Around the Water Cooler

Letters to the Editor, program line ups, deadlines, decisions, and worries

The starting line ups

Grass Roots Radio Conference announced some of its speakers and presenters, with more to come soon.

More stations have joined Story Corps’ civil conversations program.

Deadlines and other important dates

July 7 - The Federal Communications Commission is holding a roundtable for hurricane season, which officially began June 1.

July 10 - The good folks at the Broadcast Law Blog remind us of key filing deadlines and other important dates for the calendar.

Decisions

Next year’s funding for the US Department of Homeland Security includes $40 million for the Next Generation Warning System grants program through the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It’s out of committee and heads next for a floor vote in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Hollywood Reporter says Paramount is close to a settlement with the president.

The Supreme Court decision on the authority of government agencies can affect the Federal Communications Commission.

The US Supreme Court says the FCC can continue broadband subsidies for underserved areas. Which leads to that lingering concern, does the FCC have a role in regulating streaming?

And the other worries

Trusty’s FCC nomination went forward without a Democrat to replace Starks. Inside Radio outlines the concerns.

The GOP’s call for more radio spectrum to be auctioned off has scientists worried.

Reuters just went ahead and asked if FCC Chairman Brendan Carr was already using a Trump Organization phone. He said no. So, this hard-hitting piece describing Chairman Carr as a mob enforcer in The Nation caught our eye.

Letters to the Editor

Michelle Bradley on the implications of an FCC enforcement action we highlighted in last week’s edition of Around the Water Cooler.

Back in 2019, when the whole "Charlottesville 5" incident was starting to unfold, I had written the following piece in my "Rants from Riverton" personal blog:

https://recnet.com/rant-from-riverton-my-take-on-the-saga-saga

The bottom line, there is nothing wrong with a co-op that allows stations to form a "common kitty" for the funding of studio space, equipment, transmitters, etc. But even with that, the common kitty must remain at arm’s length from each station and not afford any kind of "control" over the stations. Each station must be independent with their own governance that is not influenced by the other stations. To do the latter would be a violation of the rules. This happened in the Dublab case where a member of "station A" was representing the interests of "station B" in front of FCC field agents. Dublab got off with an admonishment in that case.

The huge problem with the Charlottesville 5 arrangement was Experience LLC and associated companies that sold the Charlottesville 5 stations like a cluster. The burning questions were never really answered as stations were throwing in the towel. This included the golden question, who was the check written to? If a would-be "client" wanted to "underwrite" three of the five stations, did they write a single check to Experience LLC or did they write three checks, one to each individual station's organization? If it was of the former, then there may be serious issues as the actual sponsorship came from Experience LLC as opposed to the local business, this would be a huge violation of sponsorship identification.

The many LPFM stations out there (like the Charlottesville 5) that are running their stations like "commercial-less commercial stations" (and those who have crossed the line) are what is keeping regulatory advancement of LPFM hobbled at the ankles. LPFM stations need to stay in their lane and not try to compete with the commercial stations, but instead, create an enhancement to the medium of radio that cannot be found anywhere within the commercial space.

If an LPFM station is not doing programming and community connections so compelling that businesses want to be associated with the station; and just want to use the station to get an advertising message out, then the broadcaster is doing it totally wrong. No one (except the current commissioner) seems to be complaining about NPR members crossing the line in their underwriting because NPR stations pretty much stay in their lane and not operate in a way that directly competes with commercial broadcasters and that the nature of businesses that may underwrite on noncommercial radio are not likely to also purchase commercial advertising on other radio stations.

This is why I discourage stations from having "sales" people. If anything, I hear about stations that have former radio sales people volunteer or are otherwise given commission on "selling" underwriting on noncommercial stations. This is a good idea as former sales people may try to bring "bad habits" to the noncommercial station. Those who interface with potential underwriters are more like "relationship managers" who establish and maintain the relationship between the station and the underwriter, who can better explain the difference between underwriting and traditional advertising and can help overcome any objections or concerns raised by the potential underwriter.

Also, any proposed underwriting messages should be reviewed and approved first by someone who has been fully trained on proper underwriting messaging and was not involved in negotiating the relationship. All underwriting announcements should be pre-recorded and never done as "live reads". All underwriting acknowledgements must be done during a break in programming. Stations should never engage in "commercial" activities such as sponsored live remotes and naming elements of the station (such as naming the studio after a sponsor). Education must come first, underwriting must come last.

For more information on underwriting, stations should consult the REC Compliance Guide. This guide was developed by REC and incorporates information from past FCC enforcement actions, principles developed by the late Community Radio Goddess Donna DiBianco as well as information provided by NPR to member stations.

This FCC Actions Alert is produced by the volunteers at the Community Media Assistance Project under the direction of CMAP Executive Director, Betty McArdle. We monitor many sources of information about the Federal Communications Commission, federal communications law, and community developments important to your station and your community. The information provided in this newsletter is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as financial or legal advice. Always consult with a qualified professional before making any decisions based on the content herein. If you have a news tip or a story idea, please email us at betty@c-map.org or leave word in the comments.

Communications Act of 1934, Sect. 326.

Nothing in this Act shall be understood or construed to give the Commission the power of censorship over the radio communications or signals transmitted by any radio station, and no regulation or condition shall be promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere with the right of free speech by means of radio communication.