No reply allowed?

M

MarkW

New member
I may be wrong (wouldn't be the first time either) during political elections, if a candidate makes statements over the airwaves or is provided time by a radio station, the station is required by law to provide the same amount of time to the opponent.

I would think the same would apply in the case of broadcasting political opinions during an election.

I would certainly challenge from that standpoint.
 
Apparently that is not the case. I was under the same impression but I was recently involved in a project with the LEAA, where we were told by a radio station that had run an anti-CCW editorial that they had decided to not let us havea rebuttle or be interviewed on air. They were not going to air anything pro-CWW
 
From the for what it's worth file:

These are FCC Rules that you and I are talking about Rob. They do exist. It would be worth a call to the FCC for clarification.

B. The Political Editorial Rule

20. Background. The political editorial rule was adopted by the Commission in order to expose the public to various viewpoints regarding candidate elections. When licensees endorse or oppose political candidates, the rule provides a contingent access requirement for the unendorsed or opposed candidates, or their spokespersons. The rule is intended to provide citizens with the information necessary to enable them to exercise their vote in a more responsible and informed manner. In such respects, we believe that this particular rule goes to the very heart of our democratic electoral process.

C. The Personal Attack Rule

40. Background. The personal attack rule creates a limited right of access to give individuals an opportunity to respond to an attack on their character during the discussion of controversial public issues. In such cases, the Commission has concluded that licensees airing such attacks should be required to send the text of the attack to the party attacked and include a specific offer to use their broadcast facilities for responses.
 
It sounds like you could sic the FCC on them?

------------------
John/az

"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."
 
Step one, I'm going to get their refusal in writing.

Step Two, I'm goign to ask the LEAA waht they want to do, they are the legal experts.

Also, I need to not focus on this battle and lose the war. WE can get back at that station anytime, god knows the FCC wouldn't change anythying in the next three weeks (unless the THREAT would..). We need to focus all resources on the election right now.
 
The more we learn, the stronger we are. You are right about the three weeks. One thing to remember, radio station licenses are renewable. The radio station must post and provide the licesne for view by the public.

There is a comment period allowed for and a review of any recieved commets from the public before a radio station license is renewed.

If the FCC recieves a complaint, they will require the station to answer the complaint before the license is issued.

Fun isn't it. :)
 
There was a thing referred to the 'Equal Time Doctrine' but that was a misnomer. The Political Editorial Rule that Mark W refers to actually allows the the rebuttal to take longer than the editorial IF it is necessary. I do not know if it would be applicable here but the doctrine against Rigging, Biasing, or Slanting the news may work also. This is what was used against 60 Minutes in the 1960's to keep them in line and I used it against a station manager in Oklahoma City a few years ago. Talk to the station manager and let him know that you will petition to have the stations license revoked with the FCC. If there are competeing news outlets, be they TV, radio, or print, you will find support in them to carry the word to the public that one of the area stations may not be acting with the best interest of the public in mind. Good luck but I have found it fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top