're pushing a song that even YOU don't like.

Seriously, though, I used to be a DJ. I've pushed formats I can't stand. Country, Gospel, Rock, Hip Hop. I was paid to. I never announced that fact to my listeners.

"Hey, it's the latest, greatest hit fom Michal Jackson... Lionel Richie... Bootsy Collins." And you know what? The FCC never bothered me. Not once. On the other hand, let me play a record not on the station playlist and I got a dressing down from the Program Director, or the Music Director, or both.