I just mailed my Stark county absentee ballot, and I realized that, while I rely on WCSB to satisfy my spiritual and recreational needs,WCSB provides no guidance to help my fulfill my civic duty electoral participation responsibilities as a citizen of the State of Ohio and of these United States of America.

Might particular WCSB programmers 'adopt' particular issues on the Nov 3 ballot for discussion purposes? Steve from _Steve's Folk_ could adopt state ballot issue #1,"TO AUTHORIZE THE STATE TO ISSUE BONDS TO PROVIDE COMPENSATION TO VETERANS OF THE PERSIAN GULF, AFGHANISTAN, AND IRAQ CONFLICTS" (I voted against; military compensation should remain only a federal issue).

Eric from Appalachia might adopt issued #2, "PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE THE OHIO LIVESTOCK CARE STANDARDS BOARD TO ESTABLISH AND IMPLEMENT STANDARDS OF CARE FOR LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY" (I voted for; Strickland favors it.)

Of course, Drycore might adopt issues #3, "PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO ALLOW FOR ONE CASINO EACH IN CINCINNATI, CLEVELAND, COLUMBUS, AND TOLEDO AND DISTRIBUTE TO ALL OHIO COUNTIES A TAX ON THE CASINOS" on behalf of the North Coast redevelopment debate (I voted for; gambling money should stay in Ohio.)

[www.sos.state.oh.us]

> Eric from Appalachia might adopt issued #2,
> "PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CREATE THE
> OHIO LIVESTOCK CARE STANDARDS BOARD TO ESTABLISH
> AND IMPLEMENT STANDARDS OF CARE FOR LIVESTOCK AND
> POULTRY" (I voted for; Strickland favors it.)

That's an expansion of BIG GOVERNMENT.

I have no real comment about it, though. There's some rural farmland around my hometown, but for the most part, it's like a suburb without a big city near it. So, I've never REALLY worked or lived on a farm, despite Count Lapone's jokes about it to the contrary.

a) wouldn't it be a violation of some sort of non-profit code to take a political stance on the airwaves?
b) Issue 2 is a strong NO vote if you favor locally-grown, small-farm generated food and care at all about animal welfare. See below.

If you oppose animal abuse, vote NO on Issue 2 this November.

Why is The Humane Society of the United States opposing Issue 2? While designed to give the appearance of helping farm animals, Issue 2 is little more than a power grab by Ohio's agribusiness lobby. The industry-dominated "animal care" council proposed by Issue 2 is really intended to thwart meaningful improvements in how the millions of farm animals in Ohio are treated on large factory farms.

Because it's designed to favor large factory farms, not family farmers, Issue 2 is opposed by the Ohio Farmers Union, the Ohio Environmental Stewardship Alliance, League of Women Voters of Ohio, the Ohio League of Humane Voters, and the Ohio Sierra Club. The editorial boards of Ohio’s major newspapers—including the Columbus Dispatch, Cleveland Plain Dealer, and Dayton Daily News—all oppose this effort to enshrine the agribusiness lobby’s favored oversight system in the state’s constitution.

Issue 2 is a classic example of bad public policy-making and should be rejected by voters.

Ohio is one of the top veal production states in the nation, with many calves chained by their necks inside crates so small they can’t even turn around for months on end. As well, the state has 170,000 breeding pigs, many of whom are confined in two-foot-wide crates barely larger than their bodies for almost their entire lives. And 28 million egg-laying hens in Ohio are confined in barren, wire battery cages so restrictive the birds can't even spread their wings. This type of extreme confinement is cruel and inhumane, environmentally damaging, and poses severe public health threats. These problems have prompted seven U.S. states—and the entire European Union—to criminalize certain kinds of extreme confinement of farm animals.

In the wake of California's overwhelming passage of the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act—which banned veal crates, gestation crates and battery cages in California—The Humane Society of the United States sought to engage in cooperative dialogue with the agribusiness community in Ohio. We hoped to be able to continue that dialogue and work cooperatively with the state’s farming leaders—both large and small—to collaboratively advance animal welfare statewide. But rather than discussing potential solutions to these problems, the Ohio Farm Bureau is now trying to hastily grab more power than it already has. The lobby group persuaded the legislature to refer a measure to the November 2009 ballot that would enshrine in the state’s constitution an industry-dominated council to "oversee" the treatment of farm animals. Unfortunately, this council is likely to do little to advance farm animal welfare. It is little more than a handout to Big Agribusiness interests in the state, seeking to codify the abusive practices currently being used in the state constitution.

Don't let Big Ag get away with this power grab: Vote NO on Issue 2.

c) eric from Boogiepop land: I think you mean BIG GUV'MINT!

> a) wouldn't it be a violation of some sort of
> non-profit code to take a political stance on the
> airwaves?

I'm not sure if the station itself could take political stances, but individual programmers can discuss their views on political issues. That's why you'll hear a disclaimer on talk shows: "The views and opinions expressed on this program are not necessarily those of WCSB..."

It's a bit more tricky using the public airwaves. An endorsement could cause the opposing side to demand equal time.
Even if the individual programmer is stating their opinions it's still an endorsement using publicly controlled property.

CLE College Radio iPhone App

I think you might be confusing "equal time" with the Fairness Doctrine.

"Equal time" dictates that when you give a political candidate free air-time, you must give the same amount of air-time to the opposing candidate(s). So, if a WCSB show host was to give a candidate time to speak on their show, they would be required to offer the same amount of time for the other candidate(s) to speak.

The Fairness Doctrine, which has not been in effect since 1987, required media outlets to present all sides of an issue when covering controversial issues. It also required that subjects of personal attacks be allowed to directly respond to those attacks. Again, this is no longer FCC policy.

Since the Fairness Doctrine is not in effect, WCSB programmers can air their own opinions on an issue or race for a political office without having to give proponents of the other side(s) equal time. All they need to do is air a political disclaimer saying that their opinions are not those of the station or university and they're good to go.

This is a digression, but I really hope that the Fairness Doctrine is never revived. Yes, it might screw over the conservative broadcasters that we hate so much, but I oppose it because it would screw WCSB over equally, and it's also a violation of the First Amendment.

Do not worry about the "conservative" perspective gaining airtime. For example, in August Cleveland WOIO station manager Bill Applegate at the end of the "Fair, Balanced, Everywhere" 19 Action News slot repeatedly aired his own editorial railing against Bill Clinton's supposed appeasement of "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-Il of the People's Democratic Republic of Korea for agreeing to a photo op in return for releasing two American journalists.

What was the denoument to the Otis the Tasered Dog saga which Applegate's outfit was following so closely?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/23/2009 06:35PM by SpudBoy.