[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re:Re:Wired.com on Reversing Consolidation
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 22:14:05 -0500 Aaron 'Bishop' Read
> At 06:39 PM 1/12/2003, Dave Faneuf wrote:
> >On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 01:22:26 -0500 "A. Joseph Ross"
> ><email@example.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
> > > 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
> > > understood why..
> > > A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468
> >To the best of my knowledge Dan is correct, the only political ads
> >station is forced to broadcast is ads for candidates for federal
> IIRC...non-commercial stations are forced to carry underwriting (I
> the underwriting/advertising rules still apply - although for
> 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
> 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