Hit Fox in the OTHER place it hurts: FCC Approvals.

[TomTX]

I'm actually surprised that I haven't seen this tactic posted yet. Along with advertisers, this is the other major weakness of broadcasters/networks.

The other critical items we can influence directly are the FCC broadcast license for each affiliate, AND FCC approval for station purchases/mergers/trades. By specifically targeting FCC approvals, your comments will have a LOT more long-term weight. Endangering the local affiliate's license with enough negative comments in the right way will change their attitude from "It's the network, nothing we can do" and largely ignoring you to actually calling the NewsCorp on your behalf saying "OMG, fix this NOW!"

Remember, the FCC threatened to hit EACH broadcast station with a 6-figure fine for the half-second "wardrobe malfunction" at the SuperBowl*.

Key trigger phrases:

"FCC Public File"
"Not acting in the public interest"

1) At the beginning of EACH email or FAX to an affiliate (actual broadcaster, not the network) ask that the comment be placed in their "FCC Public File." They are required to comply with your request.

This "Public File" is reviewed by the FCC each time that station's license is up for renewal. Not getting a license renewed means the station is worthless.

Give your opinion that the broadcaster is "Not acting in the public interest" and give detailed reasoning.

We can specifically start slamming each affiliate under the FCC "Equal Time Rule."

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/E/htmlE/equaltimeru/equaltimeru.htm
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/broadcast/pif.html


2) Comment to the FCC directly on media ownership:

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/ecfs/Upload/

Check next to "Media Ownership Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking - Docket 06-121 "

1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322)
1-866-418-0232 FAX: toll-free

Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554

Chairman Kevin J. Martin: KJMWEB@fcc.gov
Commissioner Michael J. Copps: Michael.Copps@fcc.gov
Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: Jonathan.Adelstein@fcc.gov
Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate: dtaylortateweb@fcc.gov
Commissioner Robert McDowell: Robert.McDowell@fcc.gov

...and make sure to comment how NewsCorp is "acting against the public interest."

-TomTX

*This was later reduced to only hitting the direct-owned stations. Other events such as the "Without a Trace" teen orgy did fine affiliates directly at 5 figures.

[freedom-maniac]

Holy Crap! This is genious for taking down Fox, but when is their license renewed? The end of the year I hope.

[Kingfisher]

The FCC is part of the Regime

[TomTX]

Holy Crap! This is genious for taking down Fox, but when is their license renewed? The end of the year I hope.

License renewals are on a continuous, rolling basis for each local broadcaster.

However, your comments MUST stay in the public file - and there are rarely very many of them.

Several dozen (hundred?) negative comments in each affiliate's public file WILL scare them.

[Castrensis]

Since 1959, the FCC has provided a number of interpretations to Section 315's exemptions. Presidential press conferences have been labeled on-the-spot news, even if the president uses his remarks to bolster his campaign. Since the 1970s, debates have also been considered on-the-spot news events and therefore exempt from the equal time law. This has enabled stations or other parties arranging the debates to choose which candidates to include in a debate.
Link (http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/E/htmlE/equaltimeru/equaltimeru.htm)

[mosquitobite]

Explain what you mean by affiliate? Our local Fox station?

[Think12345]

I think this might just work!
5 stars to this thread.

[TomTX]

Yes, we have a bit of an uphill battle with the "debate exception" to the equal time rule.

1) This is NOT a debate. It is a "roundtable discussion"

2) Modern "debates" are VERY different from the original exception 30+ years ago. Originally, media was just reporting "on the spot news" for an event organized by an independent third party, such as the League of Women Voters.

Today, debates are being run by the media themselves and therefore by my reasoning are NOT "on the spot news"

Affiliate: The local broadcast station in or near your town, such as "KTBC Austin Fox Channel 7". "Fox" is the national Network which produces much of the content. "KTBC Channel 7" is the local broadcaster in Austin affiliated with Fox, who owns the transmitter in Austin broadcasting Channel 7 to your TV and re-broadcasting the content produced by the Fox Network, plus their own local news, weather and such. "KTBC" is the unique set of call letters assigned by the FCC. Each local station has their own license from the FCC.

[robertwerden]

What about the blow back to Ron on this?

[TomTX]

The campaign was pretty clearly behind a strong grassroots response with their PR release.

[Think12345]

Is there a list of Fox affiliates?

[Dan Klaus]

wow...this is a quality post with good information...thanks 4 posting...

[Crickett]

This really is genius. The fact of NAMECALLING (crackpot, kook) seems specifically prohibited. They sure have broken that rule, along with the excerpts one. Even if the FCC is "part of it", like RP has done for YEARS, we must stand up and say something, AND get it into the public file. THIS IS GREAT!

[robertwerden]

Larger groups than us have tried to stop FOX and have failed.
This is a futile effort.
FOX has been before Congress before defending them selves and have won. There is a major collusion in the FCC and congress to protect FOX and unless we have people on our side in Congress and in the FCC we will not win this fight barring a major violation by FOX of FCC regulations.
I think this is a time consuming plan that takes away from the efforts we need to focus on to get Ron Paul elected.
My advice is to keep an eye out for gross violations and then strike, but until that has happened we should ramp up our efforts to get our man in the White House.

[RonPaulCult]

Fox and its parent company DO NOT own more than about 20 of the hundreds of Fox affiliates.

FOX NEWS CHANNEL is not licensed by the FCC because it is a cable channel.

[TomTX]

Larger groups than us have tried to stop FOX and have failed.
This is a futile effort.
FOX has been before Congress before defending them selves and have won. There is a major collusion in the FCC and congress to protect FOX and unless we have people on our side in Congress and in the FCC we will not win this fight barring a major violation by FOX of FCC regulations.
I think this is a time consuming plan that takes away from the efforts we need to focus on to get Ron Paul elected.
My advice is to keep an eye out for gross violations and then strike, but until that has happened we should ramp up our efforts to get our man in the White House.

Futile? Time consuming?

Has Fox succeeded against a largely Democrat Congress?

How long does it take to fill out a bloody web form and send a few emails? It took me all of 5 minutes to fill out the FCC "open comments" form about media consolidation and send an individual email to each commissioner detailing how the "debate exception" no longer applies.

I'm also working hard organizing my County for Ron Paul - we have a meeting this afternoon to get areas/precinct organizers designated to coordinate regional canvassing and sign posting, we'll be stuffing door-hangars and collecting $ to pay for more 4x8' signs - we already have landowner permission for several new high-visibility spots.

[parke]

When are they going to learn? This crap only strengthens our movement.

[schmeisser]

//

[another rp constituent]

I think the 'Equal Time Rule' was abolished in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Is this correct? Otherwise, this is very sound advice. I worked at radio stations all through the 80's and 90's and we were always paranoid about the 'Public File' whenever license renewal came up. Please take advantage of this system while it still works. And, we do have at least one level-headed commissioner at the FCC - Michael J. Copps (D). He is the lone voice of reason at that alphabet agency...and he's a democrat.

[TomTX]

Even if the specifics have changed, the theme that they are abusing the public trust and acting "against the public interest" should be effective, IMO.

[PimpBlimp]

The FCC is part of the Regime

I was just going to say this.

+1

[isrow]

Let's do this. I am contacting the members of my local meetup so thats 30-40 complaints right there. that should scare the crap out of them.:p

[MsDoodahs]

Yeah, the call to do this should go out through meetup...

Same for boycotting local sponsors of Fox Affiliates.

Same for snowing under FoxNewsPorn national sponsors.

Coordination is key. As individuals, they can brush us off. But when we mount a coordinated attack, they can't... because we have the numbers to overwhelm.

[The Plan]

I think this is brilliant!
We should use every tool at our disposal.

[Sey.Naci]

Exceptionally good plan. Be sure to read the OP carefully. For example:

1) At the beginning of EACH email or FAX to an affiliate (actual broadcaster, not the network) ask that the comment be placed in their "FCC Public File." They are required to comply with your request."

[ChooseLiberty]

Nice one TomTX.

The grassroots efforts is tailor made for this type of action along with contacting the local affiliate / cable advertisers.

[ChooseLiberty]

Maybe NOT after the next elections. :D

What happens when the neocons are no longer in charge and the license comes up for review?


The FCC is part of the Regime

[TruckinMike]

Do you believe that the government should have the power to remove a TV stations broadcast license because of words they speak?

Do you really?

To your station? To our Ron Paul TV station? To ron Paul Radio? To Ron Paul Revolution Radio?

Really?

Folks i think this is just the wrong tactic. Are we hypocritical? i thought that the government should not be allowed to restrict the first amendment in any way... Am i wrong here?

I think a better appraoch is the free market approach. WHERE we stop buying their product. And tell others to do the same.

Think about what you are doing.

TruckinMike

[Sey.Naci]

Hmmm, TruckinMike has a point. :confused:

[Devil_rules_in_extremes]

Blimp!!!!

[louisiana4liberty]

Fox more than likely has the FCC on their bankroll. These people don't play fair. They control through manipulation. And that includes paying people off by whatever means to act in their interest.

[ChooseLiberty]

So the way to promote free speech is to encourage people trying to suppress free speech?

By this logic only Rupert Murdoch will have free speech.

Don't overdose on red pills. There is a process.



Do you believe that the government should have the power to remove a TV stations broadcast license because of words they speak?

Do you really?

To your station? To our Ron Paul TV station? To ron Paul Radio? To Ron Paul Revolution Radio?

Really?

Folks i think this is just the wrong tactic. Are we hypocritical? i thought that the government should not be allowed to restrict the first amendment in any way... Am i wrong here?

I think a better appraoch is the free market approach. WHERE we stop buying their product. And tell others to do the same.

Think about what you are doing.

TruckinMike

[TomTX]

Do you believe that the government should have the power to remove a TV stations broadcast license because of words they speak?

Do you really?

To your station? To our Ron Paul TV station? To ron Paul Radio? To Ron Paul Revolution Radio?

Really?

TruckinMike

Absolutely - if they are doing so by using their exclusive license to a portion of the public airwaves.

You and I cannot, legally broadcast on the same channel as Fox 7 in Austin. Therefore, we cannot legally respond in the same medium.

It's only fair that they not be allowed to leverage their exclusive license into private promotion of specific political candidates.

If Fox wants to use an open, unlicensed free-for-all broadcast channel (CB range, FRS range) - they are free to do so. If they want to promote candidates on their private property, or by staging a parade - they are free to do so. If they want to use internet radio, podcasting, or any other non-exclusive means - they are free to do so.

[ecliptic]

I'm actually surprised that I haven't seen this tactic posted yet. Along with advertisers, this is the other major weakness of broadcasters/networks.

The other critical items we can influence directly are the FCC broadcast license for each affiliate, AND FCC approval for station purchases/mergers/trades. By specifically targeting FCC approvals, your comments will have a LOT more long-term weight. Endangering the local affiliate's license with enough negative comments in the right way will change their attitude from "It's the network, nothing we can do" and largely ignoring you to actually calling the NewsCorp on your behalf saying "OMG, fix this NOW!"

Remember, the FCC threatened to hit EACH broadcast station with a 6-figure fine for the half-second "wardrobe malfunction" at the SuperBowl*.

Key trigger phrases:

"FCC Public File"
"Not acting in the public interest"

1) At the beginning of EACH email or FAX to an affiliate (actual broadcaster, not the network) ask that the comment be placed in their "FCC Public File." They are required to comply with your request.

This "Public File" is reviewed by the FCC each time that station's license is up for renewal. Not getting a license renewed means the station is worthless.

Give your opinion that the broadcaster is "Not acting in the public interest" and give detailed reasoning.

We can specifically start slamming each affiliate under the FCC "Equal Time Rule."

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/E/htmlE/equaltimeru/equaltimeru.htm
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/broadcast/pif.html


2) Comment to the FCC directly on media ownership:

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/ecfs/Upload/

Check next to "Media Ownership Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking - Docket 06-121 "

1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322)
1-866-418-0232 FAX: toll-free

Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554

Chairman Kevin J. Martin: KJMWEB@fcc.gov
Commissioner Michael J. Copps: Michael.Copps@fcc.gov
Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: Jonathan.Adelstein@fcc.gov
Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate: dtaylortateweb@fcc.gov
Commissioner Robert McDowell: Robert.McDowell@fcc.gov

...and make sure to comment how NewsCorp is "acting against the public interest."

-TomTX

*This was later reduced to only hitting the direct-owned stations. Other events such as the "Without a Trace" teen orgy did fine affiliates directly at 5 figures.


WOW!!!!

THAT is some fine work!!!!!!! OUTSTANDING !!!!!!!!!!!

+1,000,000

[pikerz]

Given the time constraints we have, and how its documented that Murdoch is supporting the Hillary campaign (his intent with the Republicans is to set up a beatable Republican candidate), I think it is fair to use the FCC to our advantage.

Personally, I'd like to see the FCC abolished like it is in New Zealand.

However, the FCC exists, and broadcasters have to follow their regulations. And clearly Fox is not acting in the public interest. So lets nail them on it.

Maybe we can make this whole thing so absurd that the FCC is eventually abolished-- wouldnt that be great?

[ecliptic]

Stickkkkkky !!!!

[readyja]

I understand where you are coming from, but I don't see how this tactic will get Ron Paul more primary votes, which is all that really matters right now.

Jeff

The Liberty Project (http://thelibertyproject.com)- Get a Free Ron Paul Bumpersticker

[Myerz]

sticky!!!

[ecliptic]

... I don't see how this tactic will get Ron Paul more primary votes, which is all that really matters right now.

Controversy = publicity = curiosity = education and awakening = votes

[Maximilian American]

Emailed all of them!

[Maximilian American]

I urge you to place my comment in the FCC Public File:

NewsCorp is acting against the public interest of this country by excluding Ron Paul from their upcoming presidential forum on January 6th 2008 in New Hamphire. This is a disgrace upon the "democratic elections" in our country to exclude a powerful and influential candidate such as Ron Paul because of difference of opinion on American policy, for a true democratic forum should be precisely about discussing each of the proposed policies by all the influential candidates . What is your response to this exclusion?

Maximilian Irving

[ecliptic]

Up with Ron Paul!!!! Down with Rupert Murdoch!!!!

[azam]

The FCC is part of the Regime


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVjNkYcpZ1E

[azam]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVjNkYcpZ1E

[ecliptic]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVjNkYcpZ1E

That is one sickening 6 minute example of fascism. Required viewing.

[Jimmy]

Bump

[Bruehound]

Dr, Paul is promoting an agenda of liberty and does not believe in regulation. Please know his message.

[BobSmith]

bump

[free.alive]

Yes, yes, yes, yes!

[Crickett]

THIS is the deal. On the spot or not the FCC says

"Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be construed as relieving
broadcasters, in connection with the presentation of newscasts, news interviews,
news documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news events, from the obligationimposed upon them under this Act to operate in the public interest and to affordreasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of publicimportance".

RP is the ONLY non-member of CFR. By definition he should get equal time. Not only is it that simple, but the public file MUST be mailed, in its entirety, to anyone who asks. We could sure raise their shipping costs and force them to se up a new dept to mail them out. Also, the license issues must be addressed 30 days before they expire. So if it is 12/31 we are too late for this year. Each station may have a different expiration date, however. C-Span keeps covering all of Hucks Iowa speeches in full. They owe Ron A LOT of time.

[fightfortruth]

bump

[Ron LOL]

Only read the OP so far, but this seems like a great idea. I'll read the rest of the thread later and draft a letter.

[Crickett]

PLEASE read this last paragrah. WE GOT THEM!!

Section 315 [47 U.S.C. §315] Facilities for candidates for public office.
(a) If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station: Provided, That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provision of this section. No obligation is hereby imposed under this subsection upon any licensee to allow the use of its station by any such candidate. Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any –

(1) bona fide newscast,

(2) bona fide news interview,

(3) bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary), or

(4) on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including but not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto),

shall not be deemed to be use of a broadcasting station within the meaning of this subsection. Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be construed as relieving broadcasters, in connection with the presentation of newscasts, news interviews, news documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news events, from the obligation imposed upon them under this Act to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance.

[Crickett]

bump

[ecliptic]

bump ^^^^

Sticky this thread!

[tbarnett17]

Please don't forget about blowback, becuase there will be! -Tyler

[Bruehound]

Ron Paul does NOT believe in regulation.

[robofx]

Do you believe that the government should have the power to remove a TV stations broadcast license because of words they speak?

Do you really?

Absolutely. As long as statist trash like the FCC exists, use it against its minions! As soon as we take power, get RID of the FCC and all the other illegal criminal organizations like it.

Fight fire with fire.

[Knightskye]

2) Modern "debates" are VERY different from the original exception 30+ years ago. Originally, media was just reporting "on the spot news" for an event organized by an independent third party, such as the League of Women Voters.

So, if it was hosted entirely by the N.H. GOP, it'd have to follow the equal time law, but because it's being hosted by FOX News, it doesn't? That bites.

The R3volution will be televised!

[JSutter]

Being as that FoxNews is a cable channel I don't think targeting the local affiliates will work. If the debate/roundtable is carried solely on the cable channel then the local affiliates bear no responsibility. I would however ding the hell out of FoxNews file and put several tens of thousands of complaints in there.

[hotbrownsauce]

I sent in my complaint already

[stevedasbach]

Is this debate being aired on Fox affiliates, or only on the Foxnews cable channel? If it's only the cable channel, the affiliates aren't involved.

[Sey.Naci]

Absolutely. As long as statist trash like the FCC exists, use it against its minions! As soon as we take power, get RID of the FCC and all the other illegal criminal organizations like it.

Fight fire with fire.Yes, and this is consistent with the earmark issue too where RP wants to get back for his constituents all that he can while at the same time working to change the system.

[Dr.3D]

Glad you thought of this. :)

I worked in a radio station for some time and know the more people who complained to the FCC, the more problems we had at the station when it came time to get our license renewed.

[ExpatinArgentina]

I thought you should know, the FCC replied to my e-mail complaining about the Fox News Forum excluding Dr Paul. Unfortunetly here is their reply:

"There is no violation of the law in anything you are complaining about. It might demonstrate basic unfairness about candidate coverage, but there is no rule violation. Although the FCC licenses broadcast stations, we have virtually no control over the content of what is broadcast. That's because the First Amendment guarantees broadcasters free speech to air pretty much whatever they want (short of obscenity or indecency). Further, the Communications Act, which established the FCC back in 1934, has a provision that specifically prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast content. As a result, the FCC cannot tell stations and networks what to air or what not to air. There is, however, an equal time law that does require stations giving air time to one candidate to give air time to opponents, as well. Nevertheless, Congress has carved out several exceptions to that rule, including candidate appearances on newscasts, most interview programs, and in debates. Consequently, a station or network could have some candidates on in those formats but not all of their opponents. So if a station chooses not to cover - or even mention - one candidate on its news, it is entitled to do so. Similarly, it can exclude whatever candidates it wants from candidate debates. The equal time rule is largely aimed at paid political advertising, such that if one candidate purchases time on the air, his opponent is entitled to buy an equal amount of time. Finally, yours is one of many complaints that we have received over the years about Fox's newscasts, but as I explained above, they can air pretty much whatever they want on the news - even if it's false, misleading, or slanted."