FCC begins implementing rules on foreign government leasing agreements

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: The Hill

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced on Tuesday that it has begun implementing rules requiring broadcasters to report when airwave time has been leased by foreign governments or representatives.

Under the rule, new leasing agreements are immediately subject to the mandate while existing ones have up to six months of the Federal Register publication date to comply with the rule, which was adopted last April.

Foreign governments are allowed to purchase airwave time, the FCC noted. However, they cannot directly hold a broadcast license.

"In light of recent events, this effort - which is all about transparency - has taken on new importance. It is essential that audiences know when a broadcast station has been compensated to air content coming from a foreign government," FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said in a statement.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fcc-begins-implementing-rules-on-foreign-government-leasing-agreements/ar-AAV5LgK

[FSogol]

1. The Tucker Carlson Rule?

[ancianita]

3. Not likely. My theory:It should've been implemented by December, so TC's had months of lead time to

convey his "interesting" and "just asking questions" Russian support.

Under the rule, new leasing agreements are immediately subject to the mandate while existing ones have up to six months of the Federal Register publication date to comply with the rule, which was adopted last April.

Foreign governments are allowed to purchase airwave time, the FCC noted. However, they cannot directly hold a broadcast license.

So imo, this FCC rule doesn't sound like any more than a kind of minor transparency rule to me. The question is whether there is evidence of Russia purchasing airwave time, and since the purchase(s), whether there's a pattern of indirect influence in change of content via a legal quid pro quo with him, since it looks as if he writes his own news shows.

Info about his show:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucker_Carlson_Tonight

[FSogol]

4. I was just kidding. And the last thing I would ever do is read about Carlson.

I also expect little from the toothless FCC, but any tiny step is progress I guess.

[ancianita]

5. Well, just in case you had a point, I still thought there's something to this.

In fact, you got me going on researching him, and it ended up being an OP in GD.

[groundloop]

2. So now it will be made official..... Faux News is controlled by Putin

[summer_in_TX]

6. Since the Reagan FCC made regulations for cable / digital so lax,

I wonder if the new rules will apply to companies that use digital rather than airwaves.

Really hope so. That could be a beginning of bringing cable news more in line with the requirements for over the air broadcasting.

[onenote]

12. The Reagan FCC didn't make regulations for cable/digital "lax"

Digital didn't even exist during the Reagan years. And I'm curious what cable regulations you think the Reagan FCC scuttled.

[summer_in_TX]

13. Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984.

Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984: An Act to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to provide a national policy regarding cable television.

The act was designed to promote competition and deregulate the cable television industry.

Congress recognized the vital role of cable television in encouraging and providing a place for free expression. This provision assured that cable communications provide the general public with "the widest possible diversity of information sources and services." Through this statute, Congress attempted to uphold the First Amendment interest of cable audiences to receive diversified information as specified in the Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission court case of 1969.[3]

During the negotiation process, there was relatively little public participation, meaning cable consumers and public, educational, and government access (PEG) advocates were left vulnerable to cable operators' enforcement and decisions.

There was dramatic growth in the cable industry once the act went into effect.[9] However, it remained largely in the hands of few local monopolies that were able to determine the content of the programs and set the rates for services and channels on their system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_Communications_Policy_Act_of_1984

----------
There wasn't much involvement of diverse points of view in the writing of the act. Then the FCC under Chairman Mark Fowler (Reagan's appointee) did not involve spokespeople for the public interest in the rule making process to implement the act. They made the mistake of thinking that the First Amendment only had to do with free expression, not the interest of the public in hearing a wide variety of opinions in one place to educate them on the range of considerations that go into all aspects of decision-making in a free society. That and the deregulatory preferences of Reagan and his appointees led to a landscape where content was fractured and Balkanized.


Once implemented, the public did not like the increases in cable fees, but the FCC then heard the interests of many stakeholders, but not those representing the public interest (again), when the act was tweaked in 1992 (Bush era, different FCC chair).

This was all overlapping the time when the Fairness Doctrine was being undermined in Congress, the Courts, Schools of Journalism, and later the public.

Reagan and his administration believed in deregulation, which media reform advocates have pointed out is really regulation in favor of large corporations.

[Mawspam2]

7. I'm pretty sure this has to do with KCXL...

...in Liberty, MO leasing 6 hours per day to Radio Sputnik to air any Russian propaganda they wanted.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/KCXL

[mahatmakanejeeves]

8. And WZHF, the tiny radio station broadcasting Russian propaganda in D.C.

Tue Mar 8, 2022: WZHF, the tiny radio station broadcasting Russian propaganda in D.C.

The flagship of Vladimir Putin’s would-be American radio propaganda empire is a tiny station in Washington, D.C’s suburbs. Something I wrote:

Link to tweet

The tiny radio station broadcasting Russian propaganda in D.C.
How the Kremlin found a Beltway home for ‘Radio Sputnik,' known for spreading Russian spin.

Media

The tiny radio station broadcasting Russian propaganda in D.C.

How the Kremlin found a middleman who found a Beltway home for Radio Sputnik, known for spreading Russian spin.

By Paul Farhi
Yesterday at 8:19 a.m. EST

For a few seconds every hour, WZHF-AM interrupts its round-the-clock schedule of talk to air a curious disclaimer: “This radio programming is distributed by RM Broadcasting on behalf of the Federal State Unitary Enterprise Rossiya Segodnya International Information Agency, Moscow, Russia. Additional information is available at the Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.”

The cryptic notification masks a larger story. WZHF, a former Spanish-language station 11 miles east of the White House in Maryland’s Capitol Heights, is the flagship of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s effort to harness America’s radio airwaves to sell the Kremlin’s point of view. Despite periodic legal and political challenges, and the imposition of sanctions against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine, the station has stayed on the air, broadcasting its Kremlin-approved message.

The station at 1390 AM is one of only five outlets in the United States that air English-language broadcasts of “Radio Sputnik,” produced in Moscow and Washington under the Russian government’s supervision.

Sputnik is the radio and digital arm of Rossiya Segodnya (Russia Today), the same Kremlin-controlled media agency that directs RT and RT America, the better-known TV and digital media operations founded by Putin’s regime in 2005. ... But while American distributors and European governments have banned RT since Russia’s attack on Ukraine, leading to the collapse of RT’s American operations on Thursday, WZHF is still offering Sputnik’s content to Beltway listeners.

{snip}

Gift Article
https://wapo.st/3MXlScb

By Paul Farhi
Paul Farhi is The Washington Post's media reporter. He started at The Post in 1988 and has been a financial reporter, a political reporter and a Style reporter. Twitter https://twitter.com/farhip

The Kansas City operation gets mentioned in the article:

Sputnik’s deals have been lucrative for the broadcasters involved. According to federal filings, RM paid Way Broadcasting $1.12 million last year to air Radio Sputnik full time and Alpine Broadcasting about $160,000 to carry Sputnik for six hours a day on its Kansas City stations.

You can listen to WZHF online.

WZHF at Wikipedia

WZHF Radio Sputnik 1390 AM live

[SheltieLover]

9. Should be interesting

[MarineCombatEngineer]

10. Despite what people think,

this will have zero effect on cable, satellite or the internet, the FCC, by law, has no authority over those venues, content or otherwise, the key words here are airwave and broadcast license, of which these venues don't use.

There is no license to operate on cable, satellite or the internet, all these are transmitted over privately owned cable systems and have to be paid for to watch, there are no public airways involved.

[onenote]

11. Correct.