CC is $20.6 Billion in debt...they bought radio properties at the peak of the market and now many are worth substantially less. Losing rushbo would be a major blow as it would further erode the rapidly sinking value of AM stations. Bain Capital is stuck with 40% of this debt and they're already making noise about divesting of "assets" before the next round of big notes come due in 2014. While I long favored repealing Dereg '96 that led to these corporates monopolizing our public airwaves, their greed seems to be their ultimate undoing.

any opinion on the NAA and NAB calling for further deregulation on cross-platform ownership?

Not sure who the NAA is...the NAB is dominated by the corporates and was the "champion" along with Billy Tauzin in pushing for all the dereg. The head is Gordon Smith...former rushpublican Senator from Oregon. Newspapers are desperate for the elimination of cross-ownership rules as they no longer dominate the news and advertising markets...but I haven't seen any move, yet, to do any more deregulation. Things are such a mess and the red ink is so thick out there all these companies are thinking right now is about surviving.

Cheers...

I wasn't familiar with the NAA...thank you for the link.

Ugly truth is cross-ownership has existed in broadcasting...Faux is a perfect example; owning the New York Post along with a TV station in New York along with the vast Fox/Rupert empire. The Journal company in Milwaukee has extensive holdings and it was an attempt by Sam Zell to expand the Chicago Tribune holdings by absorbing the LA Times that led to that company's ongoing bankruptcy. I know they want to wipe away the remaining 70s legislation that was enacted in the wake of Watergate...not sure the broadcasters are too interested in throwing a lifeline to their long time nemesis.

Thank you for sharing...

but held a few radio stations and a bunch of tv. They were conservative greeks and had a weird censorship policy on feminine hygeine products. We couldn't advertise several normal products from what I remember (most notably tampons and beer). They went bankrupt about 5 years ago, so I guess that didn't work out so well. I work for a locally owned but prestigious company now that cross owns a few media platforms. I won't say too much about it but this is a much better company. I would actually trust this owner if he picked up a newspaper. Which is a little weird for me to admit.

I spent 25 plus years in the radio world...prefering to work for a company where I knew the owner. I saw how destructive corporate radio would be and went independent in the early 90s...then moved into internet broadcasting and helping empower people with new media. It's been both fascinating and a lot of fun.

The corporate hold on information and entertainment has been seriously breeched by the internet. Dereg totally destroyed local broadcasting but so did the "Wal-marting" of the country as the "mom and pops" that used to be the bread and butter of local radio were driven out of business. The greed drove the corporates from programming to listeners to catering to Wall Street...pegging their profits on rising stock prices rather than advertising revenues and when that market crashed a couple years ago, companies like Pappas were stuck with lots of debt and little to show for it. The same fate awaits Clear Channel but on a far larger scale. I'm grateful I'm far away from that mess.

Best of luck with your endeavors...it's people like you that will be the future of a newer and better media.

Cheers...

nt

Only divine intervention will get Rush off the airways.

Can I mention that I want my e-mail placed in the public inspection file?

It is 2012 afterall. Are they required to maintain electronic communication as well as snail-mail?

...is proving its arrived. You don't get a return receipt like you can with registered mail. I'm not 100% on the current ascertainment laws (one of the few still on the books) but I would assume that emails would also have to be placed in the public file, but again, proving it arrived is key as we've seen how emails can get glitched or disappear. A written letter always carries more weight...shows that the writer has taken the extra effort...and a signed receipt is solid proof the letter did show up at the station. If you visit the station (which is your right to do) and its not in the file and you have the receipt, they're facing a serious fine.

Learned a lot of good stuff today.

Don

If Americans truly want to get Rush off the radio, they need to use all the tools available in their toolbox as citizens to get the job done. One of the biggest wrenches Americans have is the FCC. File a complaint with the FCC against stations that aired Rush's smear campaign against Ms. Fluke. Request that the FCC fine Rush for airing obscenities over public airwaves.

Stern worked for CBS and was dumped by Clear Channel...Stern appealed the fines and they were dropped...as were almost all fines levied against him. There were other politics involved...Clear Channel didn't feel comfortable having their morning shows in control of a personality working for their top competitor...the FCC fine opened up escape clauses that Clear Channel stations used. Rushbo's situation is different as the company owns his program and thus stand to lose millions should they banish rushbo.

The fine line here is while offensive, what rushbo said wasn't technically obscene. Stern would get graphic about sexual situations...rushbo's attacks were of a totally different nature. While I consider them the radio equivelent of rape, it didn't go into the areas normally considered obscene. As a wingnut will gladly point out...words like slut and whore and thrown around all over the dial. Unfortunately the FCC is a paper tiger...even moreso as there are two vacancies being fillibustered by Chuckles Grassley.

his viewing pleasure. Is that not obscene? Who is deciding what and what isn't obscene, and how can we petition that entity?

I consider what rushbo said far more offensive than anything Mahrer or Stern have ever said/done. His was a deliberate "nuts or sluts" attack on a woman attempting to speak freely. If it were my world, he would have been yanked after the first attack and suspended...but I'm not John Hogan.

The problem you face is determining what is obscene. The courts have battled with that for decades. Then who decides? We enter into some grey territory that definitely infringe on freedom of speech...no matter how offensive it can be. The same sword you try to take rushbo down on can easily be turned on you. Just like we can't legislate against stupidity, neither can or should we do so about what is considered offensive...or else then we have to not only muzzle folks like Bill Mahrer but Lewis Black, Jon Stewart, Chris Rock and any other political satyrist.

Hit 'em in the pocketbook...that's always the "American" way. Going after the advertisers is a very good first step. Next is now to shame and pressure the stations to drop this hatefest...

Cheers...

stations is much different that what is considered obscene on subscription services. This line has been delineated for years. There's no need to recreate the wheel here. Rush is using public airwaves, and he's being obscene. What Stern did on the air is much less obscene, and he was fined.

You didn't answer my question as to who decides what is obscene for our public airwaves. The buck for that stops with the FCC, and that's who American women will be contacting.

There's no "debate" about contraception. There simply isn't. The right would like there to be, the same as they would like to claim that there is a "debate" about evolution. No, there isn't. Evolution's a fact. You can ignore it, or dislike it, or make up stories, but none of these behaviors changes the facts.

The facts:
--People have sex for reasons other than procreation.
--People would prefer to prevent unwanted pregnancies, for reasons of their own.
--Contraception exists for the above reasons, and always has. It's gotten better in the last century.
--Hormonal medications also have medical benefits beyond the prevention of pregnancy.

Can someone explain to me where the "debate" is?

Some people are uncomfortable with the idea that people (women) have recreational sex? Oh. Too fucking bad. I don't see that going away either.

...the rights of those who disagree with him, to express those opinions."

But Mr. Limbaugh did not confine himself to expressing his opinions on the matter; he went straight into defaming the young woman. And he did so for days, lying about the nature of her testimony and making statements about her personal sexual behavior that were entirely untrue and irrelevant.

That is why I hope she sues him for defamation of character. I believe she would have a great case. Of course it is understandable if she chooses not to pursue it -- such a lawsuit would not be for the faint of heart, that's for sure, and it would mean rehashing all of his disgusting and vile comments publicly once again.

I just have this vision inside my head of someone poking him in the stomach with a sharp stick, and all the fetid air escaping and him collapsing to the floor, a large but empty gasbag.

Well a person can dream, can't she?

I looked into this...and when she took the stand to testify in front of the cameras and the Congress, she, by definition, became a public figure and what she said was part of the "public record". Pretty difficult to launch a defamation suit under those circumstances and my bets why she didn't.

I think the shitstorm that has ensued has done far more harm in a shorter period of time than any lawsuit can or will. If this results in rushbo being exiled from the public airwaves, I'm all for it. In many ways Ms. Fluke has done this country another great service by exposing the true hatred and vindictiveness of the rushpublican party that could mean big election gains in November. Keeping the rushpublicans from the levers of power is priceless.

Cheers...

...one does not become a public figure merely by testifying publicly on something. You seem to be saying that once a person agrees to testify before Congress, suddenly they are subject to this sort of defamation and there's nothing they can do about it.

The law distinguishes between very public figures (e.g., senators or movie stars), sort-of public figures (e.g., local officials or police officers, say), and private figures. And even very public figures have recourse, although they must prove malicious intent. I think in this case it would be very easy to prove that Rush's intent was malicious, that he knew his statements were false. His saying that she "has so much sex she can't afford her birth control" -- he has no way to know about her private life, and his intent in making up this narrative was clearly malicious. Anyway, she is in no way a very public figure, so I don't think she would have as big a legal hurdle to overcome.

Well anyway it's her choice and it may not be worth it for her to pursue such a case. And you are of course correct that the current sh*tstorm may be more effective anyway in diminishing Rush's and the Rushpublicans' power.