BS: Funding Intolerance on Educ. Airwaves

Subject: Funding Intolerance on Educ. Airwaves
From: katlaughing
Date: 01 Sep 00 - 04:49 PM

In the recent JC running for President thread, many Mudcatters who are Christian were very vocal in their opposition of what is known as the "religious right". I really appreciated their openness and am sure others did, also.

I had urged them and any others who were interested to please vote; to become vocal with their voices of tolerance and acceptance of diversity. To prove that the religious right is NOT a majority.

Now there is a practical way in which anyone may help by writing to their congressperson. Please read the following and/or go to PFAW for more information. I KNOW there are two sides to everything and I KNOW PFAW writes in order to persuade, but they all do, so with that in mind...

whether you agree with any or all of it, or not, please give it your consideration. I just wanted to offer it as an option for how to get involved. Thanks very much...kat

"Our Educational Airwaves at Risk

CONGRESS CONSIDERS SUPPORTING RELIGIOUS RIGHT PROGRAMMING ON EDUCATIONAL TV AND RADIO

People For the American Way Joins Coalition in Calling on Congress to Preserve Educational Broadcasting

Congress is trying to rewrite the rules for noncommercial educational broadcasting in a way that would increase the saturation of taxpayer-supported public airwaves by religious programming that is often highly intolerant of other faiths and groups, as well as overtly partisan. The legislation that would accomplish this change has already passed the House (H.R. 4201) and has been placed on the Senate's calendar. This means that the Senate could act on it anytime after Labor Day when it resumes work. Enactment of this legislation would radically alter the face of public educational broadcasting, using these scarce resources and taxpayer dollars to promote ultra-right religious views, even those that denigrate followers of other faiths.

This bill would allow all nonprofit organizations, including religious nonprofits, to obtain publicly supported licenses that have traditionally been reserved for educational programming. Both acts would achieve this goal by limiting the Federal Communications Commission's ability to define noncommercial educational broadcasting.

The bill would effectively define educational broadcasting as we know it out of existence. Because the legislation would make all nonprofit organizations eligible for these licenses and would define educational content very loosely, any group would be able to claim that their programming is educational and thus qualify for these tax-subsidized licenses. As a practical matter at this time, however, it is the religious broadcasters that are in a position to take advantage of this opportunity. In fact, one Religious Right organization, the American Family Association (AFA), already owns 165 noncommercial educational licenses that are now operating under the FCC's looser post-Cornerstone (see below) rules and has 178 more applications pending. As a back-up strategy, AFA has also filed a federal lawsuit that, if successful, would forbid the FCC from giving any preference at all to traditional educational broadcasters in granting these tax-supported licenses.

People For the American Way, along with the other organizations that make up the Coalition To Defend Educational Broadcasting, opposes these bills and believes that the proposed change would greatly diminish educational television and radio by enabling broadcasters whose programs promote religious bigotry and intolerance to have the same tax-subsidized educational status as truly educational stations that air such programs as "Nature," "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer," NPR's "Morning Edition," and "Sesame Street."

A videotape, which powerfully illustrates exactly what's wrong with the idea of forcing taxpayers to subsidize sectarian programming by giving it preferred educational status, can be viewed at PFAW's website. The tape includes clips of several programs that are aired over Cornerstone Television, Inc., a religious broadcaster that describes its mission as advancing "an overall educational program schedule to teach basic moral and ethical principles derived from Judeo-Christian ethics, as set forth in the Bible."

Cornerstone's attempt to acquire a noncommercial educational license to operate in Pittsburgh was the springboard from which Congress leapt into this current action. In late December 1999, the FCC had voted 3-2 to grant Cornerstone a noncommercial educational license. In doing so, however, the FCC stipulated that noncommercial educational broadcasters must provide at least half of their overall weekly programming for educational, instructional, or cultural purposes. The FCC ruling further stated that programming "primarily devoted to religious exhortation, proselytizing, or statements of personally held religious views and beliefs" could not be considered educational.

The FCC ruling set off a torrent of criticism from right-wing lawmakers, televangelists and nonprofit, religious-based organizations. Led by Rep. Michael G. Oxley (R-Ohio) a group of members of Congress accused the FCC of trying to suppress religious speech. Jerry Falwell used his January 21 "Old-Time Gospel Hour" broadcast to accuse the FCC of going to "great lengths to expunge Christian religious expression from the public space." Falwell told his viewers that "we have become Red China" and urged them to call Oxley and other representatives in support of their attempt to overturn the FCC rule.

In late January, the FCC vacated its December action. FCC Commissioner Gloria Tristani criticized the commission for its reversal, saying, "this supposedly independent agency has capitulated to an organized campaign of distortion and demagoguery."

Not content with the FCC's reversal, the religious right embarked on an effort to give their victory the force of law, thus preventing any future FCC from reconsidering the question. Oxley, and other far right politicians, such as Reps. Dick Armey ( R-Texas) and Steve Largent (R-Okla.) urged Congress to adopt legislation that would give religious right broadcasters free rein to saturate the noncommercial educational airwaves with their often vitriolic sectarian messages, as well as with blatantly partisan political messages. H.R. 4201, called the Noncommercial Broadcasting Freedom of Expression Act, passed the House on June 20 and is now on the Senate calendar. It states that "religious programming contributes to serving the educational and cultural needs of the public, and should be treated by the Commission on a par with other educational and cultural programming." The enclosed videotape shows just a few examples of the kinds of programming that would receive preferred taxpayer-supported status under this bill.

There is no question that Cornerstone and the other groups like it that espouse such views have a constitutional right to do so. Yet, these broadcasters do not have any automatic right to reap the financial windfall that unrestricted access to taxpayer-subsidized noncommercial educational licenses would confer. We hope you will agree with us that Congress should not pass any bill that uses taxpayer dollars to subsidize and therefore, in effect, to promote sectarian beliefs that denigrate and demean other groups of Americans.

The financial motivation is strong for religious broadcasters to pursue tax-subsidized noncommercial educational licenses. During congressional hearings over Cornerstone's acquisition of noncommercial educational station WQEX in Pittsburgh, the broadcaster's chief financial officer testified that the station would have reaped a financial benefit of $17.5 million by selling its commercial license and acquiring the noncommercial educational one.

If this legislation were to become law, it would fundamentally alter educational programming and leave the federal government in the position of supporting broadcasting whose sole purpose is to advance a sectarian and right-wing political mission. We hope you will agree with us that this is not an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars and that this proposal should be strongly repudiated by the Senate."

Subject: RE: BS: Funding Intolerance on Educ. Airwaves
From: annamill
Date: 01 Sep 00 - 05:21 PM

Pardon my extreme ignorance in this 'kat, not having cable and all, but I've seen Catholic masses, and other religions on cable and I don't see the problem with these religions being on PBS. So the catholics get a half an hour to teach their followers their ideas. We don't have to watch it, do we? I don't think PBS will be permeated with religious shows. And..it might bring more money to PBS for better quality educational shows. You know I am NOT a religious person at all and I am not touting religion, we are a religious freedom country, aren't we? Doesn't that include time on PBS? I am not in any way supporting Jerry Falwell and his ilk, but like the man said 'I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'. or something like that.

I don't know. This could be a learning experience for me. I'm not flaming. I'm being sincere about this and not sarcastic.

Love, annamill

Subject: RE: BS: Funding Intolerance on Educ. Airwaves
From: katlaughing
Date: 01 Sep 00 - 05:35 PM

That's okay, annamill, good point. What this bill and PFAW is talking about, if I am reading it right, is taxpayers funding entire television and radio stations owned outright by the extremists of religion. The bill would apparently also allow them to claim their programming as educational, no matter the content of hatred and intolerance.

Thus, our tax dollars would be funding not just PBS and NPW which have a diversity of programming which meets the educational criteria of Congress,now; but ALSO, if this bill is passed, they would be funding those stations wholly owned by such religious groups, essentially putting them on the same public funding status as PBS and NPR.

I hope that helps. Personally, I do not want public monies going to support the messages of hatred and intolerance of the far right.

I really appreciate your words, annamill (still seems like I should be typing "annap!"*BG*) and hope that everyone will keep this on the respectful level you've done. Thank you,

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Funding Intolerance on Educ. Airwaves
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Sep 00 - 09:59 AM

There's a big difference between defending someone's first ammendmant rights of free speech, and using taxpayer dollars to directly fund religious activities or promote the sectarian agenda of ANY faith, not just christian fanatics.

Please keep in mind that freedom OF religion includes freedom FROM religion as well.