Does the FCC's failure to fine Limbaugh represent regulatory capture?

[onenote]

85. I've been practicing communications law for 35 years. You have a very flawed understanding

The FCC doesn't consider the type of programming the applicant is going to provide when it decides whether to grant a license application. They really truly don't. Indeed, stations change formats (radio) or network affiliations (television) all the time and no one loses their licenses for doing that.

From time to time a station sale is objected to because it will result in the loss of a community's only station of a particular format (e.g., "Free form music" or "classical" or "talk&quot . And the FCC routinely denies such objections. As the FCC stated in one such case: "it is well-settled policy that the commission does not scrutinize or regulate programming, nor does it take potential changes in programming formats into consideration in reviewing assignment applications."

You can go online and find the current FCC application form (FCC 301) Check the instructions on Page 7:

Item 8: Programming. Applicants for broadcast construction permits need no longer file a specific program
service proposal. Nevertheless, prior to making the certification called for in Item 8, the applicant should
familiarize itself with its obligation to provide programming responsive to the needs and interests of the
residents of its community of license. See Programming Information in Broadcast Applications, 3 FCC Rcd 5467
(1988).

Your passion is admirable and as I've indicated, I actually support the imposition of additional regulations. For example, the FCC's rules purportedly bar one entity from owning/controlling more than one TV station in a local market where both stations are affiliated with a major broadcast network. But the FCC has looked the other way as stations circumvent that rule by having stations that ostensibly have separate ownership enter into agreements whereby one of the stations controls most if not all of the operational decisions of the other station. In addition, with the advent of "multicasting" it is becoming increasingly common for a station to broadcast the programming of one major network on its "primary" signal and to broadcast the programming of another major network on a secondary channel (the so-called "D2" channel). Those loopholes need to be closed and stations have to be ordered to divest themselves of control of multiples stations in a market.

But I'm still not sure what it is that YOU think the government should be doing in terms of regulating broadcasters, although this most recent post seems to suggest that you'd be fine with the government deciding who gets a license based on their political point of view--an idea that I find rather alarming.

Finally, we've had a civil exchange on this topic, so I'm rather disappointed and not just a bit disturbed by your suggestion that I don't really care about the first amendment and that I'm actually pursuing some hidden agenda to keep liberal voices off of radio. That's bullshit. My support for ownership caps is directly tied to my support for creating more opportunities for diverse viewpoints to be heard. But I don't want the government to be empowered to decide which particular viewpoints get heard and for how long or to decide who gets to represent a particular viewpoint.