Insensitivity and Hurtfulness / More on Debates and Equal Time

[Robert S Chase]

On the subject of who can be the most insensitive or hurtful:

I still can't listen to that short people song without getting extremely mad 
at Newman or whoever is performing it. I can't tell if that is the way 
Newman himself really feels or it was a parody. From what I see when he 
performs it he may actually believe it, I know all the people that believe 
it get a big kick out of it. My experience is that a lot of tall people are 
bigots, usurpers and bullies. (For that matter so aren't a lot of short 
people although usually they need to get into a group to carry it off. 
(Hitler, 5' 8", Stalin, 5' 4", MaoTse-tung,  5'6",  Pol Pot ?)

> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 22:40:38 -0500
> From: "Bob Nelson" <raccoonradio@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: depetro comments
> To: "Donna Halper" <dlh@donnahalper.com>,
> boston-radio-interest@rolinin.bostonradio.org
> Message-ID:
> <1fbbbced0611051940g516ff45m8090b13c2c595b6a@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Randy Newman did the same thing in the song Short People, which made fun 
> of
> a bigot who felt that short-statured individuals "have no reason to
> live". During the
> song's bridge, the background singers say, "Short people are just the same
> as you and I" and Newman's _character_ comes out and says, "The fools such
> as I". He admits he's being a fool. But then he just winds up going
> back to his bigotry--someone tried to point out his views, and he
> didn't listen. "Borat" is apparently doing the same.

With respect to the debate issue:

When dealing with leaving someone out a debate you get into the equal time 
area. (I suppose you could hold a debate with just two candidates if you 
gave the left out one time later on.) The usual way to leave someone out is 
to have someone else sponsor it and cover it as a bona fide news event.

The equal time rule applies to all time given to candidates, paid or not. If 
a station gives one candidate time then it must give similar time to the 
other. If however it sells the time (ads), then it must make available for 
purchase equal time. There is also a provision dealing with the price of 
those ads. This is what I said in my message.

See http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/E/htmlE/equaltimeru/equaltimeru.htm 
which I cited below as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule

> Message: 10
> Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 10:31:27 -0500
> From: Shawn Mamros <mamros@MIT.EDU>
> Subject: Re: Debates / Equal Time
> To: "Robert S Chase" <attychase@comcast.net>
> Cc: boston-radio-interest@rolinin.BostonRadio.org
> Message-ID: <200611061531.kA6FVRrh017701@all-night-tool.mit.edu>
>
>>There are those who would say the major parties created the FCC's equal 
>>time
>>rule (which I think is still in effect as opposed to the Fairness 
>>Doctrine)
>>to prevent broadcast stations from giving time to minor candidates knowing
>>full well the incumbency would always get news coverage far in excess of 
>>the
>>fringe candidates. [...]
>
> So far as I know, the Equal Time rule is still on the books.  However,
> a notable part of that law makes a specific exemption for "newscast(s),
> news interview(s), news documentar(ies), on-the-spot coverage of news
> events or panel discussion(s)".  Nowadays, this is interpreted so broadly
> that a show like "Entertainment Tonight" is considered a bona-fide
> newscast (!), so for all intents and purposes the law has no teeth.
>
> Even if there was a situation where it could be enforced, the only
> way it would happen would be if an opposing candidate were to call
> it out.  Today's FCC isn't going to go out of its way to look for
> violations of the rule on its own.  And I think that, with the
> exemption above being interpreted so broadly, most candidates'
> staffs have pretty much given up on the concept of equal time,
> if they even know the law exists in the first place.
>
> -Shawn Mamros
> E-mail to: mamros -at- mit dot edu