Low Power FM Religion Radio
April 6, 2005 7:32 AM Subscribe
Religion radio co-opts low power FM. Remember the fight over low power FM? It was supposed to help establish community radio stations. It seems that some Christian broadcasting stations have been snapping up low power FM licenses to implement translators, which extend the broadcast area of their main signal. Some groups have been speaking out about this, yet the FCC only acted after it appeared that some of the licenses were being obtained fraudulently for resale. (via Jorn)
"OMG! Religious groups are buying up all the land and building churches! How dare them!!!!1!"
It'd be different if they were a taxable enterprize, but the fact is, they use the same municipal serveses that everyone else does, but I have to subsidize them.
posted by Balisong at 7:53 AM on April 6, 2005
It'd be different if they were a taxable enterprize, but the fact is, they use the same municipal serveses that everyone else does, but I have to subsidize them.
posted by Balisong at 7:53 AM on April 6, 2005
obtaining licenses fraudulently is not very Christian--at all.
posted by amberglow at 7:58 AM on April 6, 2005
posted by amberglow at 7:58 AM on April 6, 2005
Is there any legitimate reason that Christians should be prohibited from having radio stations?
I don't think that is is very fair/right/christian/good that they will use publicly owned airwaves to bash things that I stand for, apoligise for corrupt governments, tell me who to vote for, call me a sinner, and limit my choices as to good radio programing that could be playing non-political/religious programing that more people could enjoy. Goodness knows that the music scene where I live could use a little more diversity.
posted by Balisong at 8:10 AM on April 6, 2005
I don't think that is is very fair/right/christian/good that they will use publicly owned airwaves to bash things that I stand for, apoligise for corrupt governments, tell me who to vote for, call me a sinner, and limit my choices as to good radio programing that could be playing non-political/religious programing that more people could enjoy. Goodness knows that the music scene where I live could use a little more diversity.
posted by Balisong at 8:10 AM on April 6, 2005
Is there any legitimate reason that Christians should be prohibited from having radio stations?
That isn't the issue. Low-power FM was intended for small radio stations. Independent and college stations, community stations, Bob Smith's Christian Station, broadcast from a couple miles away, that sort of thing.
The Christian stations in question seem to be existing standard FM entities, who are buying up low power as well to make their already large stations larger. So you don't get Bob Smith, you get Jane Doe, who isn't even in your state, and broadcasts across much of the east coast, making her media empire just a teeny bit bigger.
This is comparable to a Massive Global Corporation taking out dozens of loans specifically for small, independent businesses instead of going through legitimate means to obtain financing. They have no right to the money, since they're not a small business, and because they took it, there's less to go around for the legitimate small business.
posted by Kellydamnit at 8:18 AM on April 6, 2005
That isn't the issue. Low-power FM was intended for small radio stations. Independent and college stations, community stations, Bob Smith's Christian Station, broadcast from a couple miles away, that sort of thing.
The Christian stations in question seem to be existing standard FM entities, who are buying up low power as well to make their already large stations larger. So you don't get Bob Smith, you get Jane Doe, who isn't even in your state, and broadcasts across much of the east coast, making her media empire just a teeny bit bigger.
This is comparable to a Massive Global Corporation taking out dozens of loans specifically for small, independent businesses instead of going through legitimate means to obtain financing. They have no right to the money, since they're not a small business, and because they took it, there's less to go around for the legitimate small business.
posted by Kellydamnit at 8:18 AM on April 6, 2005
that they will use publicly owned airwaves to bash things that I stand for
I don't think it's right when people use publically owned sidewalks and air to bash things that I stand for. If they could limit their speech to the privacy of their own home that would be ideal.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 8:22 AM on April 6, 2005
I don't think it's right when people use publically owned sidewalks and air to bash things that I stand for. If they could limit their speech to the privacy of their own home that would be ideal.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 8:22 AM on April 6, 2005
According to Bali, Christians shouldn't be able to use public services because he disagrees with them. What an amazing display of tolerance and commitment to freedom of thought. Congrats.
obtaining licenses fraudulently is not very Christian--at all.
posted by amberglow at 7:58 AM PST on April 6
Where are you getting this allegation that this is being done fraudulently? Its fraudulently because these people think linked to think its wrong? Make your case amberglow.
On preview: Kellydammit, so this is an anti-corporate thing? Wow. Look, they got their licenses legally. And obviously the licensing agency knew what these were "intended" for. A service existed. A group took advantage of the service. And now people are bitching because they don't like the group. This is so incredibly trite.
posted by dios at 8:26 AM on April 6, 2005
obtaining licenses fraudulently is not very Christian--at all.
posted by amberglow at 7:58 AM PST on April 6
Where are you getting this allegation that this is being done fraudulently? Its fraudulently because these people think linked to think its wrong? Make your case amberglow.
On preview: Kellydammit, so this is an anti-corporate thing? Wow. Look, they got their licenses legally. And obviously the licensing agency knew what these were "intended" for. A service existed. A group took advantage of the service. And now people are bitching because they don't like the group. This is so incredibly trite.
posted by dios at 8:26 AM on April 6, 2005
Is there any legitimate reason that Christians should be prohibited from having radio stations?
That's not really the issue addressed in the article, from what I can tell. It seems they are using LPFM licenses to operate translators, and "Christian broadcasters use these translators to transmit programs from their bigger full-power stations."
So this is not really the community radio that LPFM advocates have been looking for - they are essentially rebroadcasting their existing stations using LPFM translators.
It's like your local Clear Channel station buying up LPFM translators to boost its signals - it's not a new station, it's increasing the reach of existing stations. Since the LPFM band is finite (seems to be, since there is talk of "buying up" licenses) these LPFM stations are not really new community stations, they are rebroadcasted existing stations. Churches can do this (it seems) because they are not commercial stations.
The article: Unlike commercial stations which can only have a translator within the receivable range of the full-power "parent" station non-commercial groups such as religious broadcasters can place their translators at any distance and feed them via satellite or other means."
So where a commercial station would not be able to extend its reach using a translator, because their translator can only be placed within the receivable range of the parent station, a non-commercial station can place one anywhere and feed them via satellite.
It seems to me that feeding a LPFM station via satellite is the opposite of what LPFM advocates were looking for.
dios: Out of curiosity, why does the tag say Christian Right? I believe the article is about Christian broadcasting. Correct me if I am wrong, but there can be Christian stations that are either not on the right or apolitical, right?
There sure can be. But the article talks about the Christian Right specifically. This sprawling radio network has become a powerful means to disseminate the reactionary ideological agenda of the evangelical right and its leading organizations.
A good example is "Portraits of Freedom," which is produced and distributed by the ADF, a legal organization with its own staff attorneys and a network of 700 pro-bono lawyers -- all of whom work on filing lawsuits all over the country on issues close to the heart of the religious right."
on preview: damnit kelly! :)
posted by drstupid at 8:28 AM on April 6, 2005
That's not really the issue addressed in the article, from what I can tell. It seems they are using LPFM licenses to operate translators, and "Christian broadcasters use these translators to transmit programs from their bigger full-power stations."
So this is not really the community radio that LPFM advocates have been looking for - they are essentially rebroadcasting their existing stations using LPFM translators.
It's like your local Clear Channel station buying up LPFM translators to boost its signals - it's not a new station, it's increasing the reach of existing stations. Since the LPFM band is finite (seems to be, since there is talk of "buying up" licenses) these LPFM stations are not really new community stations, they are rebroadcasted existing stations. Churches can do this (it seems) because they are not commercial stations.
The article: Unlike commercial stations which can only have a translator within the receivable range of the full-power "parent" station non-commercial groups such as religious broadcasters can place their translators at any distance and feed them via satellite or other means."
So where a commercial station would not be able to extend its reach using a translator, because their translator can only be placed within the receivable range of the parent station, a non-commercial station can place one anywhere and feed them via satellite.
It seems to me that feeding a LPFM station via satellite is the opposite of what LPFM advocates were looking for.
dios: Out of curiosity, why does the tag say Christian Right? I believe the article is about Christian broadcasting. Correct me if I am wrong, but there can be Christian stations that are either not on the right or apolitical, right?
There sure can be. But the article talks about the Christian Right specifically. This sprawling radio network has become a powerful means to disseminate the reactionary ideological agenda of the evangelical right and its leading organizations.
A good example is "Portraits of Freedom," which is produced and distributed by the ADF, a legal organization with its own staff attorneys and a network of 700 pro-bono lawyers -- all of whom work on filing lawsuits all over the country on issues close to the heart of the religious right."
on preview: damnit kelly! :)
posted by drstupid at 8:28 AM on April 6, 2005
No, dios, I said they should help pay for them by providing property taxes.
posted by Balisong at 8:31 AM on April 6, 2005
posted by Balisong at 8:31 AM on April 6, 2005
Where are you getting this allegation that this is being done fraudulently?
he read the article. you obviously didn't.
posted by quonsar at 8:32 AM on April 6, 2005
The argument here is such a fallacy. Just because you don't like the content of these religious broadcasters doesn't mean that they are doing anything illegal. If they are legally obtaining licenses for these translators and are remaining within the regulations of the FCC, then they are free to put up as many translators as they want.
If the whining LPFM wannabes were as organized as these groups are, then this wouldn't be an issue. The problem is that religious groups that have grabbed these frequencies are organized. They have the funding, the legal muscle, and the technical knowhow to get the job done. You can call that unfair all you want, but it's legal and ethical.
posted by marcusb at 8:33 AM on April 6, 2005
If the whining LPFM wannabes were as organized as these groups are, then this wouldn't be an issue. The problem is that religious groups that have grabbed these frequencies are organized. They have the funding, the legal muscle, and the technical knowhow to get the job done. You can call that unfair all you want, but it's legal and ethical.
posted by marcusb at 8:33 AM on April 6, 2005
"While it did institute a freeze on granting additional construction permits for translators, it was prompted by allegations of fraud leveled against two companies with ties to Calvary Chapel, which are accused of applying for 4,200 translator permits for the sole purpose of selling them to other religious broadcasters (Trafficking in translator licenses is illegal.)."
posted by quonsar at 8:35 AM on April 6, 2005
posted by quonsar at 8:35 AM on April 6, 2005
The "anti-Christian" defense has been the new "because I'm black!".
posted by substrate at 8:35 AM on April 6, 2005
posted by substrate at 8:35 AM on April 6, 2005
Dios, I believe this map is the appropriate image. Notice that they have essentially saturated the most populated parts of Oregon without buying a single legit license. And all the while they're crowding out local stations, completely undermining the purpose of the regulation.
I'd rather Dobson than ClearChannel, but I'd rather Bob's Christian Station than Dobson.
posted by Ptrin at 8:37 AM on April 6, 2005
I'd rather Dobson than ClearChannel, but I'd rather Bob's Christian Station than Dobson.
posted by Ptrin at 8:37 AM on April 6, 2005
The "issue" in the article is laid bare:
The story of low-power radio is a cautionary tale on how a progressive victory can quickly be turned to conservative gain.
These stations were supposed to be for "progressives" and now those Christians started using them.
You can couch the argument in whatever anti-corporate language you want, but it comes back to the same issue: this is discrimination. The problem is not that these airwaves are limited or that some people who want to broadcast aren't able to. The problem of the article and the people here is the beliefs of the people who are using the service.
I would love for my liberal friends to make this a big issue. This sort of Chrisitian hostility will play great in America. I really want to see the results of the next election if one of the main issues becomes "We must stop Chrisitians from using radio airwaves to broadcast their message." That should be a real winner.
posted by dios at 8:37 AM on April 6, 2005
The story of low-power radio is a cautionary tale on how a progressive victory can quickly be turned to conservative gain.
These stations were supposed to be for "progressives" and now those Christians started using them.
You can couch the argument in whatever anti-corporate language you want, but it comes back to the same issue: this is discrimination. The problem is not that these airwaves are limited or that some people who want to broadcast aren't able to. The problem of the article and the people here is the beliefs of the people who are using the service.
I would love for my liberal friends to make this a big issue. This sort of Chrisitian hostility will play great in America. I really want to see the results of the next election if one of the main issues becomes "We must stop Chrisitians from using radio airwaves to broadcast their message." That should be a real winner.
posted by dios at 8:37 AM on April 6, 2005
... prompted by allegations of fraud leveled against two companies with ties to Calvary Chapel, which are accused of applying for 4,200 translator permits for the sole purpose of selling them to other religious broadcasters ...
Hmmm ... "allegations" and "accused" makes it sound like nothing has been proved yet.
posted by marcusb at 8:37 AM on April 6, 2005
Hmmm ... "allegations" and "accused" makes it sound like nothing has been proved yet.
posted by marcusb at 8:37 AM on April 6, 2005
If the whining LPFM wannabes were as organized as these groups are, then this wouldn't be an issue.
the very nature of LPFM advocacy is decentralized, un-organized, grass-roots, local interest broadcasting to serve the unmoneyed, unpowerful, voice. duh.
posted by quonsar at 8:37 AM on April 6, 2005
the very nature of LPFM advocacy is decentralized, un-organized, grass-roots, local interest broadcasting to serve the unmoneyed, unpowerful, voice. duh.
posted by quonsar at 8:37 AM on April 6, 2005
I'm starting to wonder if a reading comprehension test should be required for new mefi members.
posted by ursus_comiter at 8:38 AM on April 6, 2005
posted by ursus_comiter at 8:38 AM on April 6, 2005
my liberal friends
Bullshit, dios, you don't have any liberal friends. I'm sure you've driven any potentials away long ago.
posted by Balisong at 8:41 AM on April 6, 2005
Bullshit, dios, you don't have any liberal friends. I'm sure you've driven any potentials away long ago.
posted by Balisong at 8:41 AM on April 6, 2005
quonsar, I read the article and amberglow's case does not have support. They got the licenses legitmately and legally. Now if they are selling the licenses, then that might be criminal and would be wrong (but that really isn't what this article is complaining of). The thrust of the complaint here is the practice of acquiring the licenses in mass which does not appear to be fraudlent or criminal as the FCC has permitted it.
posted by dios at 8:42 AM on April 6, 2005
posted by dios at 8:42 AM on April 6, 2005
Bullshit, dios, you don't have any liberal friends. I'm sure you've driven any potentials away long ago.
posted by Balisong at 8:41 AM PST on April 6
Maybe. But that would be because I require my friends to be tolerant of the beliefs of others, unlike you.
posted by dios at 8:44 AM on April 6, 2005
posted by Balisong at 8:41 AM PST on April 6
Maybe. But that would be because I require my friends to be tolerant of the beliefs of others, unlike you.
posted by dios at 8:44 AM on April 6, 2005
the very nature of LPFM advocacy is decentralized, un-organized, grass-roots, local interest broadcasting
The very nature of broadcasting in America is highly technical, highly regulated, and is very expensive. I know there is a quaint notion that every citizen with an opinion should have the right to speak into a microphone and have that message broadcast throughout the community, but such a right doesn't exist. Ask anyone who has gone through the process to obtain a LPFM allocation. They'll tell you that if you aren't organized and funded, it's never going to happen. You might not like it, but that's the nature of the beast.
posted by marcusb at 8:46 AM on April 6, 2005
The very nature of broadcasting in America is highly technical, highly regulated, and is very expensive. I know there is a quaint notion that every citizen with an opinion should have the right to speak into a microphone and have that message broadcast throughout the community, but such a right doesn't exist. Ask anyone who has gone through the process to obtain a LPFM allocation. They'll tell you that if you aren't organized and funded, it's never going to happen. You might not like it, but that's the nature of the beast.
posted by marcusb at 8:46 AM on April 6, 2005
My friends can believe whatever they want, It's when they push their views on me and others that I call them on it.
posted by Balisong at 8:47 AM on April 6, 2005
posted by Balisong at 8:47 AM on April 6, 2005
"Just because you don't like the content of these religious broadcasters doesn't mean that they are doing anything illegal. "
I'll grant your premise, but that isn't really the point. You can replace "religious broadcasters" with leprechauns for all I care, but what they are doing is in fact unethical and possibly illegal.
These people, irrespective of their political beliefs, are abusing a system that was intended to democratize radio by making broadcasting available to more people. Instead, they are using it to consolidate power and are in fact hiding behind their Christianity as a defense. Instead of talking about well-funded groups abusing the public spectrum, we'll continue to hear how the most powerful religion in America is still being persecuted by a small cabal of liberal intellectuals.
If they were expanding their broadcast range to talk about puppies for two hours a day, it would still be unfair since in the scarce FM region, they are re-broadcasting rather than allowing other people to speak.
posted by aubin at 8:51 AM on April 6, 2005
I'll grant your premise, but that isn't really the point. You can replace "religious broadcasters" with leprechauns for all I care, but what they are doing is in fact unethical and possibly illegal.
These people, irrespective of their political beliefs, are abusing a system that was intended to democratize radio by making broadcasting available to more people. Instead, they are using it to consolidate power and are in fact hiding behind their Christianity as a defense. Instead of talking about well-funded groups abusing the public spectrum, we'll continue to hear how the most powerful religion in America is still being persecuted by a small cabal of liberal intellectuals.
If they were expanding their broadcast range to talk about puppies for two hours a day, it would still be unfair since in the scarce FM region, they are re-broadcasting rather than allowing other people to speak.
posted by aubin at 8:51 AM on April 6, 2005
Kellydamnit got it right, and since LPFM wasn't meant to be for translators, even if this were legal (and the FCC freeze means it's not anymore), it's not ethical.
But the question I've got is...what if Pastor Bob's station only has enough original material for, say, 10 hours of self/church-produced broadcasting a week? And he decides to use "positive, encouraging KLOVE" for the rest of the week's programming? Is that OK?
How about if he slips in some Dr. Demento?
posted by weston at 8:55 AM on April 6, 2005
But the question I've got is...what if Pastor Bob's station only has enough original material for, say, 10 hours of self/church-produced broadcasting a week? And he decides to use "positive, encouraging KLOVE" for the rest of the week's programming? Is that OK?
How about if he slips in some Dr. Demento?
posted by weston at 8:55 AM on April 6, 2005
If he slips in Dr.Demento, and it's really local Pastor Bob, and not 24-7 James Dobson, I say all's well..
posted by Balisong at 8:57 AM on April 6, 2005
posted by Balisong at 8:57 AM on April 6, 2005
These people, irrespective of their political beliefs, are abusing a system that was intended to democratize radio by making broadcasting available to more people.
The regulations for FM translators have been around much longer than the recent LPFM regulations. It's only been within the last few years that LPFM has become a possibility.
If the regulations for granting translator licenses is broken -- which I'll grant they might be -- then blame the FCC and the administrations under which it's operated. If it's truly an outrage against democracy, then the rules need to be changed.
posted by marcusb at 8:58 AM on April 6, 2005
The regulations for FM translators have been around much longer than the recent LPFM regulations. It's only been within the last few years that LPFM has become a possibility.
If the regulations for granting translator licenses is broken -- which I'll grant they might be -- then blame the FCC and the administrations under which it's operated. If it's truly an outrage against democracy, then the rules need to be changed.
posted by marcusb at 8:58 AM on April 6, 2005
In the good ol' days of LPFM, the majority of stations were Christian. They were, in fact, some of the people who were allies in fighting for LPFM stations (along with labor and anti-corporate leftists).
But if the single purpose of LPFM is to provide more voices on air, and these stations are being used as rebroadcasting points for giant voices, then yes, that's unethical.
TRHarlan: Y'know, I thought you were for personal responsibility. That means that when the government doesn't assume that people will act like assholes, it's not the fault of the government, it's the fault of people acting like assholes. Arguably, you can generally expect people to act like assholes, but wouldn't it be nice for once if we didn't blame that on the government not properly closing every opportunity to act like an asshole?
On Preview: Marc— Yes, the rules have needed to be changed for a long time. But people like Michael Powell and Clear Channel's donors stood in the way of that.
posted by klangklangston at 9:07 AM on April 6, 2005
But if the single purpose of LPFM is to provide more voices on air, and these stations are being used as rebroadcasting points for giant voices, then yes, that's unethical.
TRHarlan: Y'know, I thought you were for personal responsibility. That means that when the government doesn't assume that people will act like assholes, it's not the fault of the government, it's the fault of people acting like assholes. Arguably, you can generally expect people to act like assholes, but wouldn't it be nice for once if we didn't blame that on the government not properly closing every opportunity to act like an asshole?
On Preview: Marc— Yes, the rules have needed to be changed for a long time. But people like Michael Powell and Clear Channel's donors stood in the way of that.
posted by klangklangston at 9:07 AM on April 6, 2005
After dios' intentionally inflammatory strawman of a first post, I can't believe anyone bothers addressing him seriously. Though I think that just about any time he opens his mouth.
posted by kableh at 9:08 AM on April 6, 2005
posted by kableh at 9:08 AM on April 6, 2005
Ursus_comiter: well I guess that would be restrictive..some people develop reading comprehension skills because somebody else makes them notice "you haven't understood shit" or make them notice they didn't even read !
Anyway, let's see the alternet text again shall we ?
Low-power FM (LPFM) radio is a service created five years ago by the Federal Communications Commission in response to an effective lobbying by progressive activists -- that enables schools, churches, civic associations, or clubs to establish their own neighborhood radio stations.
So it's not like FCC granted some religion some privilege (and God forbid that must never happen), but instead the possibility was created for what are evidentily little LOCAL communities. The keyword here is LOCAL community.
If the Little Church leaded by the little good pastor (usually the guy who really helps, not the minor abuser Archibishop of Something or the Corrupt Bourocrat) or the Little Civil Rights help group (for instance consumer associations) wanted a low power radio, the FCC LPFM could have provided.
But apparently, or so we learn from the article, some religious radio(s) are exploiting the fact that
1. they're non-commercial entities therefore
2. they can use "translators" to enhance their coverage
Translator here is VERY misleading: it translates NOTHING, it's just a goddamed REPEATER !!! Commercial entities can't not use the same trick, but nothing prohibits one central religious (or laic) non commercial station from sending the signal over the internet or satellite and have basically yet another repeater in another location.
This isn't free: this is done at the expense of those who are organizing or will want to organize some local radio..simply because there are infinite low power licences..FCC exists for many a reason, including that of regulating a reality..that there aren't infinite frequencies.
To me, it doesn't come as a surprise that some religious organization is exploiting this, indeed there's only one God according to many of them...so why "waste" frequency for local realities, _closer_ to people ? Let's have only "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein God" station. It wouldn't surprise me that the real spiritual, religious people is getting the shaft again.
posted by elpapacito at 9:09 AM on April 6, 2005
Anyway, let's see the alternet text again shall we ?
Low-power FM (LPFM) radio is a service created five years ago by the Federal Communications Commission in response to an effective lobbying by progressive activists -- that enables schools, churches, civic associations, or clubs to establish their own neighborhood radio stations.
So it's not like FCC granted some religion some privilege (and God forbid that must never happen), but instead the possibility was created for what are evidentily little LOCAL communities. The keyword here is LOCAL community.
If the Little Church leaded by the little good pastor (usually the guy who really helps, not the minor abuser Archibishop of Something or the Corrupt Bourocrat) or the Little Civil Rights help group (for instance consumer associations) wanted a low power radio, the FCC LPFM could have provided.
But apparently, or so we learn from the article, some religious radio(s) are exploiting the fact that
1. they're non-commercial entities therefore
2. they can use "translators" to enhance their coverage
Translator here is VERY misleading: it translates NOTHING, it's just a goddamed REPEATER !!! Commercial entities can't not use the same trick, but nothing prohibits one central religious (or laic) non commercial station from sending the signal over the internet or satellite and have basically yet another repeater in another location.
This isn't free: this is done at the expense of those who are organizing or will want to organize some local radio..simply because there are infinite low power licences..FCC exists for many a reason, including that of regulating a reality..that there aren't infinite frequencies.
To me, it doesn't come as a surprise that some religious organization is exploiting this, indeed there's only one God according to many of them...so why "waste" frequency for local realities, _closer_ to people ? Let's have only "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein God" station. It wouldn't surprise me that the real spiritual, religious people is getting the shaft again.
posted by elpapacito at 9:09 AM on April 6, 2005
they found a loophole in the law and exploited it
i wonder if it's occured to anyone complaining about this that these radio stations might well represent the viewpoints and interests of many listeners ... perhaps, shocking as it may seem, some people actually want and listen to christian radio stations
all this really says to me is that the churches are better organized than the community radio advocates ... so, if you want an alternative, organize for it
it's my impression that low-power community radio advocates aren't very good at actually making these radio stations happen, at least not yet in my area
posted by pyramid termite at 9:11 AM on April 6, 2005
i wonder if it's occured to anyone complaining about this that these radio stations might well represent the viewpoints and interests of many listeners ... perhaps, shocking as it may seem, some people actually want and listen to christian radio stations
all this really says to me is that the churches are better organized than the community radio advocates ... so, if you want an alternative, organize for it
it's my impression that low-power community radio advocates aren't very good at actually making these radio stations happen, at least not yet in my area
posted by pyramid termite at 9:11 AM on April 6, 2005
On preview: Kellydammit, so this is an anti-corporate thing?
Dios, is there a particular reason you're being intentionally dense?
Yes, this is an anti-corporate thing. Low power FM is for small low power stations, not to boost the signal of pre-existing media empires. If stations were being bought up by small, independent Christian broadcasters this wouldn't be an issue. This is an issue because it's being bought out by the Clear Channel of the crucifix crowd. This isn't friendly neighborhood Pastor Bob, who runs the local soup kitchen and waves when he sees you on the street. Make no mistake, these stations are a media empire as much as any other. They just get to dodge taxes legally.
posted by Kellydamnit at 9:27 AM on April 6, 2005
Dios, is there a particular reason you're being intentionally dense?
Yes, this is an anti-corporate thing. Low power FM is for small low power stations, not to boost the signal of pre-existing media empires. If stations were being bought up by small, independent Christian broadcasters this wouldn't be an issue. This is an issue because it's being bought out by the Clear Channel of the crucifix crowd. This isn't friendly neighborhood Pastor Bob, who runs the local soup kitchen and waves when he sees you on the street. Make no mistake, these stations are a media empire as much as any other. They just get to dodge taxes legally.
posted by Kellydamnit at 9:27 AM on April 6, 2005
Is there any legitimate reason that Christians should be prohibited from having radio stations?
Yes. Because they've got the whole fucking AM band pretty much saturated and half of the SW. Freedom of speech? How many god damned radio stations do you need to say the same damn thing?
posted by c13 at 9:36 AM on April 6, 2005
Yes. Because they've got the whole fucking AM band pretty much saturated and half of the SW. Freedom of speech? How many god damned radio stations do you need to say the same damn thing?
posted by c13 at 9:36 AM on April 6, 2005
If the whining LPFM wannabes were as organized as these groups are, then this wouldn't be an issue. The problem is that religious groups that have grabbed these frequencies are organized. They have the funding, the legal muscle, and the technical knowhow to get the job done. You can call that unfair all you want, but it's legal and ethical.
Legal != ethical.
For example, it's perfectly legal for us to slowly destroy the world's resources and do our best to make the world as uninhabitable as possible. It's also perfectly legal for to roll around in the muck like fat and sassy pigs while people subsist on food stamps and overcrowded and unsafe public housing. And so on, and so on. But it's not ethical in any real sense.
In fact, it's a rather distressing way to look at ethics unless you're a lawyer.
the very nature of LPFM advocacy is decentralized, un-organized, grass-roots, local interest broadcasting to serve the unmoneyed, unpowerful, voice. duh.
Amen. I'm a little uncomfortable that some people seemed to use this thread as a pretense for bashing Christianity because they disagree with it, but the fact is "Big Christianity" isn't all that different from "Big Business" either in its practices or in its aims. Protection from these sorts of things has always been questionable, especially in America, but the erosion of said protections in the global age is frightening.
posted by The God Complex at 9:52 AM on April 6, 2005
Legal != ethical.
For example, it's perfectly legal for us to slowly destroy the world's resources and do our best to make the world as uninhabitable as possible. It's also perfectly legal for to roll around in the muck like fat and sassy pigs while people subsist on food stamps and overcrowded and unsafe public housing. And so on, and so on. But it's not ethical in any real sense.
In fact, it's a rather distressing way to look at ethics unless you're a lawyer.
the very nature of LPFM advocacy is decentralized, un-organized, grass-roots, local interest broadcasting to serve the unmoneyed, unpowerful, voice. duh.
Amen. I'm a little uncomfortable that some people seemed to use this thread as a pretense for bashing Christianity because they disagree with it, but the fact is "Big Christianity" isn't all that different from "Big Business" either in its practices or in its aims. Protection from these sorts of things has always been questionable, especially in America, but the erosion of said protections in the global age is frightening.
posted by The God Complex at 9:52 AM on April 6, 2005
The God Complex has spoken.
on seven full-power affilliates served by 642 low power repeaters fed by satellite
posted by quonsar at 10:00 AM on April 6, 2005
on seven full-power affilliates served by 642 low power repeaters fed by satellite
posted by quonsar at 10:00 AM on April 6, 2005
I am getting so sick of Christian zealots whining about their freedom of speech. You guys have huge radio networks, a good dozen or so cable TV channels, and all kinds of national print publications, and yet you're always crying about the secular, liberal media trying to shut you up. STOP LYING. Nobody is telling you that you can't speak. The Constitution guarantees your right to free speech. It does not guarantee you an audience. Your right to free speech does not give you the right to drown out other voices. Buying up these low-power licenses is illegal and unethical, and YOU FUCKING KNOW IT. STOP LYING.
posted by RylandDotNet at 11:20 AM on April 6, 2005
posted by RylandDotNet at 11:20 AM on April 6, 2005
Everything is going well. There's nothing to be worried about.
Praise the God Complex and Quonsar is his prophet.
Everything is going well. There's nothing to be worried about.
Everything is going well. There's nothing to be worried about.
Everything is going well. There's nothing to be worried about.
Everything is going well. There's nothing to be worried about.
Everything is going well. There's nothing to be worried about.
posted by elpapacito at 11:22 AM on April 6, 2005
Praise the God Complex and Quonsar is his prophet.
Everything is going well. There's nothing to be worried about.
Everything is going well. There's nothing to be worried about.
Everything is going well. There's nothing to be worried about.
Everything is going well. There's nothing to be worried about.
Everything is going well. There's nothing to be worried about.
posted by elpapacito at 11:22 AM on April 6, 2005
pyramid termite: i wonder if it's occured to anyone complaining about this that these radio stations might well represent the viewpoints and interests of many listeners ... perhaps, shocking as it may seem, some people actually want and listen to christian radio station
If these viewpoints were being transmitted by dozens of different voices I'd have no problem with it (nor would most everyone else). It's because the local aspect of the intent of these stations is being thwarted that people are pissed.
And on the "just get organised" mantra, this situation is like the France family deciding they want to have there stars dominate the local dirt track. Bob's motorsports running the 15 year old car is in no position to compete with NASCAR. Bob doesn't have the time, experience nor resources to effectively fight for the position that should be his.
posted by Mitheral at 12:02 PM on April 6, 2005
If these viewpoints were being transmitted by dozens of different voices I'd have no problem with it (nor would most everyone else). It's because the local aspect of the intent of these stations is being thwarted that people are pissed.
And on the "just get organised" mantra, this situation is like the France family deciding they want to have there stars dominate the local dirt track. Bob's motorsports running the 15 year old car is in no position to compete with NASCAR. Bob doesn't have the time, experience nor resources to effectively fight for the position that should be his.
posted by Mitheral at 12:02 PM on April 6, 2005
What's the alternative here?
Churches are able to mobilize large amounts of people because they all go to church on Sunday, so they already have an intrenched base of persons they can collect together easily and readily.
Persons who disagree with those who are deluded, poorly informed and have easily manipulated values need to find a way to organize to drown out this amoral, tyrannical and fascistic minority.
Until we stop commenting on message boards and mobilize in the streets, in community centers, in beer halls, under a tree or wherever, these people, who spend all their free time plotting to remove freedoms and funds from others will continue to do so.
Have any of you noticed this? These people get off work at night and instead of going home to watch television they spend the rest of their evening (and weekends) working on taking away from others (and you).
This problem is not going to be fixed by a false faith in a rigged electoral system. The sooner you realize that the sooner we can get a legitimate representational government and not one represented by illegitimate corporate interests or religious loons.
posted by mk1gti at 12:11 PM on April 6, 2005
Churches are able to mobilize large amounts of people because they all go to church on Sunday, so they already have an intrenched base of persons they can collect together easily and readily.
Persons who disagree with those who are deluded, poorly informed and have easily manipulated values need to find a way to organize to drown out this amoral, tyrannical and fascistic minority.
Until we stop commenting on message boards and mobilize in the streets, in community centers, in beer halls, under a tree or wherever, these people, who spend all their free time plotting to remove freedoms and funds from others will continue to do so.
Have any of you noticed this? These people get off work at night and instead of going home to watch television they spend the rest of their evening (and weekends) working on taking away from others (and you).
This problem is not going to be fixed by a false faith in a rigged electoral system. The sooner you realize that the sooner we can get a legitimate representational government and not one represented by illegitimate corporate interests or religious loons.
posted by mk1gti at 12:11 PM on April 6, 2005
More power to them, I say. Ten minutes of bible screed, some random veiled references to homosexuals frottering the neighbor kids and then fifteen minutes of ads for rheumatism salve and financial-salvation newsletters. It's the same argument I've always had for Disneyland and Wal-mart - build the damn things as big as possible so we can keep the rest of our planet uncluttered.
It's actually fun sometimes to be witness to the burgeoning ass-fucking of our dying democratic endeavor.
And on preview, what mk1gti said.
posted by docpops at 1:03 PM on April 6, 2005
It's actually fun sometimes to be witness to the burgeoning ass-fucking of our dying democratic endeavor.
And on preview, what mk1gti said.
posted by docpops at 1:03 PM on April 6, 2005
Yeah, sometimes I think democracy needs a rest so that some 'issues' can be corrected.
Let's look at some of these issues.
suppression of freedom of speech. Check
suppression of the right to vote. Check
suppression of representation of the majority of the population. Check
suppression of basic rights as outlined in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. Check
Taxation without representation. Check
Now let's look at some things that have happened that should not according to how this country was set up.
separation of Church and State as outlined by no less than Thomas Jefferson. Seems like there is *way* to much collusion between church and state today to the detriment of all but a few.
Rights for the rich and privileged and not for the poor and middle class. The higher one's income becomes in this country, the more they live in a socialized society cut off from the rest of us 'working stiffs' who have to subsidize them.
Human rights for corporations. What gives a building more rights than a living, breathing human being? By what basic, logical right is this correct? Hello?
Meanwhile this juggernaut rumbles on pell-mell slaughtering those beyond our shores and, I fear, to a larger extent here (product liability, on the job injurys, denial of unemployment when fired from a job, lack of access to reasonably priced health care, bankruptcy bills enacted by those who are supposed to be serving their constituents . . ..
Feel free to add more.
posted by mk1gti at 2:09 PM on April 6, 2005
Let's look at some of these issues.
suppression of freedom of speech. Check
suppression of the right to vote. Check
suppression of representation of the majority of the population. Check
suppression of basic rights as outlined in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. Check
Taxation without representation. Check
Now let's look at some things that have happened that should not according to how this country was set up.
separation of Church and State as outlined by no less than Thomas Jefferson. Seems like there is *way* to much collusion between church and state today to the detriment of all but a few.
Rights for the rich and privileged and not for the poor and middle class. The higher one's income becomes in this country, the more they live in a socialized society cut off from the rest of us 'working stiffs' who have to subsidize them.
Human rights for corporations. What gives a building more rights than a living, breathing human being? By what basic, logical right is this correct? Hello?
Meanwhile this juggernaut rumbles on pell-mell slaughtering those beyond our shores and, I fear, to a larger extent here (product liability, on the job injurys, denial of unemployment when fired from a job, lack of access to reasonably priced health care, bankruptcy bills enacted by those who are supposed to be serving their constituents . . ..
Feel free to add more.
posted by mk1gti at 2:09 PM on April 6, 2005
In the radio context low power means low broadcast range. The system was originally set up to provide a means for a local community to have a radio station which could broadcast by and for local people, and which won't be interfered with by higher-power transmitters which broadcast content over a wider region.
What this group is doing, by repeating a message over multiple LPFM stations, is in creating one higher-power station which is available in many areas. This is against the intent of the system, and it is unethical because it deprives each local community in which it is done of the ability to have a locally-produced LPFM station. It is an abuse enabled by people applying for LPFM licenses and then rebroadcasting external material, rather than making up their own material. These are the fraudulent licensees referred to.
Instead of:
In Location A, Albert uses his license to broadcast content produced by himself and other locals
In Location B, Bob broadcasts content produced by himself and other locals
In Location C, Carol broadcasts content produced by herself and other locals
...
We have:
In Location A, content produced by MegaChurch and broadcast on Albert's license
In Location B, content produced by MegaChurch and broadcast on Bob's license
In Location C, content produced by MegaChurch and broadcast on Carol's license
...
posted by aeschenkarnos at 3:08 PM on April 6, 2005
What this group is doing, by repeating a message over multiple LPFM stations, is in creating one higher-power station which is available in many areas. This is against the intent of the system, and it is unethical because it deprives each local community in which it is done of the ability to have a locally-produced LPFM station. It is an abuse enabled by people applying for LPFM licenses and then rebroadcasting external material, rather than making up their own material. These are the fraudulent licensees referred to.
Instead of:
In Location A, Albert uses his license to broadcast content produced by himself and other locals
In Location B, Bob broadcasts content produced by himself and other locals
In Location C, Carol broadcasts content produced by herself and other locals
...
We have:
In Location A, content produced by MegaChurch and broadcast on Albert's license
In Location B, content produced by MegaChurch and broadcast on Bob's license
In Location C, content produced by MegaChurch and broadcast on Carol's license
...
posted by aeschenkarnos at 3:08 PM on April 6, 2005
Dios, if you're hung up on the fact that this was an Alternet story, it might interest you to know that a story about the Rev. Donald Wildmon gleefully taking over stations that were repeating NPR broadcasts so that they could instead play his American Public Radio programming appeared on the MSNBC site in August 2001. I blogged about it on August 14th. Here's the original link which no longer works, alas. (I looked in the Wayback Machine too.)
posted by pmurray63 at 3:16 PM on April 6, 2005
posted by pmurray63 at 3:16 PM on April 6, 2005
On the other hand, satellite low-powered translators already exist in spades. For instance, look at one translator network with repeaters as far away from each other as Juneau and the LA area. By contrast, most NPR stations tend to at least stick to the same state.
posted by calwatch at 10:40 PM on April 6, 2005
posted by calwatch at 10:40 PM on April 6, 2005
Bob doesn't have the time, experience nor resources to effectively fight for the position that should be his.
i think you should look at what mk1gti said beneath you ... time, experience and resources are all things that can be acquired or pooled ... motivation and purpose is what is really needed
by the way ... with wifi and an alternative to the regular internet, why would we need radio stations? ... one could have a bbs only it could be a source of streaming audio
in a way, this is a fight over old technology, isn't it?
posted by pyramid termite at 1:18 AM on April 7, 2005
i think you should look at what mk1gti said beneath you ... time, experience and resources are all things that can be acquired or pooled ... motivation and purpose is what is really needed
by the way ... with wifi and an alternative to the regular internet, why would we need radio stations? ... one could have a bbs only it could be a source of streaming audio
in a way, this is a fight over old technology, isn't it?
posted by pyramid termite at 1:18 AM on April 7, 2005
"with wifi and an alternative to the regular internet, why would we need radio stations?"
Find me a laptop and a WiFi card that costs $10 and I'm there dude!
posted by fullerine at 3:22 AM on April 7, 2005
Find me a laptop and a WiFi card that costs $10 and I'm there dude!
posted by fullerine at 3:22 AM on April 7, 2005
Pyramid: Ah yes, because we all forgot that every American has access to the internets all the time...
posted by klangklangston at 6:57 AM on April 7, 2005
posted by klangklangston at 6:57 AM on April 7, 2005
« Older Online outlets for gourmet goods | Redshift 10 Territory Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Is there any legitimate reason that Christians should be prohibited from having radio stations?
Out of curiosity, why does the tag say Christian Right? I believe the article is about Christian broadcasting. Correct me if I am wrong, but there can be Christian stations that are either not on the right or apolitical, right?
posted by dios at 7:46 AM on April 6, 2005