United Church of Christ and the Media Alliance Ask FCC to Reconsider Tribune Waivers

[NashVegas]

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6516335.html?industryid=47170

The United Church of Christ and the Media Alliance asked the Federal Communications Commission to reconsider its decision to grant the transfer of control of Tribune's TV assets to investor Sam Zell and Tribune shareholders, as well as its decision to renew the license of Tribune's KTLA Los Angeles, saying that the commission unfairly ignored its challenges to the sale and that KTLA waiver was arbitrary and capricious, granted without a request and without a proper showing of fact.

In a petition for reconsideration filed Dec. 31 at the FCC, the UCC and the Media Alliance argued that the commission improperly denied standing to the groups in their challenges to the transfer of licenses in Hartford, Conn.; Los Angeles; and Chicago. The FCC said the groups did not have standing to challenge since they did not provide sworn declarations from residents in the relevant markets.

The groups countered that they filed uncontested sworn declarations that they had qualified members in the markets, and that the "commission has routinely and repeatedly afforded standing to challenge multistation assignments and transfers based on a single declaration from a national organization attesting to the fact that they have members residing in the communities of license."

They are also challenging the FCC's grant of a permanent waiver, which they said Tribune didn't even ask for, to own both the Chicago Tribune newspaper and Tribune's broadcast properties in Chicago.

(from the "Giving Credit Where Credit is Due" file)

[pegleg]

1. the Putinization of American media

[zorahopkins]

2. The Church Should Butt Out

The UCC has no business trying to influence public policy.

I agree with their position on this, but I think it is highly inappropriate for any church to try to influence public policy.

There is such a thing as the separation of church and state.

[LeftyMom]

3. Why on earth is a church getting involved in a political decision?

:wtf:

[salin]

4. Has me puzzled.

While the UCC is abashedly liberal on social issues - they do not have a track record of acting politically. There must be some specific reason they are involved in this case.

[LeftyMom]

5. Was Tribune one of the companies that turned down their ad?

I think that was them that wanted to do a TV spot suggesting that they were more welcoming of gay couples than other churches.

Only thing I could think of that would make much sense.

[salin]

7. It looks like the issue

is more straight forward - a concern for lack of diversity and independence in media "voices" for the public. Here is coverage of an announcement last May of a coalition being formed with Rainbow/PUSH and the UCC.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6438768.html

And more recently here is the UCC release:

http://www.ucc.org/news/ucc-media-justice-advocates.html

UCC media justice advocates condemn FCC decision to relax ownership rules


Written by staff and wire reports
December 18, 2007


The UCC's Office of Communication, Inc. – the UCC's media justice agency -- is decrying a Dec. 18 decision by the Federal Communications Commission to relax its 32-year-old cross-media ownership rule, allowing companies in the largest markets nationally to own both print and broadcast media outlets.

"This decision supports powerful corporate interests at the expense of the average person's right to access inclusive, locally-based, grassroots media. It concentrates media into the hands of the elite few to the detriment of the many -- especially diverse audiences," said the Rev. J. Bennett Guess, the UCC's director of communications. "It flies in the face of everything the UCC and our media justice partners have been advocating for decades."

Snip... more at the link.

[NashVegas]

6. This Particular Case

It's not elected representatives they're approaching, but the FCC.

[LeftyMom]

8. But they're tax exempt. They're supposed to stay out of politics.

I'd be pissed if it was the SBC or some other wingnut church doing it, and I'm not any less appalled (if anything, more so, I expect that crap from them) because it's a left-leaning church stating something that I agree with.

If they want to influence the political process they can start paying taxes.

[NashVegas]

9. Regulation, Not Legislation

Is the key. See for yourself - http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

A church seeking to obtain or retain tax-exempt status pursuant to IRC 501(c)(3) must:

Not devote a substantial part of its activities to lobbying or attempts to influence legislation; and

Not participate in or intervene in a political campaign in support of or in opposition to a particular candidate.

You may not like churches, on whatever grounds. Seems silly to scorn their help, when the RW sure won't.