The former Commission leaders, dating back to Newton Minow, have written a letter to Congress in favor of legislation reinstating a tax certificate program to encourage investment in station ownership for women and people of color. Read the letter HERE.
The statement is in support for H.R.4871, the Expanding Broadcast Opportunities Act of 2021 introduced by Reps. G.K. Butterfield (D-NC-1) and Steven Horsford (D-NV-4), and S.2456, the Broadcast VOICES Act introduced by Sens. Gary Peters (D-MI) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ).
The bills would authorize the Federal Communications Commission to reestablish a Diversity Tax Certificate Program, which would provide a tax incentive to those who sold their majority interest in a radio or television station to underrepresented broadcasters.
Very well said.
A policy like this is simply more reverse discrimination…which divides and exploits, and does not unite. If this proposal is (re)enacted, I hope the lawsuits fly.
And, as the writer says, there has already been enormous progress in the representation of minorites and women and their views across all media platforms, most especially the Internet.
This is a bad idea whose time has long passed.
Dear broadcasters,
I thought carefully, but I cannot support this proposal. The main reasons:
This legislation mandates that buyers with the “right” skin color or sex are preferred over others; the mere stating of the proposition suggests how terribly wrong and evil it is. It will divide Americans at the precise time Lady Liberty beckons all of us to fight as a unified people to preserve our endangered, America. America needs all Americans, none separated into skin-colored or gender-classified groups, to preserve and defend the unique American promise of equality of opportunity for all.
President Reagan, Martin Luther King, and a number of other chairmen who have declined to sign this statement, have always opposed racial discrimination of any kind. It is the person, not skin color or sex, that determines outcomes, not big government.
When we had 1071 on the books, there was great abuse, causing the policy to be scrapped by the Congress in 1995. Why should a wealthy minority (an actual case) have preference over another buyer whose skin color is white?
If I remember correctly, the average holding periods of 1071 stations acquired was just over 3 years. They were then sold mostly to non-preferred whites! Studies failed to show any significant connection between 1071 ownership and minority or female viewpoints expressed. So much for this flimsy excuse — once again resurrected by the NAB.
Last, 1071 is an anachronism. With radio, television, the internet, and hundreds of black and female hosts on the media with their own shows and podcasts, there is no discernible lack of minor or female viewpoints. I challenge anyone to name one issue of significance regarding women or minorities not fully covered by today’s media. They cannot.
It is not suprising broadcasters love tax deferral. This is understandable. But this is blatantly unconstitutional. Look for Justice Clarence Thomas to write the opinion saying so.