text:
Public Education Program
WSAB day at the capitol
EEO Resources
Radio Jobs
Television Jobs
Political Broadcasting and Advertising
Alcohol Beverage Advertising
Misc Advertising issues
Sponsor identification
EAS & Broadcast of emergency info
misc operational issues
Wages/hours/labor relations
ABIP
Past Board Chairs
Leadership Roll
Broadcaster of the year
POLITICAL SPONSOR IDENTIFICATION
Q: What are the sponsor identification requirements for political spots?
THE INFORMATION ON SPONSOR IDENTIFICATION BELOW MAY CHANGE IN THE EVENT OF LEGISLATIVE CHANGE. PLEASE CHECK WITH THE WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS (WAB) IF YOU HAVE A SPONSOR IDENTIFICATION QUESTION RELATING TO POLITICAL ADVERTISING.
A: Sponsor Identification for Political Spots. Radio and TV stations and candidates face a bewildering array of requirements for sponsorship identification of political advertising. Some of the requirements are federal and apply only to the stations. Others are imposed by state law and, technically, do not apply to stations, but require candidates to include certain items in their advertising. The following is a compilation of the federal and state requirements for the various forms political advertising stations will encounter.
The federal requirements applicable to stations are in TIMES ROMAN type.
The federal requirements that apply to candidates, but not to broadcasters are in ARIAL type.
The state law requirements applicable to candidates or ballot measure committees, BUT NOT BROADCASTERS are in underlined italic type.
State or Local Candidates
Authorized by Candidate or Candidate's Committee;
Paid for by Candidate, Candidate's Committee or Other Person
(a) Name of the sponsor (candidate or committee);
(b) Must say either "SPONSORED BY" or "PAID FOR BY;"
(c) Must be made at beginning or end if spot is less than 5 minutes long (both, if 5 minutes or more);
(d) Must include party affiliation.
(a) Name of sponsor (candidate or committee);
(c) Must be visual (4 seconds; at least 4% of picture height);
(d) Must be made at beginning or end if spot is less than 5 minutes long (both, if 5 minutes or more);
(e) Must include party affiliation.
State or Local Candidate (Independent Expenditure or Electioneering Communication)
Paid for by Other Person; NOT Authorized by Any Candidate or Candidate's Committee
(a) Name of sponsor;
(d) Must clearly state, "No candidate authorized this ad. Paid for by (name, city, state);"
(e) If the independent expenditure advertisement is sponsored by a non-individual, other than a political party organization, then the following statement must also be included, "Top Five Contributors: (list the names of the 5 persons or entities making the largest contributions in excess of $700 during the 12 month period before the date of the advertisement)."
(a) Name of sponsor (person or committee);
(c) May be aural OR visual (if visual, 4 seconds; at least 4% of picture height; clearly readable with reasonable color contrast with the background);
Federal Candidate
Authorized by Candidate or Candidate's Committee; Paid for by Candidate, Candidate's Committee or Other Person
(d) Must say that the spot is "AUTHORIZED BY" the candidate or committee;
(e) Must include a statement that identifies the candidate and that he or she has approved the spot.
(e) Must say that the spot is "AUTHORIZED BY" the candidate or committee;
(f) Must include a statement that identifies the candidate and that he or she has approved the spot (must be either full screen view of candidate making this statement or a voice-over with a clearly identifiable photo of the candidate);
(g) Must also include a similar statement (as in (f) above) in clearly readable writing at end of spot (4% of picture height; 4 seconds duration on-screen; reasonable contrasting colors between text and background)).
Federal Candidate (Electioneering Communication) Paid for by Other Person; NOT Authorized by Any Candidate or Candidate's Committee
(d) Must clearly state that the spot is "NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR COMMITTEE;"
(e) Must include the full name and permanent street address, telephone number OR world wide web address of the person who paid for the spot;
(f) Must include the following statement, " (name of sponsor) is responsible for the content of this advertisement."
(e) Must clearly state that the spot is "NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR COMMITTEE;"
(f) Must include the full name and permanent street address, telephone number OR world wide web address of the person who paid for the spot;
(g) Must include the following statement, " (name of sponsor) is responsible for the content of this advertisement." (must be audio AND either full screen view of the sponsor (individual) or a person representing the sponsor organization making this statement; or, a voice-over with a clearly identifiable photo of the sponsor (individual) or person representing the sponsor organization;
(h) Must also include a similar statement (as in (g) above) in clearly readable writing at end of spot (4% of picture height; 4 seconds duration on-screen; reasonable contrasting colors between text and background).
(a) Name of the sponsor;
(c) Must be made at beginning or end if spot is less than 5 minutes long (both, if 5 minutes or more).
(c) May be either visual or aural;
(d) Must be made at beginning or end if spot is less than 5 minutes long (both, if 5 minutes or more).
Incorrect or Incomplete Federal Sponsor ID Elements: If a candidate spot, which is a "use," is received by the station that does not comply with the FCC's federal sponsor identification requirements, the station may not refuse to broadcast the spot, but must add or substitute the required sponsor identification, even if it means covering up part of the candidate's message (assuming, of course, that the candidate either cannot or will not provide the station with another spot which does comply). When there is insufficient time to pre-screen a spot for compliance, the FCC will allow a station to run a spot the first time without risking a violation. Once aired, however, the station must add the required sponsor identification if the spot is not in compliance. Otherwise, the station will be in violation of the FCC's sponsor identification rule. The station may not broadcast a ballot measure or independent expenditure spot which does not comply with the FCC's federal sponsor identification requirements, without risking a violation of the FCC's sponsor identification rule.
Incorrect or Incomplete State Sponsor ID Elements: If a spot airs which does not contain material required by state law, e.g., party affiliation or the additional disclaimers required for electioneering communications or independent expenditures for state or local candidates and ballot measures, the station will not be in violation of the FCC's political broadcasting sponsor identification rule. The station should inform the sponsor that the spot does not comply with state law and should be changed to avoid a violation of state law. Where the spot is a "use" by a legally qualified candidate, the FCC's "no censorship" rule applies and, as a result, the station cannot refuse to broadcast the spot if the candidate insists. In that case, the station should prepare a release for signature by the candidate that the candidate has been informed that the spot is not in compliance with the sponsor identification requirements of state law and insists that the station broadcast the spot in that condition. If the candidate refuses to sign the release, the station must still broadcast the spot, but should keep the unsigned statement along with a memo to the file describing the efforts to inform the candidate of the sponsor identification requirements.
Name of Campaign Treasurer
Neither the name of the campaign committee treasurer, other officers, the address nor the telephone number of the committee are required to be included in the announced sponsor identification required by federal or state law, unless specifically listed above.
CANDIDATE ACCESS TO STATION THE WEEKEND BEFORE THE ELECTION
Q: Do we have to make sales reps or production staff available to candidates who want to buy time or make copy changes on the weekend prior to the election?
A: Maybe. The FCC's Rule regarding candidate access to the station on the weekend prior to the election applies only to candidates for federal office, (President, Vice President, United States Senate and United States House of Representatives). It is part of a federal candidate's right of "reasonable access." If the station has provided weekend access to any advertiser anytime within the 12 months preceding the election, then the station must provide that same availability to federal candidates on the weekend prior to the election. The station is required to provide only those kinds of access which were provided to any advertiser during the prior year. For example, if the station provided only the ability to change copy, but not an account exec available to sell additional time, then the station need only provide copy change access.
STATION LIABILITY FOR STATEMENTS IN POLITICAL SPOTS
Q: Close to the election, we often receive calls from a candidate or one side of an issue demanding that we take the other side's spots off the air. Is the station liable for false or slanderous statements in these spots?
A: Candidate Spots ("uses"). In a spot paid for by the candidate or his/her campaign committee in which the candidate appears, i.e. a "use," the U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that a station cannot be held liable for defamatory remarks made in such a spot.
Issue Ads/Third Party ("Soft Money") Spots/Ballot Measure Spots. Stations could be liable for slanderous comments made in spots for ballot issues or third party "soft money" spots because these spots are not "uses" by a candidate. The station's obligation is no different with these spots, however, then it is with a spot by any regular advertiser.
If a station feels that a claim in a spot is misleading on its face, the station has an obligation to investigate, ask the sponsor for substantiation, and make an informed decision whether to run the spot. If a spot seems fine, but a challenge is raised once it's on the air, the station's obligation is the same.
Defamatory Content. Slanderous statements need to be caught before they go on the air. Non-"use" spots should be screened to ensure that they do not contain any slanderous comments for which the station could be held liable. If the station feels that a spot contains such material, it can ask for substantiation of the claim and make its decision to air the spot or not based on the facts presented.
Why You Get These Calls. It is no coincidence that demands for stations to take political spots off the air come within the last three weeks, or so, before the election. It is purely a campaign tactic. Campaign organizations are not trying to ensure that the airwaves contain only the "truth." They want to make sure that the airwaves don't contain their opponents' spots in the crucial final days prior to the election.
PRIMARY ELECTION "OPPOSING" CANDIDATES
Q: There are quite a few candidates running in both parties' Primary Elections for Governor. During the period leading up to the Primary Election, when one gubernatorial candidate appears, do we have to provide "equal opportunities" to ALL of the other candidates for Governor, or only those within the same party as the person who ran the spot?
A: An "opposing" candidate of a candidate who appears in a "use" on your station has a right of "equal opportunities." When Washington changed from the "closed" Primary Election in which only candidates within the same party were opponents, to the "Top Two" Primary Election, the old rules changed.
Now, all candidates in a Primary Election are "opposing" candidates because the top two vote getters, no matter what party preference they may have, will face each other in the General Election. It could happen that two Republicans running in the Primary end up as the top two vote getters and would then face each other in the General Election. So now, all candidates in a Primary Election are "opposing" candidates for equal opportunities purposes.
RETENTION OF POLITICAL MATERIALS IN THE PUBLIC FILE
Q: Now that the election is over, I want to do some "weeding-out" of the political section of our station's Public File. How long do we have to keep the files and the spots?
A: Documentation. The FCC's Rule, which requires stations to keep documentation regarding political broadcasts, mandates that the material be kept for two years. However, Washington state law requires media entities which accept political advertising to keep the same information on file for public inspection for three years following the election to which they pertain. However, any materials which relate to a complaint filed with the FCC or the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission (PDC), involving the station, must be retained until the matter is resolved.
Spots. There is no FCC or Washington State Rule which requires a station to keep a copy of the script or the tape of a political spot.
Did you know that a few years ago the PDC proposed to require stations to keep not only the documentation, but every spot as well, and for four years? They also proposed to require stations to make facilities available to the general public on demand to review any of the spots on file. WAB defeated this proposal by educating the PDC staff and members of the Commission about the practical impossibilities of the proposal and testifying in opposition to it at the PDC's hearing on the issue!
STATION SUPPORT OF BALLOT ISSUES
Q: There will be many initiatives, referenda, school bond issues and other ballot measures on the November General Election ballot. If our station wants to support or oppose one or more of these measures by giving free air-time to the campaign committees, do we have to give free time to the other side?
A: No. The FCC's ruling in a Fairness Doctrine case in December 1991 held that the Fairness Doctrine would no longer be applied to a station's handling of ballot measures. That decision leaves the station's programming on a ballot measure completely up to the station. The station may support or oppose a ballot measure without incurring any obligation to present the opposing viewpoint.
However, in light of the FCC's decision, the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) has ruled that any airtime which a station provides at less than fair market value to one or the other side of a ballot measure will be considered an "in-kind" contribution to that campaign. The PDC has ruled that a contribution does not include "coverage of a campaign or the issues or personalities involved in the form of news, feature, editorial, public affairs or similar programming... But, a systematic "mention" by a talk-show host, which amounts to commercials for the ballot measure would constitute a contribution under the PDC's ruling. In the event that a contribution by the station occurs, the station must report, to the campaign committee receiving the benefit of the air-time, the value of the air-time, which can be done in the form of a letter. The campaign committee must, in turn, report that contribution to the Public Disclosure Commission in its periodic campaign finance disclosure filings.
By the way, WSAB is partially responsible for the exception for news and public affairs programming. The original draft of the ruling by the PDC did not contain any such language. WSAB's comments and testimony during the rulemaking proceeding helped lead to the adoption in the final version of wording to protect Washington broadcasters.
"COMPARABLE USE RATE" OUTSIDE LOWEST UNIT CHARGE PERIOD
Q: Does the FCC regulate the rate a station may charge candidates after they become "legally qualified" but before the Lowest Unit Charge period begins? Does this need to be in our disclosure statement of time sales practices?
A: If a candidate purchases spots to air after the candidate becomes "legally qualified" but before the lowest unit charge period takes effect, the station may charge the candidate the "comparable use rate." The station may charge the candidate no more than it would for a regular advertiser making the same spot purchase. While the station cannot charge the candidate a premium, simply for being a political candidate, the station is not required to discount the rate charged, either.
Generally, the date of the Washington Primary Election gives candidates as much as two weeks during which candidates will be "legally qualified" prior to the beginning of the Lowest Unit Charge period. During that time, candidates may want to get on the air with spots. The station may charge the "Comparable Use Rate" during this period of time, changing to Lowest Unit Charge, beginning August 6th.
The station should have a separate Sales Practices Disclosure Statement for the Comparable Use Rate period.
Sold Out vs. Equal Opportunities
Q: If our station is sold out, can we refuse to sell spots to candidates?
A: "Sold out" is a relative term. Keep in mind that being sold out is simply an artificial limit on the number of units or minutes of commercial time a station will allow. The FCC does not recognize a station as sold out, simply because the station's self-imposed commercial limit has been reached. There are two main instances when your station might have to make time available to candidates even if it is "sold out."
1) Equal Opportunities: If you have one candidate on-the-air and his or her opponent make an equal opportunities request, the station has an absolute obligation to provide that time.
2) Federal Candidates' Right of Reasonable Access: If a federal candidate makes a request for time, your station has an obligation to negotiate what is reasonable and run that many spots.
What can you do if the station is "sold out?" Well, you have two choices: Bump other, regular advertisers; or, add inventory. Either one will entail a discussion that you might not look forward to, either with a client or the Program Director. It may be that you cannot avoid the problem entirely, but by planning ahead, you can certainly reduce its occurance.
Copyright 2019 - The Washington State Association of Broadcasters


text:
package kata;

public class Application
{
  public static void main(String[] args) {
    System.out.println("Exception testing can be fun ... well ... just forget what I said.");
  }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Krauthammer Tries To Derail Iran Nuclear Negotiations With More Lies
Charles Krauthammer's blatant lie is part of the overall right wing meme of the week so they can keep beating the drums for war.
By Karoli Kuns — October 1, 2014
Negotiations between the US and Iran have never been more robust in the last 30 years than they are right now. So that would be why Krauthammer declared that Obama has given up on them altogether. It's the right-wing meme of the week: Obama will cave to Iran on nuclear power.
Except it's a lie. As usual.
Some lies, I expect: Death panels, fear-mongering, even interviews with the likes of John McCain and Mitt Romney claiming they would have done it oh, so much better. But I draw the line at any neocon commentator intentionally undermining negotiations that are on track to actually become agreements.
Of course, it's really all about Bibi and his reactionary view of the world. Israel is great, everyone else must be subordinate or wiped off the map. That's how Fox News sees the world we live in. So they lead off with Bibi's UN speech Monday, where he tells the General Assembly Iran will build nuclear weapons, and when they do, "all the charm and all the smiles will vanish."
"It is then," Bibi continued, "that the ayatollahs will show their true face and unleash their aggressive fanaticism on the entire world."
Yes, and Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, too. Remember that lie? As for aggressive fanaticism, my thinking is that the pot has met the kettle on that score.
Krauthammer and O'Reilly's angst stems from the belief they've invented in their own heads that Obama surrendered to Iran on the nuclear weapons front.
He added that President Obama gave up on these negotiations with Iran long ago, judging by his actions – first, he weakened the sanctions against Iran before even sitting at the negotiation table, and second, he conceded in advance the principle of enriching uranium."
"Even if the negotiations are successful, it will leave Iran a few months away from a bomb," Krauthammer said. "We know it, Obama knows, Iran knows it, the world knows it."
O'Reilly pointed out that Israel is not just going to sit back and let Iran acquire these weapons, and their response would likely include going to war.
Here's reality: The negotiations are at a key point, and the negotiators know what they want from Iran. They want accountability, inspections, and more accountability.
Western strategists have long debated the spectre of Iran "breaking out" - suddenly showing the ability to explode an atom bomb. But some see a "sneak-out" less visible to U.N. inspectors as a possibly bigger risk and world powers have calibrated their demands in negotiations with Iran to forestall any such outcome.
Under a "sneak-out" scenario, Western officials and experts say, Iran could build a uranium enrichment plant in secret to make bomb material unbeknownst to the U.N. nuclear watchdog, now empowered to visit only Tehran's declared nuclear sites.
To counter this risk, they say, any breakthrough diplomatic settlement with Iran must grant the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) broader surveillance powers in this vast country crisscrossed by remote, often inaccessible mountains and desert.
No national news source should be making a statement like that, especially one that is so utterly false at one of the most sensitive points in the negotiations.
These jerks will do and say whatever they think they must to win in November, without the slightest regard for actual policy and a more harmonious world. They ache for war, one that consumes the entire world and brings us all to our knees.
I miss the Fairness Doctrine, and the times when news was news and opinion was opinion. And patriotism? Yeah, there's none of that on Fox, but what do you expect from a "news" network run by Richard Nixon's former acolyte, anyway?
Charles Krauthammer, Fox News, Iran, Iran nuclear Negotiations
Sen. Ron Johnson: Ayatollah Could Be More Trustworthy Than Obama On Iran Deal
Heather — May 19th, 2015
Krauthammer Gleefully Imagines Possible Preemptive Nuclear Strike On North Korea
John Amato — Apr 24th, 2017
Thanks To Tehran Tom, Iran Expresses Concern About US Commitment To Agreements
Karoli Kuns — Mar 17th, 2015
Krauthammer: Obama Has Given Up On Nuclear Negotiations With Iran
Heather — Oct 1st, 2014
Charles Krauthammer Gives Obama 'A Pass' If North Korea Tested H-Bomb
Dr. Strangehammer's Ugly Conservative Bile-Filled Rant
John Amato — Nov 8th, 2012

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl