Use It Or Lose It

Public Radio: Use It or Lose It
Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, April 9, 2022, p. 5A
I love radio. Always have. AM, shortwave, an amateur license, working for National Public Radio, and FCC.

Today’s NPR and Iowa Public Radio employees are the airwaves heroes in our civil war to save democracy.

Because 18-year-old Iowa Public Radio is currently celebrating its centennial, a little history is in order.

The first cross-Atlantic “wireless” transmission was 1901. Soon radio amateurs were building transmitters – as they have created communications innovations since. Launching communications satellites, bouncing signals off the moon, and making phone calls with hand-held radios long before your first smartphone.

Once their Morse Code gave way to the human voice the tussle began. Like Steve Martin’s Saturday Night Live routine, folks pointed to the talking box and asked, “What the hell is that?” Both the Navy and phone company fought for control.

Iowa’s President Herbert Hoover, as Secretary of Commerce 1921 to 1928, led the way, as homes with radios went from 300,000 to 10 million. Thirty stations became 618. The chaos of signal interference required regulation.
[Photo: wikimedia; accompanying text: "Photo of an American family in the 1920s listening to a crystal radio. From a 1922 advertisement for Freed-Eisemann radios in Radio World magazine. The small radio is on the table. Crystal sets work off the power received from radio waves, so they are not strong enough to power loudspeakers. Therefore the family members each wear earphones, the mother and father sharing a pair. Although this is obviously a professionally posed, promotional photo, it captures the excitement of the public at the first radio broadcasts, which were beginning about this time. Crystal sets like this were the most widely used type of radio until the 1920s, when they were slowly replaced by vacuum tube radios."]

Many nations responded with non-commercial-only, public (though not government) national broadcasting networks. Most famously, Britain’s BBC.

Congress called them “public airwaves,” but gave the FCC power to select and license private individuals’ use of them in “the public interest.” Hoover opposed “advertising chatter.” Even licensees urged “advertising in radio be absolutely prohibited.”

As commercialism took over radio, the push-back created “educational, non-commercial” stations. FCC’s first woman commissioner, Frieda Hennock, a Ukrainian, is credited with the reservation of educational TV channels. In 1945, the FCC reserved educational FM channels.

In 1911 engineering students and faculty at the University of Iowa got their “training school license,” 9YA, for their “wireless telegraph.” By 1916 free course material was broadcast in Morse Code. Later full licenses were granted for WHAA (1922) and WSUI (1925). By 1933 W9XK (later W9XUI) provided education via TV. WOI has similar history.

NPR began in 1971, and IPR in 2004 – the first step in a cutback in state support of Iowa’s university-licensed stations. This year the Board of Regents began the transfer of all broadcast licenses and property of university stations to IPR.

The Legislature no longer funds our universities to the extent it once did. (Now $389M less than 20 years ago, notwithstanding increasing costs.)

Meanwhile, the Golden Dome of Wisdom echoes with, “what have the universities done for us lately?”

Former UI President Sally Mason observed there are Iowans in “pockets where we may be less favorably viewed … a lot of them are west.” You think?

How sad the universities had an irreplaceable, invaluable statewide network of 26 stations – a public relations firm’s dream -- that could have told their story and won over legislators by helping small towns. University administrators, regents, legislators and governors failed to see its value.

It was “use it or lose it,” and now they’ve lost it. Happy Centennial.

Nicholas Johnson, a former FCC commissioner, lives in Iowa City. mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

# # #
Sources
My amateur radio license. N0EAJ, Aug. 20, 2027, https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchLicense.jsp

Working for NPR. Although I have never accepted payment from NPR, and thus would not be considered an "employee" in that sense, my involvement has included providing daily reports, and an hour-long special, regarding RAGBRAI, reports from presidential conventions on how the media covers conventions, and uncounted opinion pieces over the years.

History of radio, general. Erik Barnouw, three-volume “A History of Broadcasting in the United States.” A Tower of Babel (to 1933), vol. 1; The Golden Web (1933-1953), vol. 2; and The Image Empire (from 1953), vol. 3

“History of Radio,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_radio

Wireless in 1901. “Italian physicist and radio pioneer Guglielmo Marconi succeeds in sending the first radio transmission across the Atlantic Ocean …. The message–simply the Morse-code signal for the letter “s”–traveled more than 2,000 miles from Poldhu in Cornwall, England, to Newfoundland, Canada.” “First radio transmission sent across the Atlantic Ocean, December 12, 1901,” This Day in History, December 12,” History, Feb. 9, 2010, https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/marconi-sends-first-atlantic-wireless-transmission

Early amateurs. “The radio hobbyists, soon to be called radio amateurs, or ham operators, … were among the first to transform their hobby into the earliest broadcasting stations, and felt it was only proper they should be entrusted with radio’s future.[19] (Footnotes are to referenced sources in Nicholas Johnson, “Radio as Mysterious Miracle” in “The Origins and Future of Radio,” August 23, 2015, https://www.nicholasjohnson.org/writing/OriginsAndFutureOfRadio-150823.htm

Amateurs’ innovations. “Ham Radio History,” ARRL (American Radio Relay League), http://www.arrl.org/ham-radio-history

“The radio hobbyists, soon to be called radio amateurs, or ham operators, provided most of the early improvements in radio – as they continued to do with electronics generally throughout the Twentieth Century.[18] (Footnotes are to referenced sources in Nicholas Johnson, “Radio as Mysterious Miracle” in “The Origins and Future of Radio,” August 23, 2015, https://www.nicholasjohnson.org/writing/OriginsAndFutureOfRadio-150823.htm

Steve Martin’s routine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l5tpY6SXMc

Navy and phone company control. “There was little agreement as to what radio was, how it could be used, and who should control it. The Navy, having used and advanced radio technology during World War I, understandably saw radio as a form of military equipment properly controlled by them – with wireless telegraphy’s ability to provide rapid, where telegraph wires were not an option communication, between ships, and ship-to-shore.[15] Telegraph companies argued that anything called wireless telegraphy was obviously still telegraphy, and a private business inappropriate for military or other governmental operation.[16] Telephone companies, with comparable certainly, saw radio as an obvious extension of their businesses – and even more so once radio started to be used for broadcasting programming. After all, as early as the 1870s telephone companies in the U.S. and Europe were distributing music and other entertainment programming over telephone wires -- what we today might call cable radio.[17] The radio hobbyists, soon to be called radio amateurs, or ham operators, provided most of the early improvements in radio – as they continued to do with electronics generally throughout the Twentieth Century.[18] They were among the first to transform their hobby into the earliest broadcasting stations, and felt it was only proper they should be entrusted with radio’s future.[19] (Footnotes are to referenced sources in Nicholas Johnson, “Radio as Mysterious Miracle” in “The Origins and Future of Radio,” August 23, 2015, https://www.nicholasjohnson.org/writing/OriginsAndFutureOfRadio-150823.htm

Hoover, as Secretary of Commerce. “Secretary of Commerce (1921-1928” (5), “Radio regulation and air travel” (5.1), “Herbert Hoover,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover

“Hoover's tenure as Secretary of Commerce heavily influenced radio use in the United States. In the early and mid-1920s, Hoover's radio conferences played a key role in the organization, development, and regulation of radio broadcasting. Hoover also helped pass the Radio Act of 1927….” Id., “Radio regulation and air travel” (5.1)

“Secretary Hoover went ahead with at least a frequency allocation scheme to bring a little order out of chaos and signal interference.[25]” Footnote links to Erik Barnouw, A History of Broadcasting in the United States, vol. 1, pp. 121-22, in Nicholas Johnson, “The Origins and Future of Radio,” lecture transcript, August 23, 2015, https://www.nicholasjohnson.org/writing/OriginsAndFutureOfRadio-150823.htm

Homes with radios. “Between 1923 and 1929, the number of families with radios grew from 300,000 to 10 million,[109].” “Radio regulation and air travel” (5.1), “Herbert Hoover,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover

30 (1922) to 618 (1930) stations. “United States Broadcasting Station Totals[2],” chart in “Radio in the United States,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_in_the_United_States#cite_note-2

Signal interference -> regulation. “Secretary Hoover went ahead with at least a frequency allocation scheme to bring a little order out of chaos and signal interference.[25]” Footnote links to Erik Barnouw, A History of Broadcasting in the United States, vol. 1, pp. 121-22, in Nicholas Johnson, “The Origins and Future of Radio,” lecture transcript, August 23, 2015, https://www.nicholasjohnson.org/writing/OriginsAndFutureOfRadio-150823.htm

Other nations’ public networks. e.g., Sweden, Sveriges Radio AB (“The company – which was founded as AB Radiotjänst … on 21 March 1924 – made its first broadcast on 1 January 1925 ….”) Sveriges Radio, History, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sveriges_Radio

Japan, NHK (Nippon Hoso Kyokai) (“NHK's earliest forerunner was the Tokyo Broadcasting Station (東京放送局), founded in 1924 …. Tokyo Broadcasting Station … began radio broadcasts in 1925. The three stations merged under the first incarnation of NHK in August 1926.[6] NHK was modelled on the BBC ….”) NHK, History, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHK#Radio_broadcasting

BBC. “The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is the national broadcaster of the United Kingdom. Headquartered at Broadcasting House in London, it is the world's oldest national broadcaster, and the largest broadcaster in the world by number of employees ….” “BBC,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC

Congress and “public airwaves.” “It is the purpose of this chapter, among other things, to maintain the control of the United States over all the channels of radio transmission; and to provide for the use of such channels, but not the ownership thereof, by persons for limited periods of time, under licenses granted by Federal authority, and no such license shall be construed to create any right, beyond the terms, conditions, and periods of the license.” 47 U.S.C. Sec. 301

“The public interest.” “if the Commission, upon examination of such application and upon consideration of such other matters as the Commission may officially notice, shall find that public interest, convenience, and necessity would be served by the granting thereof, it shall grant such application.” 47 U.S.C. Sec. 309(a)

Hoover “advertising chatter.” Then-Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover's oft-quoted objection was, "It is inconceivable that we should allow so great a possibility for service [for news, for entertainment, for education] to be drowned in advertising chatter." Herbert Hoover, The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover: The Cabinet and the Presidency 140 (1952), quoted in Erik Barnouw, A Tower in Babel: A History of Broadcasting in the United States 96 (1966). (See, “Public Radio's Self-Inflicted Wounds,” FromDC2Iowa, Nov. 11, 2008, https://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2008/11/public-radios-self-inflicted-wounds.html)

Licensees’ opposition to advertising. The licensees’ Recommendation III.E. provided, "It is recommended that direct advertising in radio broadcasting service be absolutely prohibited . . .." Report of Department of Commerce Conference on Radio Telephony, Rad. Serv. Bull., May 1, 1922. See Nicholas Johnson, "Forty Years of Wandering in the Wasteland," Federal Communications Law Journal, May 2003, p. 521, 527-28, n. 17, https://www.nicholasjohnson.org/writing/masmedia/55FCL521.html. (See, “Public Radio's Self-Inflicted Wounds,” FromDC2Iowa, Nov. 11, 2008, https://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2008/11/public-radios-self-inflicted-wounds.html)

Frieda Hennock, first woman FCC. “Frieda Barkin Hennock (December 27, 1904–June 20, 1960) was the first female commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission and a central figure in the creation of an enduring system of educational television in the United States.” Frieda B. Hennock, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frieda_B._Hennock

Hennock Ukrainian. “Born in Kovel, then in the Russian Empire, now in Ukraine, the youngest of the eight children, she immigrated with her family to New York City in 1910 and became a US citizen in 1916 (in later life, she retained her fluency in Yiddish and continued to pray daily).[1]” Ibid.

Hennock educational TV. “Frieda Barkin Hennock, the woman credited with establishing educational television in the United States …. Returning to her work at the FCC, Hennock renewed her efforts on behalf of educational television. When the FCC's Sixth Report and Order was issued on April 11, 1952, it included 242 specific channel reservations for non-commercial television. Even though channels had been reserved for non-commercial use, Hennock realized that getting educational stations on the air was crucial in preserving those reservations…. Two years later [than 1953], when her term expired in mid-1955, over 50 non-commercial license applications had been filed and 12 stations were on the air.” “Hennock, Frieda B.,” Encyclopedia.com, https://www.encyclopedia.com/women/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/hennock-frieda-b-1904-1960

Reservation educational FM. “On May 24, 1940, the FCC had announced the establishment, effective January 1, 1941, of an FM radio band operating on 40 channels spanning 42–50 MHz, with the first five channels (42.1 to 42.9 MHz) reserved for educational stations ….” [1] “On June 27, 1945, the FCC announced the reassignment of the FM band to 80 channels from 88–106 MHz, which was soon expanded to 100 channels from 88–108 MHz.[6][7].” “List of the initial commercial FM station assignments issued by the Federal Communications Commission on October 31, 1940,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_initial_commercial_FM_station_assignments_issued_by_the_Federal_Communications_Commission_on_October_31,_1940

“Commercial broadcasting is licensed only on channels 221 through 300 (the upper 80 channels, frequencies between 92.1 and 107.9 MHz), with 200 through 220 (the lower 21 channels, frequencies between 87.9 and 91.9 MHz) reserved for non-commercial educational (NCE) broadcasting.” “FM broadcasting in the United States; History,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FM_broadcasting_in_the_United_States

“In 1945, in recognition of the differing needs of educators and commercial broadcasters, FCC policy had set aside 20 FM radio channels for educational use.” “Hennock, Frieda B.,” Encyclopedia.com, https://www.encyclopedia.com/women/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/hennock-frieda-b-1904-1960

UI’s 9YA license. David McCartney, “Old Gold: WSUI Radio Marks a Century on the Air,” Iowa Magazine, March 13, 2020, https://magazine.foriowa.org/story.php?ed=true&storyid=1930

“WSUI,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WSUI Google search: History of radio at University of Iowa

Morse Code education. “Wireless Education Latest Undertaking,” The State University of Iowa News Letter, vol. 2, no. 8, Nov. 18, 1916, http://wsui.info/historicArchives/lessonsByWireless-Nov%201916.pdf

“WSUI,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WSUI Google search: History of radio at University of Iowa

WHAA and WSUI. “WSUI,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WSUI Google search: History of radio at University of Iowa

Educational TV. “WSUI,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WSUI

NPR origins. “WSUI,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WSUI

IPR origins. “Iowa Public Radio was created in 2004 by the Iowa Board of Regents ….” “Our History; About IPR,” Iowa Public Radio, https://www.iowapublicradio.org/about-ipr “Iowa Public Radio Final Report,” Bornstein and Associates, Nov. 2004, https://web.archive.org/web/20070925223230/http://www2.state.ia.us/regents/Meetings/DocketMemos/04Memos/dec04/FinalReport.pdf

Board of Regents transferring stations. Grant Gerlock, “Board of Regents Proposal Would Transfer Broadcast Licenses from Universities to Iowa Public Radio,” Iowa Public Radio,” Feb. 15, 2022, https://www.iowapublicradio.org/ipr-news/2022-02-15/board-of-regents-proposal-would-transfer-broadcast-licenses-from-universities-to-iowa-public-radio

Andrew Wind, “Board of Regents initiates asset transfer to Iowa Public Radio,” The Courier, Feb. 27, 2022, https://wcfcourier.com/news/local/education/board-of-regents-initiates-asset-transfer-to-iowa-public-radio/article_6a3615a8-3998-5549-8670-914047f6038c.html

Decline in legislature support. Adjusted for inflation, the $506M appropriation in 1999 would be $875M today. In fact, the 2022 appropriation was $486M -- $389M less than 20 years ago, notwithstanding the increases in costs. “This fiscal year’s allocation of just over $486 million is nearly $20 million less than the state gave to public universities in 1999 — not adjusted for inflation. To put that into scale: $100 in 1999 would have the same buying power as about $173 in 2022.” Katie Akin, “Proposed GOP budget for state universities is less than 20 years ago,” Iowa Capital Dispatch, March 27, 2022, https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2022/03/27/proposed-gop-budget-for-state-universities-is-less-than-20-years-ago/

Sally Mason “less favorably viewed.” "U of I's Mason on Other Topics," Des Moines Register, February 11, 2013 (reproduced in, “Self Help for a Helpful University,” FromDC2Iowa, March 1, 2003, https://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2013/03/self-help-for-helpful-university.html)

26 stations. “This statewide public radio network (a total of 26 stations) ….” “Our History; About IPR,” Iowa Public Radio, https://www.iowapublicradio.org/about-ipr

Things universities could have done. See, e.g., "Are the Iowa Universities' Stations No Longer 'Educational," April 2, 2013, https://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2013/04/are-iowa-universities-stations-no.html (with embedded, “Public Universities Not Using Radio Well,” The Gazette, March 28, 2013, p. A5);
“Self Help for a Helpful University,” FromDC2Iowa, March 1, 2013, https://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2013/03/self-help-for-helpful-university.html;
"War On Sabbaticals Casualty of Iowa Public Radio; Universities Should Use Their Stations to Tell Story," December 13, 2010, https://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2010/12/war-on-sabbaticals-casualty-of-iowa.html;
“Public Radio's Self-Inflicted Wounds,” FromDC2Iowa, Nov. 11, 2008, https://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2008/11/public-radios-self-inflicted-wounds.html

# # #

Tags: amateur radio, BBC, centennial, educational stations, FCC, Frieda Hennock, Herbert Hoover, Iowa, IPR, NPR, radio history, regents, Sally Mason, University of Iowa, WOI, WSUI

Sinclair TV Defies Originalism

Introduction: Opponents of Sinclair Broadcasting's drive to acquire the Tribune stations, moving it from "biggest broadcaster" to "even bigger," have tried to frame arguments within the wink-wink loose standards of today's FCC and Congress. By law, local stations are responsible for their local news and opinion. Sinclair management requires local stations' anchors to read pro-Trump commentary from Sinclair headquarters as if it was the opinion of the local anchor/station. That would seem to be a violation.

As serious as that is, it pales in comparison with the "original intent" of those creating the American system of broadcast regulation. I'm not a supporter of knee-jerk "original intent" interpretations of the Constitution by some Supreme Court Justices. But since many conservatives are "originalists," presumably including some supporting this Sinclair power grab, it seemed only fair to measure Sinclair's station ownership and performance against the regulatory intentions of those creating our first Radio Acts.

(1) The first document, below, is an op ed column in The Gazette (as published). (2) Below it is the text submitted (that needed to be edited for space). (3) Below that is a column appearing in The Gazette on the same day (and page) written by the general manager of the local (Cedar Rapids, Iowa) Sinclair station. (4) At the bottom of the page are samples of emails commenting on the column. (Usually, and in this case, I do not engage in prolonged exchanges with those criticizing a column, in the belief that (a) visitors to the blog are fully capable of coming to their own judgments, and (b) since I've had my say, those who wish to provide a civil response should be granted as much.) -- N.J.

Sinclair TV Defies Originalism

Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, April 14, 2018, p. A6

Sinclair Communications holds the most TV station licenses of any broadcaster. It wants more, reaching over 70 percent of American homes. [Sinclair Broadcasting Group Headquarters, Baltimore (Hunt Valley), Maryland; photo credit: Kenneth K. Lam, Baltimore Sun]

To put this power grab in context, there’s a useful lesson from Supreme Court justices’ interpretation of the Constitution – Antonin Scalia, Neil Gorsuch, and Hugo Black.

It’s called “textualism,” or “originalism.” Originalists believe judges can’t say a word “means just what I choose it to mean” – what it has come to mean, or what they wish it meant. A word means what those who wrote it meant by it, at the time they wrote it.

Suppose we apply “originalism” to Sinclair. What was the intent of those drafting laws regulating broadcasters?

New technology leaves us struggling for vocabulary, let alone understanding. Automobiles were “horseless carriages;” radio was“wireless” telegraphy.

Given the mystery and miracle of 1920s radio, it’s remarkable Herbert Hoover (then Commerce Secretary) could see radio’s “ability . . . to furnish entertainment, instruction, widening vision of national problems and national events.” Even U.S. broadcasters, agreed with Hoover that, “it is inconceivable that we should allow so great a possibility for service to be drowned in advertising chatter.”

The Radio Act permitted “the use of such channels, but not the ownership thereof . . . for limited periods of time, under licenses [which shall not] be construed to create any right, beyond the terms, conditions, and periods of the license.” The standard for granting and renewing licenses was “the public interest.”

In 1932 a federal appellate court upheld the Commission’s denial of renewal for a broadcaster who regularly defamed government, officials, labor, and various religions. If broadcasters are permitted to “inspire political distrust and civic discord,” it wrote, radio “will become a scourge.”

Airtime for one candidate required “equal opportunity” for opponents. Personal attacks generated opportunity to reply. A “fairness doctrine” didn’t control content but demanded treatment of public issues and presentation of a range of views.

As early as 1926, when Congress was debating the Radio Act, Texas Congressman Luther Johnson warned, “American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations.” If “a single selfish group is permitted to . . . dominate these broadcasting stations . . . woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people.”

As late as 1970 no licensee could operate more than one AM, FM, and TV in one market. The national limit was seven AM, seven FM, and five VHF TV stations. Rules prohibited ownership combining stations and newspapers.

With broadcasters’ pressure on Congress and the FCC, regulations change. Original intent does not. Were it followed today, Sinclair would not have the licenses it does, let alone more. It would not dictate “local” commentaries to stations legally responsible for their content. And it could not be a propagandist for a single official, candidate, or ideology.

• Nicholas Johnson served as commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission from 1966-1973. Comments: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org _______________
Column As Submitted
[before excellent editing/tightening improvements by Gazette Insight Editor, Todd Dorman, in published version, above]
Sinclair Communications holds the most TV station licenses of any broadcaster. It wants more, enough to reach over 70% of American homes.

To put this media power grab in context for TV watchers, there’s a useful lesson from some Supreme Court justices’ interpretation of the Constitution – Justices like Antonin Scalia, Neil Gorsuch, and even occasionally my mentor, Justice Hugo Black.

It’s called “textualism,” or “originalism.” Unlike Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland, originalists believe judges can’t say a word “means just what I choose it to mean” – what it has come to mean, or what they wish it meant. A word means what those who wrote it meant by it, at the time they wrote it. Judges are bound by the “original” meaning of the “text,” the original intent of the drafters.

Suppose we apply to Sinclair the idea of “originalism.” What was the original intent of those drafting laws regulating broadcasters?

New technology leaves us struggling, even for vocabulary, let alone understanding. Automobiles were defined by their lack of horses (“horseless carriages”); radio by its lack of telegraph wires (“wireless” telegraphy).

Given the mystery and miracle of 1920s radio, it’s remarkable that Iowa’s own President Herbert Hoover (then Commerce Secretary) could see radio’s “ability . . . to furnish entertainment, instruction, widening vision of national problems and national events.” Other countries agreed, and established public corporations to operate stations. They, and even U.S. broadcasters, agreed with Hoover that, “it is inconceivable that we should allow so great a possibility for service to be drowned in advertising chatter."

The Radio Act declared its purpose to permit “the use of such channels, but not the ownership thereof . . . for limited periods of time, under licenses [which shall not] be construed to create any right, beyond the terms, conditions, and periods of the license.” The standard for granting, and renewing, licenses was “the public interest.”

It was a kind of cross between private use of public lands, and politicians’ reelections – use, if benefitting the public, but not ownership; officials’ fixed terms, reelection earned.

In 1932 a federal appellate court upheld the Commission’s denial of renewal for a broadcaster who regularly defamed government, officials, labor, and various religions. If broadcasters are permitted to “inspire political distrust and civic discord,” it wrote, radio “will become a scourge.”

Airtime for one candidate required “equal opportunity” for all opponents. Personal attacks generated opportunity to reply. A “fairness doctrine” didn’t control content but demanded treatment of public issues and presentation of a range of views.

As early as 1926, when Congress was debating the Radio Act, Texas Congressman Luther Johnson presciently warned, “American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations.” If “a single selfish group is permitted to . . . dominate these broadcasting stations . . . woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people.”

As late as 1970 no licensee could operate more than one AM, FM, and TV in a single market. The limit nationally was 7 AM, 7 FM, and 5 VHF TV stations. Diversity of viewpoint required banning ownership combining both stations and newspapers.

With broadcasters’ pressure on Congress and the FCC, regulations change with the times. The original intent does not. Were it followed today, Sinclair would not have the licenses it does, let alone more. It would not dictate “local” commentaries to stations legally responsible for their content. And it could not be a propagandist for a single official, candidate, or ideology.
._______________
Nicholas Johnson served as commissioner, Federal Communications Commission, 1966-1973. www.nicholasjohnson.org, FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com. Contact: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org
_______________
Local Journalists Guide Sinclair Stations

Glen Callanan [General Manager, Sinclair station KGAN-TV2, Cedar Rapids]
The Gazette, April 14, 2018, p. A6
The editorial in the April 5 edition of The Gazette “News Consumers can help fight fake news” provided insight into how to protect against false information. That editorial pointed out KGAN CBS2 News and KFXA Fox 28 News here in Cedar Rapids are owned or operated by Sinclair Broadcasting.

We would like to remind your readers and our viewers that CBS2 and Fox 28 produce more than 33 hours of local news every week. As part of our newscasts we do air clearly labeled commentary provided by our parent company Sinclair Broadcasting. These commentaries account for roughly 8 minutes per week. Decisions about what to air and when to air it are made right here in our own newsroom. Our hardworking producers, reporters, photographers, anchors and a host of others work every day to bring our viewers the most up-to date, factually balanced stories from right here in the Corridor, our state, our nation and the world.

In just the last couple of years, CBS2/Fox 28 news has won multiple national and regional awards for our local news coverage from the Society of Professional Journalists, Upper Midwest Emmy, RTDNA Edward R. Murrow Regional Awards and the Iowa Broadcast News Association. Our entirely locally produced news public affairs show, “Iowa in Focus” had a run of more than 100 episodes focusing on issues relevant to Iowans including in-depth political reporting throughout 2016 and 2017.

We are also deeply involved in our community, providing support to community events and charities. Our station has a core belief in making an impact to improve our community. The Pay It Forward with Impact campaign is one example. In 2017, we began a twice a month series that features someone who gives back to the community. We tell their story and donate $300 in their name to a charity of their choice. Last year $7,200 was donated to charities such as the University of Iowa Stead Family Children’s Hospital, Camp Courageous and the Cedar Valley Humane Society among others. We are looking forward to helping more charities in 2018.

Sinclair has made a significant investment in our local news operations over the last few years which have allowed us to better produce our local newscasts. This includes equipment that improved the way we cover news, as well as adding jobs to a growing newsroom. When it comes to covering local news on a day-to-day basis, it is our people who live, work and play right here in the Corridor who make it their mission to uncover and report on the stories that affect our viewers.
• Glen Callanan is general manager of CBS2/Fox 28 in Cedar Rapids.

_______________
Sample of Email Responses
While I agree with the substance of your argument about the abuses, current and proposed, of the Sinclair operation, dipping into originalism seems risky business in the long-run.

Such is companion, in its demonstrated application by Scalia, et al, to be a companion to biblical literalism. Once published, texts take on a life of their own. They can only be interpreted by live human beings in their present context. History changes the context of the original version of document, published or unpublished.

Freedom of the press in the 18th century did not anticipate the likes of Sinclair, or anything like electronic media. Dealing with such requires wholesale reinterpretation based on current realities and assumptions about the common welfare.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Robin Kash
Cedar Rapids

I read your article in the Gazette today with some interest. As someone who follows the media closely I have several comments on your thoughts.

First let me point you to the editorial by Glen Callahan, also in the Gazette today. He did a nice job of explaining Sinclair's role in their local news coverage. I think the appropriate thought that he presented was that the "origin" of local news comes from his newsroom and not from Sinclair's corporate HQ.

Interesting comment "Originalists believe judges can't say a word means just what I chose it to mean - what it has come to mean or what they wish it to mean". It appears to me today that we have a preponderance of judges who ignore the Executive power of the President when it doesn't suit their political view and then support it when it does. The number of lawsuits regarding Visa and immigration issues reveals a totally corrupt judiciary that have decided "the words selectively mean what I chose it to mean". They decided the same issues differently.

What's more amazing though is the criticism of Sinclair "to dictate local commentary". it doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize the major networks, CNN, MSNBC and to a lesser degree the other networks singular hatred of President Trump. All responsible media studies in the past couple of years reveal a 90% negative coverage of President Trump. Claiming Sinclair is dictating news is preposterous when compared to the collusion between the major networks and national newspaper.

"And it could not be a propagandist for a single official, candidate , or ideology." Do you think anyone couldn't figure out which candidate the MSM supported in the election and everyday since? The bias is so loud people seems not to actually hear it over the din.

The free part of the press is almost unrecognizable today.

BTW the "Fairness Doctrine" was a way to stand on the neck of the free press and a means to limit some people's speech. It was not fair or useful in a free society.

Gary Ellis

# # #

Breaking Through Power: The Media

Harnessing Progressive Reform to 21st Century Media

Nicholas Johnson
May 24, 2016

Ralph Nader’s “Breaking Through Power Conference”
Day 2, “Breaking Through the Media”
Washington, D.C., May 23-26, 2016
Video of the 20-minute presentation of these remarks can be found here, with many thanks for the efforts of Gregory Johnson's ResourcesForLife.com. YouTube videos of Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, and Day 4 are also available. Here is the Web page providing information about the Conference program and speakers, and Ralph Nader's Web page.

My name is Nicholas Johnson, and I'm not running for anything.

What you see here is my old FCC uniform.

I would have come with the long hair, shaggy beard, and cowboy mustache, but there wasn't time to grow them back.

So I settled on this Bernie Sanders haircut instead.

Having known and worked with Ralph and his family for the past half-century, it is a great pleasure to be able to share this commemorating conference with him, you, and The Real News Network audience.

He’s asked that I say something about the origins and values of American broadcast regulation, the demise of that system, and the past efforts of media reformers – to which I will add some thoughts on the options open to us in this 21st Century.

Because I am used to speaking for entire semesters at a time, my challenge this morning is putting all of this into my allotted 20 minutes.

Here goes.

“Long ago in a galaxy far away,” while European countries were choosing government ownership of things like railroads and telephone systems, Americans chose private ownership – modestly restrained by government regulation.

And so it was with broadcasting.

Most countries went the way of the BBC – ultimately a non-profit, public corporation.

Its first leader, Lord Reith, set the BBC’s public service standard: programming representing “all that is best in every department of human knowledge, endeavor and achievement.” He created the equivalent of our Fairness Doctrine, and a BBC as independent of commerce as of government – funding would come directly from listeners’ fees. Japan’s NHK, Sweden’s Sveriges Radio, and other countries followed this model.

Today's Corporation for Public Broadcasting is the American version.

In the 1920s, as the sale of radio receivers accelerated to 100 million, so did the number of stations increase. Their signals’ interference made intelligible reception difficult to impossible. As has so often been the case, it was the broadcasters who came to the government for regulatory relief. Government licensing was seen as a solution to chaos.

Of course, an added benefit was the elimination of competition.

Then Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover responded to their request by calling a series of Radio Conferences. From them came the recommendations that ultimately became the Radio Act of 1927 and the Communications Act of 1934.

It was the usual American compromise between the ideology of private ownership and the pragmatism of regulation through licensing. But the values at the foundation of the Act, shared by broadcasters, government and public alike, were very similar to those of Lord Reith.

Lord Reith’s “public service” standard became the Commission’s standard for the granting, renewal, or revocation of licenses – that radio programming serve “the public interest.”

Even broadcasters tended to agree with Secretary Hoover’s comment, echoing Lord Reith’s judgment, when Hoover said: "It is inconceivable that we should allow so great a possibility for service [for news, entertainment, and education] to be drowned in advertising chatter." [at n. 17]

Lord Reith’s preference for public over private ownership was reflected in the House floor debate about the Act. As Congressman Luther Johnson warned his colleagues, “American thought and . . . politics will be . . . at the mercy of those who operate these stations. . . . [If] placed in the hands of . . . a single selfish group . . . then woe be to those who dare to differ with them.” [at n. 31]

Ultimately, the language of the Act began, “It is the purpose of this Act . . . to maintain the control of the United States over all the channels of radio transmission; and to provide for the use of such channels, but not the ownership thereof . . ..”

Without an FCC license a studio, transmitter, and antenna tower had little more than scrap value. With that license they were worth millions.

Moreover, the FCC told the licensee where it could build, set its minimum and maximum hours of operation, its transmitter’s power, and direction of its signal. There were limits on how many licenses one could hold, maximums on advertising, and required minimums of educational and cultural programming, news, public affairs, and public service announcements. The Commission’s 1946 “Blue Book” provided even greater detail.

Thus, FCC licensees were owners in name only – with little more discretion than government employees or contractors might have when using the public’s airwaves; sort of like fast food or motel franchisees.

When I arrived at the Commission a half-century ago, the FCC was supposedly still regulating broadcasters according to standards at least similar to those in the 1920s and 1930s.

But in Washington, like most industries, broadcasting had its own sub-government [pp. 16-19, nn. 49-59] – dominant corporations, their lobbyists, a trade association, trade press, eating club, agency employees, legislators, their staff, and a bar association for communication lawyers – all of whose futures and fortunes turned on successfully protecting their circled wagons.

Moreover, the money in this politics flowed upstream. Other industries had to pay to play [pp. 19-24, nn. 60-67]; they gave so-called campaign contributions to seek favor with elected officials. The reverse was true for the broadcasting industry. Elected officials gave most of their campaign contributions to the broadcasters! And the time and attention the broadcasters were selling to politicians was something they could also give for free.

So if the broadcasters were not successful in winning over the FCC’s commissioners and staff with private chats, free meals, receptions, golfing outings, and the prospects of future employment, they could always get what they wanted, or prevent what they feared, by going to their friends on Capitol Hill.

As a result, I discovered, no matter how outrageous a broadcaster’s performance might have been, the likelihood of a license not being renewed was so rare as to be indistinguishable from “never.” Rules were adopted, and then waived. Congressman Luther Johnson’s warnings about private power had been long since forgotten, as merger after merger was approved.

That, and more, was what motivated me to write some 400 separate opinions during my term. Charged with unfairly picking only the worst cases, I co-authored a Yale Law Journal article titled, courtesy of the Beatles, “A Day in the Life.” In it we itemized an entire week’s agenda, selected at random, and demonstrated how every decision that week left much to be desired.

My term coincided with a citizen activist period in American history – Ralph’s “Nader’s Raiders” consumer organizing, anti-war groups’ protests, civil rights legislation, Black Power demands, the women’s movement, protest songs, and “The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour.”

In such times it was inevitable that failures of the media, as well as the Commission and the Congress, would ultimately lead to the creation of a media reform movement as well. As I put it at the time to anyone who would listen, “Whatever is your first priority, your second priority must be media reform.”

It took a variety of forms. Al Kramer’s Citizens Communications Center provided the legal support for hundreds of media reform groups in communities across the country. Stations’ license renewals were challenged for failure to serve their local communities, or discriminatory employment practices. Some groups wanted to save classical music stations. Others created community, or even illegal pirate radio stations.

Video portapaks, the predecessor of today’s ubiquitous smartphone video, led to the interest in video art, guerrilla television, video activism and what became cable television’s public access channels.

Foundations and donors were willing to provide at least minimal financial support for these efforts. And because the uprising had kind of caught the media establishment off guard, there were a few years of media reform Camelot.

Following this, as at least some of you have lived through, the swamp waters returned. Many in the establishment made a sharp right turn to follow Grover Norquist. As he put it, “I'm not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

Drown it they did.

At the FCC this took the form of what was variously called “re-regulation” or more accurately “de-regulation.” License terms were lengthened. Restrictions on maximum station ownership were reduced to the point of non-existence. The Commission would not even acknowledge that a license renewal challenge had been filed, let alone address it. Seldom if ever did a merger fail to meet the commissioners' definition of “the public interest.”

As the fickle foundations focused on a new squirrel and lost interest, media reform organizations lost their funding. The courts lost their appeal. The Congress and Commission lost their sense of hearing.

Which brings us to this day in May of 2016.

What are we to make of the Tea Party, Occupy movement, and the millions of aware and angry Americans following Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders? Are we on the cusp of another burst of media reform revolution, enthusiasm and possibility?

Using the name of our day at this four-day conference, what can we do to “break through the media”?

It would be nice if we could wrap up today with an easily-remembered list of “five things you can do to improve the media!” But it’s not so simple. There are even more than five categories of things progressive activists can do before we start listing specific tasks – let alone trying to reinvigorate the FCC.

Here are a few, with illustrative examples.

Destination. Let’s start with the obvious. What’s your goal? How would you know if you or your organization were ever “successful”? As the old line has it, “If you don’t know where you’re going the odds are very slim you’ll ever get there.”

In what specific ways do you wish “the media” were different – and why? Are you trying to increase contributions, or members, for your local organization, and think positive column inches in the paper will help? Or are you trying to improve our political campaigns and the public officials they produce? And your goal is to raise the entire American electorate’s interest in articles and programming about the daily diet of policy wonks.

Opportunity. The lack of a legal right does not remove all opportunity. The Supreme Court has given media owners legal control of content. [at n. 24] But as we’ve recently observed, one can even win the presidential nomination of a major American political party without paying for broadcast time or newspaper space.

Progressive causes do not always do all they could to promote their efforts with public radio and television.

Even commercial media offer us opportunities with op ed columns and letters to the editor in newspapers, guest appearances on television, calls to radio talk shows, developing relationships with editors, producers, journalists and on-air personalities, making use of free kiosks, store windows, and bulletin boards.

Education. There’s something to be said for the suggestion, “if you really want to improve the quality of American media, start by spending more public money on K-12 and higher education” – specifically, in our case, on media literacy. If the media consumer can’t tell the difference between the junk news in ABC’s evening program and the truly significant there’s little more we can do.

Media. What do we mean by “media”? From the 1920s through the 1960s CBS and NBC were the dominant networks. ABC was said to make it only “a two-and-a-half network economy.” Media reformers wanted more diversity. Well, we got it – hundreds of cable channels, thousands of smart phone apps, billions of Internet users and Web pages, Facebook and Twitter accounts.

The new social media have proven their worth to reformers, from the Arab Spring to the 2016 presidential campaign, and offer constantly evolving applications to all of us.

They've also required a re-definition of “journalist” – should it include everybody with a Web page, blog, email list, Facebook, YouTube or Twitter account?

Even more significant is that this increased diversity and quantity of communication brought with it a demise of the wealthy newspapers that formerly provided the electronic media with content.

TV no longer offers a 21st Century version of your grandparents’ Walter Cronkite, the most trusted American. It no longer provides a huge swath of the citizenry a shared body of consensus-building quality journalism each evening.

And the resulting political polarization has paralyzed the Congress and prevented compromise. According to a recent TED talk, it’s even reprogrammed our brains.

Alternatives. Are foundations and nonprofits a part of the answer? The Iowa Center for Public Affairs Journalism is filling some of the void in my home state. Created and run by Lyle Muller, a quality former editor of a major Iowa paper, Iowa Watch is making investigative pieces available to Iowa papers.

What can we do to encourage our fellow citizens to include within their volunteer activities the possibility of studying, following, and then writing up the work of local institutions no longer covered by a beat reporter – say, a zoning board, county government, local hospital, major corporation, or university?

Regulation. It’s unlikely we’ll soon return to the micromanaging regulation of broadcasters of the 1920s through 1950s.

Nor would it make as much difference today as it did then were we to do so. An increasing source of Americans’ audio and video consumption today comes via the Internet, from Web pages, podcasts, YouTube, Netflix, Amazon, and independent cable programming producers. But that doesn't mean the old media are devoid of influence.

The FCC and Congress are still potential forces worth encouraging to support our efforts – as we've attempted, for example, with maintaining Network Neutrality.

What we do to use and strengthen the Freedom of Information Act, or whistle-blower protections, are also a form of government support of journalism.

I might even offer what Donald Trump would call “suggestions” that we consider reinstating a modified Fairness Doctrine – at least as a shared value – and conceptualize an antitrust principle regarding media mergers that goes beyond the economic marketplace to the “marketplace of ideas.”

Pressure. Even without the force of government, pressure from private “regulation” of a sort can have its impact.

Here are five examples.

(1) So far as I know the only time the levels of TV violence were reduced was as a result of the 1970s efforts by the National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting to identify and publicize the advertisers supporting the most violent programs.

(2) Project Censored reveals annually the ten most significant stories that failed to receive adequate presentation by mainstream media. FAIR and the journalism reviews provide continual oversight of media performance.

(3) For 41 years the Minnesota News Council received and publicized citizens’ grievances regarding the media.

(4) The academy can contribute much more than it has in terms of professors’ scholarship, seminars, and doctoral dissertations. More of our 15,000 school districts could give their students the tools of media literacy.

(5) And of course we'll all want to join Ralph's latest venture in breaking through media power, called simply “Voices.”

There’s much more to say, but no more time to say it. So I thank you for your attention, and very much look forward to the rest of the presentations at this historic conference.

# # #

Local, Non-Profit Radio's Future

August 29, 2015, 7:50 a.m.

KHOI-FM Turns Three Years Old

Locally-focused, non-profit (or "community"), sometimes low-power (KHOI-FM is not low power), radio stations have been a part of America's broadcasting history from the industry's beginnings to the present day.

One such station in Iowa -- Ames' KHOI-FM -- upon realizing it had been broadcasting for three years, decided to thrown a birthday party celebration at which a former FCC commissioner might speak. (Photos of KHOI-FM's studio facilities and equipment, taken by KICI-FM's Craig Jarvie, are available here.)

In today's [August 29] Des Moines Register the paper's Arts Reporter, Michael Morain, has told the story of the station's beginnings so brilliantly that I have embedded it below. In it he identifies Iowa's other stations like KHOI: KPVL 89.1 in Decorah, KSOI 91.9 in Murray, KFMG 99.1 in Des Moines, KRUU 100.1 in Fairfield and KICI 105.3 in Iowa City. KICI is not yet on the air, but representatives came from Iowa City to Ames for the occasion.

Not having had access to his story and notes, I chose as the subject and title for my talk that day, "The Origins and Future of Radio." Where does KHOI fit in the history of local radio? Who were its ancestors, its friends, the economic forces and individuals that might have eliminated it?

Following the talk on Sunday, August 23, the following paragraph was posted on my Web site's home page:

KHOI-FM Birthday Party. Nicholas Johnson most recently spoke on Sunday, August 23, 2015, on the occasion of the third anniversary of Ames, Iowa, local, non-profit, radio station KHOI-FM. The speech was broadcast on KHOI-FM August 27, 2015, at noon as part of “KHOI Previews the Arts and Heart of Iowa,” and the audio is available here — following introductory remarks by KHOI-FM’s Ursula Ruedenberg and ACLU of Iowa’s Veronica Fowler (00:00-12:10), the speech runs from 12:10-52:45, followed by Q&A to 57:10. Although video and transcript are not yet available, a 21-page, 73-footnoted paper prepared for the occasion, from which material was drawn for his remarks, is available at this link: "The Origins and Future of Radio." The following day, KHOI-FM “Local Talk” co-hosts Gale Seiler and Ursula Ruedenberg told about the KHOI Birthday Celebration that took place on Sunday and played excerpts from the talk given by Nicholas Johnson. Click here for a link to that program.

So if you are curious and want more, there are your links to the audio of the 40-minute talk, and to the 21-page document that represents some of the research that went into the preparation of brief speech notes. [Photo credit: KHOI-FM; speaking from front of United Methodist Church, August 23, 2015.]

There will probably never be a transcript of that audio -- nor need there be. The paper, "The Origins and Future of Radio," should more than satisfy anyone who would have wanted a transcript.

But here are transcripts of some selected portions of the audio that will provide at least some sense of the content of the talk.

"This is an incredible accomplishment! I'm not sure if those of you here, and affiliated with this station, and fans of it, are aware of that fact. I read in Forbes recently that something like 80 percent of all the businesses that start up -- profit, non-profit, whatever -- 80 percent have gone belly up after 18 months. You have been around for three years. You are in the top 20 percent of American enterprise. I think that is an extraordinary accomplishment in just three years. Give yourselves a hand for that."

# # #
"What we're doing with these low power stations is a major building block in trying to build the social capital that supports a civic society. That's really what this is about."

# # #
"Locally focused radio has been a consistent purpose and presence in America's broadcasting from its very beginning until today, and has never been more needed than it is now."

# # #
"Nothing has ever come along as good as radio [for communicating over distance without wires] -- this invisible electromagnetic energy that is capable of carrying whatever information we can embed in it and send along with it at 186,000 miles a second."

# # #
"At that time [1927] what we had as radio is very similar to what you are doing with your station. These were relatively low power stations, in relatively small towns -- much smaller than Ames is now -- that were of necessity putting out local programming because there wasn't anything else. But they were also mindful of the purpose that served and why that was desirable. Those are some of your station's ancestors -- those early 8,500 amateur radio stations, those 700-plus broadcasting stations putting out programming and music and speech."

# # #
"But even though the miracle of radio was barely understood in 1926, there was an awareness of the risk of monopoly power and ownership. And one member of the House, from Texas, Luther Johnson -- no relative of mine or of Lyndon's -- said,

"American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations. For publicity is the most powerful weapon that can be wielded in a Republic, and when such a weapon is placed in the hands of one, or a single selfish group is permitted to either tacitly or otherwise acquire ownership and dominate these broadcasting stations throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them."

Woe be to those who dare to differ with them. How prescient can you be? He concludes,

"It will be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people."

# # #
"There was equal concern about the coming of advertising. At the time of the Radio Conferences that Herbert Hoover called in the 1920s -- 1922, '23, '24, '25 -- he said, 'It is inconceivable that we should allow so great a possibility for service to be drowned in advertising chatter.' Can you imagine that today?"

# # #
"Another sort of example of your ancestors is [that what] the FCC was asking for in the 'Blue Book' [Responsibility etc 1946?] was similar to what radio was in 1915 to 1920."

# # #
"[I]t has reached the point where John Oliver -– a standup comedian -– now seems to be America’s most reliable source of the data and analysis necessary for American citizens to address their most serious public policy challenges.

Regional and statewide news coverage has suffered from many of the same pressures [as national news has from Wall Street insistence on profit maximization].

Which brings us full circle round to the role you and other non-profit local radio stations play in today’s media environment. It is, as it turns out, very similar to where radio broadcasting began 100 years ago, and where the FCC’s Blue Book told broadcasters they ought to be 70 years ago.

There is a there there. And you are there. The state of radio is good -– both as a technology and as a local civic service, an endeavor that comes as close as any can to the potential for rebuilding the sense of community we so desperately need in these times.

Thank you for the invitation, happy birthday, and now let’s party on!"

_______________
Ames Community Radio Beats the Odds

Michael Morain

Des Moines Register, August 29, 2015
[Information regarding subscribing to the Des Moines Register and following Michael Morain's reporting, can be found here.]


Three years ago a group of upstanding citizens of Ames — well-educated, highly functioning grown-ups — huddled under a tent made of blankets inside an old dry-cleaning shop just off Main Street. The quilt hut, as they called it, looked like the sort of makeshift fort their kids could have made from couch cushions back home in the living room. But its sound-muffling magic did the trick: It was the first studio of the fledgling community radio station KHOI-FM 89.1.

“It was like something out of ‘Lawrence of Arabia,’” station host Carole Horowitz said. “There were just two microphones, two chairs and a table.”

Now, as the station celebrates its third anniversary, it does so from the relative luxury of a real studio suite with fancy gear and foam-padded walls. It’s the buzzing, bustling hub for a totally homegrown operation — the sort of station that has flourished in other states but is still rare here in Iowa.

“In a lot of places” — especially Colorado and California — “the older community radio stations are a substantial cultural force,” said station manager Ursula Ruedenberg, one of two paid staffers among an army of KHOI volunteers. “The stations set the tone and really lead the conversation for the whole town.”

KHOI isn’t there yet. It’s still “a diamond in the rough,” Ruedenberg said, but it has already outlasted the odds.

In a keynote talk during last weekend’s anniversary festivities, University of Iowa cyberlaw expert and former Federal Communications Commissioner Nicholas Johnson pointed out that eight out of 10 entrepreneurial projects fail within 18 months.

“That’s why even mere survival for three years is worth a birthday party,” he said. “It’s truly a remarkable accomplishment.”

The station’s story, in fact, started much earlier than 2012.

Following a freeze on new FM station licenses for several years, the FCC announced that it would accept new applications for a single week in October 2007. The decision prompted a frenzied scramble for the remaining frequencies, especially on the lower end of the dial already crowded with religious groups and nonprofits.

Ruedenberg, an Ames native, works for Pacifica Radio Network and was living in New York at the time of the FCC’s big news. She studied a map of open frequencies — about 3,000 nationwide — and spotted a few up for grabs in her hometown.

She wondered: Would it be possible to start a community radio station in Ames? The short answer was “yes.” She recruited a few key players to submit a successful application for the license to 89.1, anchored at a tower in Story City.

But the long answer was more complicated. The FCC required the new station to start broadcasting within three years, a deadline that arrived more quickly than anyone had predicted. The team had to find a space (in the old Pantorium dry cleaners) and connect it to a tower (through a circuitous route west and then north to Story City) and then recruit a bunch of on- and off-air volunteers.

“We argued for a year and half (about the studio floor plans), but it worked out,” Ruedenberg said. “Everybody kept the mission in sight.”

When the signal was finally active, the sounds of the Rolling Stones’ “Sympathy for the Devil” clattered over the airwaves, an ironic nod to the out-of-state religious station that had been using the frequency, through a translator, for the past few years.

“We couldn’t resist,” Ruedenberg said.

But after that first giddy moment, she and studio engineer Rick Morrison looked at each other and thought, Well, now what? Now that they had all this airtime, how should they fill it?

“It was all very abstract,” she recalled. “It hadn’t registered yet. It was just unheard of in this community that people could get together and have a real radio station.”

At the time, Ames’ popular WOI radio station was joining the statewide Iowa Public Radio network, so folks around town were looking for a new place to hear local voices and local news. WOI’s longtime jazz and classical music host Hollis Monroe signed on to the new station, as did dozens of others with less experience. One of the engineers is a senior in high school. His mom stopped by the studio earlier this week to make sure he made it to class.

The program schedule, like the old quilt hut, is a patchwork of creative ingenuity. It’s about half talk and half music, with a smattering of quirky surprises. “Blue Collar Philosopher” Lance Sumpter has two hours every Friday night. “Planetary Radio” explores questions about outer space during a half-hour slot on Saturday morning.

Morrison spins electronic and new-wave music in the hours after midnight. “We get feedback from insomniacs that he’s very comforting,” Ruedenberg said.

There are still a few slots to fill, but nothing is set in stone — or even permanent marker, judging from the whiteboard schedule by the coffee machine.

“That’s the most important thing: It belongs to us. It’s our community radio station,” said Horowitz, who co-hosts a showtunes program on Tuesday mornings. “It’s easy: Just come in the door. Bring in an idea and you’ll go on the air.”

The station’s board of directors is still figuring out a long-term funding plan, especially now that most federal grants have dried up. This year’s projected budget is $140,000, funded almost entirely by private donors and a few local businesses.

But the board hopes that fundraising will be easier now that the station is up and running.

“We’re a service to the community as much as a public park or a public library,” Monroe said.

He was shopping at the Fareway meat counter the other day when one someone recognized his voice. The butcher had been channel-surfing when he stumbled on 89.1 and was happy to hear Monroe spinning music again.

“Thank you so much,” Monroe replied. “Is there something you’d like to hear?”

Community radio in Iowa

Compared with other states, Iowa has relatively few community radio stations, which are nonprofit organizations run mostly by local volunteers (as opposed to the pros at Iowa Public Radio). But the FM dial has a few here and there, including KPVL 89.1 in Decorah, KSOI 91.9 in Murray, KFMG 99.1 in Des Moines, KRUU 100.1 in Fairfield and KICI 105.3 in Iowa City.

# # #

A Car in Every Garage

December 16, 2008, 7:30 a.m.

Harkin Didn't Write Again Today
(Brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com)
Iowa's Senator Tom Harkin is drawing on the politics of fellow Iowan Herbert Hoover, who once promised "a chicken in every pot, a car in every garage" -- but you have to get your own chicken.

If all a CEO wants to do is keep her company from going bankrupt laying off workers makes economic sense -- especially if the top priority is hanging on to her multi-million-dollar salary and benefits package. And if she's a friend of yours, and you are a government official with the discretionary ability to dispense trillions of dollars, giving her a few billion also makes sense.

But if what you're trying to do is turn around the economy, it doesn't make a lot of sense to give money to the CEOs who are trying to sell stuff rather than the consumers who would like to buy stuff, have the power to drive 70% of our economy, and are out of work because of some CEO's decision.

As I wrote here recently: "Only when we put more money in the hands of consumers (or permit them to keep more of what they have) will there be any true rescue of the auto -- or any other American -- industry. This is one of those times when even if your only goal is to further enrich the wealthy, the only way to do it is to let the money trickle up, not down." Nicholas Johnson, "Quick Fix for the Economy," December 12, 2008.

It was nearly a month ago that I wrote "Auto Bailout: An Open Letter to Congress," November 19, 2008, addressed to the two Iowa senators and our local congressman. Since I don't presume this blog is the first thing they read every morning I also sent the letter to them the old fashioned way, through the postal service.

Dave Letterman had a running joke on his CBS "Late Night" show about his desire to appear on Oprah's TV show. He'd call his office, ask if Oprah had called that day, and then enter in his journal, "Oprah didn't call again today."

Well, "Senator Harkin didn't answer again today." It's a sad commentary about the disconnect between we the constituents and those who are supposed to be our "elected representatives." Read the "open letter," linked above. It seems to me the questions were pretty straight forward and involved matters of great consequence (the auto bailout) not only for Iowans, but for Americans generally.

(It's reminiscent of a conversation with a friend of mine a while back. She asked what I'd been doing and I replied that I was just staying at home, near the phone, thinking she might call. To which she replied, "How's that been working for you?" It was working kind of like the country-western line, "Since my phone still ain't ringing I assume it still ain't you," from Randy Travis' "Is It Still Over?" Well, checking my mailbox at the post office every day for replies from Washington hasn't been working for me any better than sitting by the phone.)

However, I at least want to give Harkin credit for an idea that is responsive to my endow-the-consumers-not-the-CEOs approach -- as well as a family member's suggestion that every American family be given a car. (We priced that one out and realized the cost was a few orders of magnitude beyond even the generosity of this Administration and Congress.)

Here's the story, as presented by Des Moines TV station KCCI:

Sen. Tom Harkin . . . introduced a bill earlier this week that in turn would take older, less-fuel-efficient cars off the road, while also giving buyers a big bonus.

The Sell Fuel Efficient Cars Act would provide a rebate of $10,000 to buyers who trade in a car more than 10 years old for a new American car. . . .

The rebate would be limited to families with an adjusted gross income below $40,000 a year or individuals making less than $25,000.

To get the rebate, you would be required to turn in a car more than 10 years old that is still drivable.

The rebate would only apply to purchases of fuel-efficient GM, Ford or Chrysler vehicles that are assembled in the United States. The car would have to have an average fuel economy of 25 miles per gallon.

Officials said close to 15 percent of automobiles that are manufactured by the Big Three automakers would qualify for the rebate.

There would be a one-car limit per family or individual and the program would end in 2009.

"Harkin Proposes $10K Auto Purchase Rebate," KCCI-TV8, December 12, 2008.

Commentary:

"A snowball's chance . . .." Snow balls have a great chance of survival in Iowa these days, indeed entire snowmen. The hell of Washington is, however, another matter. But this blog has always been more attracted to what's right, what's rational, than to what's expedient.

Win-win. Look at what all this proposal accomplishes. (1) It gets money to the Big Three auto companies, but by running it through the hands of consumers and the marketplace rather than handing it over to CEOs. (2) The money is not just free cash that can be used for anything (like the banks' bailout that was supposed to be used for loans, but instead was hoarded and used to buy up other banks); it is limited to the purchase of automobiles. (3) The retention of jobs (by suppliers and dealers as well as auto manufacturers) is dependent upon the sale (and therefore manufacture) of automobiles. No "solution" that does not involve the manufacture and sale of automobiles is a solution worthy of the name. (4) It puts money in the hands of those who need it most, individuals earning less than $25,000 or families earning less than $40,000 -- significantly more humane, and economically efficient, than further enriching those in the top 1/10th of 1% of wage earners. (5) It gets old and often unsafe cars off the road (those over 10 years old; although, disclosure: my vehicle turned 30 years old this year). (6) Because older cars tend to be less fuel efficient, and possibly more polluting, it helps reduce our dependence on foreign oil and harm from greenhouse gases. (7) It encourages Detroit to manufacture more fuel efficient vehicles.

Those are some of the positives. Now for some of the problems I see with this idea.

(1) This bill will probably never pass, so its primary value is just to get us thinking about how we ought to be going about our economic recovery -- no small contribution, but not an answer.

(2) Those who most need this kind of help may not be in an economic position to accept it. If we're talking about new cars that sell for something between $15,000 and $35,000, and folks who are earning between $25,000 and $40,000, and driving a 10-year-old car, those are the very people who are either out of work or about to be, people whose home may be in foreclosure, or whose credit cards are maxed out. They probably have neither the $5000 to $25,000 in cash, nor the ability to get that kind of credit, to enable them to buy a car -- even with the $10,000 rebate. Of course, if we're talking new cars selling for $12,000-$14,000 that's another matter.

(3) I was frankly surprised to read that only 15% of the cars made in Detroit can get 25 mpg -- and even that number is far more likely to be overstated than understated ("your mileage may vary"). Shouldn't the plan at least call for 35 mpg (my wife drives a 10-year-old Mazda four-door that gets 38 mpg highway)? Maybe electric; maybe hybred; maybe smaller vehicles. (India's new 50 mpg, $2500 Tata Nano might not be what Americans are looking for, but it does offer something to stimulate one's imagination as to what American manufacturers could design, build and sell.)

So thanks, Senator, for hopefully stimulating some more imaginative thinking in Washington and Detroit -- but I'd still kind of like an answer to my letter.

# # #