[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: WEVD (was WFAN New York)

Where do we begin...?

> Can a commercial broadcaster like Salem legally discriminate against
>or other non-Christians looking to buy time?  If so, that's yet another
>reason (in my humble opinion) to discourage this sort of thing on the
>public airwaves.

I believe the current status of the law is that stations DO _NOT_ have
to sell air time to anyone they do not want to.  The only exception is
made for Political spots.  A station may decide NOT to air (any)
politicals...but if they DO, and sell air time to one party/candidate...
.they *must* make time available to the other.  There is a special case
scenario for politicals...and for the spot price charged.  

>Mr. Salem is Jewish. Somewhat ironic, I believe.

There is no "Mr. Salem".  And the ownership of Salem is NOT Jewish....

> On Mon, 4 Aug 1997, Dan Strassberg wrote:
> > Although the programming might indeed offend WEVD's audience, I
don't think
> > the station could go beyond reasoning with the origanization in its
> > to get them not to run the programs on WEVD. If time were available
and the
> > station simply refused to accept the programs, I believe that the
> > would be in for a court battle and, very likely, would lose its

The A. Joseph Ross Wrote:
> Quite the contrary.  I think the courts would uphold the right of the
> to refuse to run programs that don't fit its format. 

I don't believe there is ANY precedent for a station LOSING it's
liscence because it failed to sell air time to someone.  I believe our
resident Counselor is correct.  A station CAN refuse airtime to someone
that it deems would be offensive or inappropriate to it's audience.  
>The question is, if I make my living by selling blocks of time on a
radio station, can I >  legally refuse to do business with someone if I
don't like his religion? Remember, 
>    radio stations are *publicly* licensed; their frequencies belong to
you and me, not > to their licensees.  Licensees are only trustees and
are supposed to operate in the 
> public "interest, convenience and necessity."

No, you cannot decide NOT to do business with someone because of *his*
(You couldn't refuse the Legal Seafood spots with the reasoning that the
Berkowitz family is Jewish)  But you *can* decide that a message is not
appropriate for your stations audiance, image or business situation.  

Additionally, in the case of a broadcasting station, the government DOES
alknowledge that the Liscencee DOES have a perspective, viewpoint and
message.  In the eyes of the law, he is likened to a publisher of a
paper.  And I believe the courts have always upheld the rights of the
individual broadcaster to determine what messages may be on his station
and what may not.  (The exception being political.)  

Stations have turned down spots about abortion (pro-life or pro-choice)
because they did not think it's was the right venue for the specific

Lastly, the FCC and the courts being appointed by the Executive branch,
they are not sheilded from being somewhat political....and as
administrations change...so can the perspective of the FCC and the
Courts.  (Seems to me the Supreme Court had it's liberal days....
followed by it's now more conservative tone...)


End of boston-radio-interest-digest V1 #121