Re: Re:Re:Wired.com on Reversing Consolidation

[Dave Faneuf <tklaundry@juno.com>]

On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 22:14:05 -0500 Aaron 'Bishop' Read
<aread@speakeasy.net> writes:
> At 06:39 PM 1/12/2003, Dave Faneuf wrote:
> 
> 
> >On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 01:22:26 -0500 "A. Joseph Ross"
> ><lawyer@attorneyross.com> writes:
> > >
> > > I've been wondering for a number of years to just what extent
> > > stations can refuse to carry
> > > political ads.  I seem to remember that when WCVB first took 
> over
> > > channel 5, they had a
> > > rule not to sell political ads, but they would air extensive TV
> > > debates by the candidates.
> > > This rule eventually was dropped for fear of lawsuits, but I 
> never
> > > understood why..
> > > A. Joseph Ross, J.D.                           617.367.0468
> >
> >To the best of my knowledge Dan is correct, the only political ads 
> a
> >station is forced to broadcast is ads for candidates for federal 
> office.
> >df
> 
> IIRC...non-commercial stations are forced to carry underwriting (I 
> think 
> the underwriting/advertising rules still apply - although for 
> obvious 
> reasons that's largely a moot point) for federal office candidates 
> at no 
> cost to the candidate.   However, most candidates don't take 
> advantage of 
> this because:
> 
> A: They're completely unaware of it.
> 
> B: They're aware enough to know that most public radio listeners 
> would be 
> more annoyed than pleased to hear political ads on their favorite 
> public 
> radio station.

I didn't know that and no candidate has tried to get underwriting on
WBUR, but I think you're right about the backlash if one of them did
df