FCC cracks down on religious broadcasters - Brooks Boliek - POLITICO.com Just a bit ridiculous, don't ya think? The Churches decide what their programming is going to be, if they want CC fine, if they don't fine. Churches know all about pandering to the viewer, if they want to pander to the blind, deaf, or whomever they will implement CC all their own. Some people may come in here and say well whats the big deal, well why does the FCC care how religious programming gets their message across in the first place? Leave the churches alone...
Oh please it should be a crime to say "Send money to our church or you'll go to hell!" to senior citizens who sit at home all day fully believing the shit on these programs.
Have to agree with xmaspoo, the government should have no right to force any broadcaster to pander to a specific community.
I believe the part being glossed over is that "They have had an exemption since 2006". If all other broadcasters have to use CC, than they should too. It's not like alot of them aren't rolling in the dough. If they want to use Publically owned airwaves, than they should serve the public at the same slimeball level as other broadcasters.
The greater question being why are any broadcasters mandated to use CC? If the broadcasters want to pander to the blind, deaf, etc etc then they will implement it all their own. Otherwise the broadcasters lose out on viewers, less viewers = less sponsors = less $$$$ It's not a question of "oh well they got enough money ", that's obvious. Just look at the Vatican and you know the churches are good at making money. FCC is another power hungry organization, and they have picked an easy target because not many people sympathize with the churches because of their tax exempt status. Nobody is saying that CC is bad, just that it shouldn't be mandated that you must use them.
You are totally missing the point, it is not pandering when the very mission is to; As specified in section one of the Communications Act and as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (amendment to 47 U.S.C. §151) it is the FCC's mission to "make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges."[sic] The Act furthermore provides that the FCC was created "for the purpose of the national defense" and "for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications."[2] Those folks also pay taxes that are there to insure access to all.
And you miss the point, again.... The mission statement of the FCC is irrelevant, it's very existence is what should be questioned. Nobody needs the FCC to keep profane language off of television, Nickelodeon will lose all it's viewers/carriers if they suddenly put Clerks 2 on instead of Dora the Explorer. If the broadcasters want to pander to the blind, deaf, etc etc then they will implement it all their own. Otherwise the broadcasters lose out on viewers, less viewers = less sponsors = less $$$$ If you own a TV station you don't need the FCC to remind you that it's in your best interest as a company to cater to those visually and hearing impaired... When your monthly earnings start to go down because you are losing viewers that is reminder enough that CC might be a good investment. If you are going to complain about certain programming discriminating against those visually and hearing impaired, then I'm going to file suit with the FCC because I can't hear or see PPV porn without having to pay for it and thats discrimination because I'm just a lowly welfare recipient, how could I possibly afford it? It's not fair PPV porn is a right!
How cute. If it weren't for our government we'd still be using type writers and telegrams!?!?! If there is a market for telephones and television in rural areas (last I checked there was), then companies will provide said services to that area. If I had the start-up capital to provide broadband internet to a rural area that currently only had dial-up access, I wouldn't need the government to come in and tell me to provide my services. You forget how powerful the profit motive is. An untapped market will be catered to.
You really don't know much about this subject do you? Check the history on why we have taxes on communications. In a time not too long ago, no carrier was willing to expand into rural areas, because there was not a return on investment. Yet you want to argue from a headstrong fact lacking position, cheeze.
When people are condescending, holier-than-thou assholes because of their religions then it IS our prerogative. I'm a server at a restaurant. I had this table of 4 ladies in their 40's today. This one woman was giving me an attitude for no reason; the other 3 were just like, "yeah, whatever". Real miserable bitch. I walked by the table and I heard her say, "I have reservations for the Vatican". I thought to myself, "Oh - she's Catholic! It makes sense now!" My tip was... $3 and change on a $40 bill. Just one of the MANY stories of hypocrisy I see when it comes to the religious. And I've been told many times I am going to hell and that I'm a piece of shit for being an Agnostic Atheist. So, once again - they have a right to be assholes - I have a right to stand my ground and beat these people up by debunking their fairy tale.
First they expand their powers over unpopular programming then they claim that power over shows you like. Its really a simple trick. Its how they went from illegal wars against the "evil" muslims to labeling antiwar.com a terrorist website.
This may surprise you guys but these requirements did not originate with any US Federal Bureaucracy like the FCC. Once again our government is simply following the guideline mandated by the United Nations. All of our government agencies are implementing all kinds of guidelines that come straight from a world government body. Congress is irreverent. No need to pass any laws. These agencies will implement the recommendations fully no matter if you like it or not. However, these agencies are not going to tell people this. You are supposed to believe the illusion of national sovereignty. So any time you see the FCC, EPA or any other supposed US federal agency ban this or tax that, please do your due diligence and check the United Nations web site and you'll see where this nonsense is coming from. All of it is global to local action originating in the UN. Check it out:
Don't care if it's the US or UN. Our government is getting to big and it's going to end miserably sometime or another.
This is such a bullshit cry in the darkness. They are only basically being told, let us know why after many years of knowledge and planning, you need an additional exemption. If they have a need for an exemption fine, they get it. It is likely the UN is taking direction from us, or another nation. Here is a bit of history; The law The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 requires that businesses and public accommodations ensure that disabled individuals are not excluded from or denied services because of the absence of auxiliary aids. Captions are considered one type of auxiliary aid. Since the passage of the ADA, the use of captioning has expanded. Entertainment, educational, informational, and training materials are captioned for deaf and hard-of-hearing audiences at the time they are produced and distributed. The Television Decoder Circuitry Act of 1990 requires that all televisions larger than 13 inches sold in the United States after July 1993 have a special built-in decoder that enables viewers to watch closed-captioned programming. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to adopt rules requiring closed captioning of most television programming. Top Captions and the FCC The FCC rules on closed captioning became effective January 1, 1998. They require people or companies that distribute television programs directly to home viewers to make sure those programs are captioned. Under the rules, 100 percent of nonexempt programs shown on or after January 1, 1998, must be closed captioned by January 1, 2006. Also, 75 percent of nonexempt programs shown before January 1, 1998, must be closed captioned by January 1, 2008. The rules do not apply to videotapes, laser disks, digital video disks, or video game cartridges. Top Who is required to provide closed captions? The rules apply to people or companies that distribute television programs directly to home viewers (video program distributors). Some examples are local broadcast television stations, satellite television services, and local cable television operators. In some situations, video program providers are responsible for captioning programs. A video program provider can be a television program network (for example, ABC, NBC, UPN, Lifetime, A&E) or other company that makes a particular television program. However, since networks do not distribute television programs directly to home viewers, they are not responsible for complying with the captioning rules and are not required to respond to complaints from viewers. However, broadcast and cable networks and program producers pay close attention to captioning issues and, along with the U.S. Department of Education, are the primary source for funding of captioning. You guys are just anti-any kind of government regulation. Simply because you are.