George Soros, Of All People

[TheBigA]

In my previous post I mentioned foreign investors looking to buy US radio. What I was referring to is this story about a Singapore-based investment group looking to buy Cumulus:

Cumulus Adopts ‘Poison Pill’ To Thwart Hostile Takeover By Shareholder Group.

In an effort to thwart a potential hostile takeover by a Singapore-based shareholder group, Cumulus Media has adopted what’s known as a limited-duration shareholder rights plan. Also known as a poison pill, the goal is to make buying up shares of a company beyond a defined limit financially unpalatable to discourage acquirers from gaining a controlling interest.

This same group was looking at Audacy, but Soros beat them to the punch. There will be more of this moving forward, because there are fewer US based companies interested in broadcasting. A few years ago, a British group was looking at iHeart.

 

[Rusty Bridges]

Cumulus brought this on itself ... when the FCC amended rules for foreign ownership years ago, it may not have foreseen the web of complexity that might result. Had the FCC looked at other businesses in the United States that were leveraged by foreign entities, there was a clear sign that this too could happen to broadcasting and electronic media companies.

The prospect of Cumulus facing a takeover from an investor based in Singapore is the result of its earlier bankruptcy reorganization. As part of that process, it [Cumulus] asked for, and received from the Federal Communications Commission in 2020, permission to become as much as 100% foreign owned.

The only condition that the FCC put on Cumulus is that it will need to obtain specific approval for any foreign individual, entity, or group that seeks to hold more than five percent of the equity and/or voting interests in the company. In some cases, however, that limit will be raised to 10%. Cumulus will also need to alert the FCC if it becomes aware that it has fallen out of compliance with that requirement.

 

[TheBigA]

Cumulus brought this on itself ... when the FCC amended rules for foreign ownership years ago, it may not have foreseen the web of complexity that might result. Had the FCC looked at other businesses in the United States that were leveraged by foreign entities, there was a clear sign that this too could happen to broadcasting and electronic media companies.

Why should they exclude broadcasting? It was recently pointed out to me how many American institutions are owned by foreign companies. Rockefeller Center, the Chrysler Building, the Waldorf Astoria, lots of fast food companies, Motorola, the music of Hank Williams and Bob Dylan. If Americans don't want to own things, that opens the door to everyone else.

The key thing, as far as the FCC is concerned, is they reserve the right to deny a company to own broadcasting. So if the Chinese government wants to own WBEN, the FCC can say no. Same with Soros or Renew Group.

 

[SirRoxalot]

The key thing, as far as the FCC is concerned, is they reserve the right to deny a company to own broadcasting. So if the Chinese government wants to own WBEN, the FCC can say no. Same with Soros or Renew Group.

Foreign ownership of media of any kind is a danger to the republic. Unlike newspapers or the internet, bandwidth for broadcast is a limited resource that is regulated according to both law and international treaty.

The FCC has gotten into very murky territory that may violate the Communications Act of 1934 (as amended) that limits direct foreign ownership to 20% of the stock, and indirect ownership to 25% of the stock in a broadcast company. The FCC rules don't supersede actual law passed by Congress. I suspect that some of its rulings could be challenged if somebody wanted to force the issue into the courts. Read more here:

Regulators Open Airwaves To Increased Foreign Ownership - Broadcasting: Film, TV & Radio - United States

The Federal Communications Commission has slowly opened the door to indirect parent entity foreign ownership of broadcast station licenses.

www.mondaq.com

 

[TheBigA]

Foreign ownership of media of any kind is a danger to the republic. Unlike newspapers or the internet, bandwidth for broadcast is a limited resource that is regulated according to both law and international treaty.

As I said, the FCC has the right to deny a foreign company ownership. I'm sure the many lawyers there understand your point. They have the same issues with foreign ownership of mineral rights, oil drilling, fishing, and grazing land. All of this is overseen by congress.

What's the difference between a foreign owner and a religious broadcaster or an American citizen who buys the media to push a personal political ideology? A couple of years ago, two Florida politicians challenged George Soros when he invested in some Miami radio stations. Their complaints were dismissed. It would be wonderful if small US businesses would buy radio stations and run them like mom & pops. That's not happening. We see the result.

 

[gr8oldies]

As I said, the FCC has the right to deny a foreign company ownership. I'm sure the many lawyers there understand your point. They have the same issues with foreign ownership of mineral rights, oil drilling, fishing, and grazing land. All of this is overseen by congress.

What's the difference between a foreign owner and a religious broadcaster or an American citizen who buys the media to push a personal political ideology? A couple of years ago, two Florida politicians challenged George Soros when he invested in some Miami radio stations. Their complaints were dismissed. It would be wonderful if small

US businesses would buy radio stations and run them like mom & pops. That's not happening. We see the result.

It'll be wild to see the conspiracy theories that will come out of this. Soros demanding the Socialism minute on all the music stations! Hypnosis by subliminal messages saying "Vote Biden". It'll be one of the many excuses for Trump losing in November.

 

[DavidEduardo]

Foreign ownership of media of any kind is a danger to the republic. Unlike newspapers or the internet, bandwidth for broadcast is a limited resource that is regulated according to both law and international treaty.

With a decrease in the time spent with radio of nearly 70% over the last two decades (18 to 21 weekly hours per person in Y2K vs around 6 hours today) and the plethora of services available online, there is no risk of foreign ownership in AM and FM and even OTA television.

Audio and video are not limited resources any more. Over-regulating them just increases the cost of operation and reduces stations' abilities to do other things listeners might benefit from. A good example of over-regulation is the desire of Rosenworcel to restore the annual employment reports.

 

[ckg279]

I go back to what I said earlier in this thread. Audacy owns 230 radio stations, and only 28 of them are news/talk. The primary business of Soros, and the way he became rich, is to buy low and sell high. HIs fund believes there's a profit to be made in buying this debt. This is not a decision being made to force a political ideology on a small number of radio stations. Soros is an old rich guy who still sees value in radio. There aren't a lot of people like him.

That being said, I look forward to reading Jim's report. The bottom line is that someone has to own and invest in radio. There are also foreign investors looking at US radio companies right now. The FCC has been open to foreign ownership, and we already have one US radio company owned by a Mexican company. So that's the bigger question moving forward.

It's more like a blurb than a full-fledged report, but Jim is one of the good guys(and Investigative Post fills in the areas that the Buffalo News either can't or won't touch-mainly because the News is a shell of what it once was).

This is akin to the Niagara Region Bell Media stations recently sold to Whiteoaks(that company has set up a new division to help run the stations).

And to follow up on SirRoxalot's point on foreign ownership and newspapers: You might find it odd to know that the vast majority of Canada's newspapers are owned by Postmedia. Nothing shocking in and of itself...but when you add in the fact that the majority owner of Postmedia is Chatham Asset Management, an American-based hedge fund which also owns the McClatchy chain of newspapers in the States as well as A360media(which has a foothold in supermarket tabloids & magazines).

 

[SirRoxalot]

And to follow up on SirRoxalot's point on foreign ownership and newspapers: You might find it odd to know that the vast majority of Canada's newspapers are owned by Postmedia. Nothing shocking in and of itself...but when you add in the fact that the majority owner of Postmedia is Chatham Asset Management, an American-based hedge fund which also owns the McClatchy chain of newspapers in the States as well as A360media(which has a foothold in supermarket tabloids & magazines).

As I said, newspapers and internet are unlimited resources. Anybody can start a newspaper or create a website. The bandwidth is essentially unlimited. The electronic spectrum is not and is already very crowded. That's why the FCC is tasked with safeguarding it and there are laws regarding its use.

 

[TheBigA]

That's why the FCC is tasked with safeguarding it and there are laws regarding its use.

The US government owns broadcasting in other countries. So if it were to come up, there would be reciprocity issues for the FCC to consider. Allowing foreign investment is a much safer choice than allowing US investors that will cut costs and go bankrupt.

You also have to keep in mind that they would not be selling spectrum, but merely licensing it. So the resource is still owned and regulated by the government. And licenses could be revoked if the country of the licensee became an adversary.

The spectrum is crowded, but broadcasting is no longer a place for US investment. Which is why companies are selling to non-commercial religious broadcasters. At this rate, it's possible half of the FM dial in most big cities will be religious in less than 10 years. That's the practicality of it. We can't afford to be xenophobic when we need investment. Unless we change the rules and allow the US government to own broadcasting. That opens up a different can of worms.

 

[DavidEduardo]

The US government owns broadcasting in other countries. So if it were to come up, there would be reciprocity issues for the FCC to consider. Allowing foreign investment is a much safer choice than allowing US investors that will cut costs and go bankrupt.

But in most cases, this is the VOA or "subsidiary" VOA operations that generally don't program to the country where they operate transmitters or VOA relays. These are not "music and news" stations but propaganda operations.

One of the oldest is the VOA operation in the Philipines, targeting China. Several operations in Africa or island nations are used to "pour" directional short wave into neighboring countries. Purely political.

I can't think of a single country where the VOA currently has SW relays where there is a broadcast company that would like to have a big US operation.

 

[TheBigA]

But in most cases, this is the VOA or "subsidiary" VOA operations that generally don't program to the country where they operate transmitters or VOA relays. These are not "music and news" stations but propaganda operations.

In any case, we're talking about reciprocity. If a British company wanted to own radio here, the FCC would be unlikely to say no. Just as they didn't say no to a company in Mexico.

 

[RadioGuy1864]

The spectrum is crowded, but broadcasting is no longer a place for US investment. Which is why companies are selling to non-commercial religious broadcasters. At this rate, it's possible half of the FM dial in most big cities will be religious in less than 10 years. s.

Possible, yes. Probable, not so much. FM stations in big cities still throw off decent profits.

 

[TheBigA]

Possible, yes. Probable, not so much. FM stations in big cities still throw off decent profits.

We'll see who buys 98.7 in NYC. None of the obvious players can, due to ownership rules.

 

[Mediafrog+]

But in most cases, this is the VOA or "subsidiary" VOA operations that generally don't program to the country where they operate transmitters or VOA relays. These are not "music and news" stations but propaganda operations.

One of the oldest is the VOA operation in the Philipines, targeting China. Several operations in Africa or island nations are used to "pour" directional short wave into neighboring countries. Purely political.

I can't think of a single country where the VOA currently has SW relays where there is a broadcast company that would like to have a big US operation.

You can’t limit this to shortwave, however. The VOA and the other USAGM services have local FM stations in many cities across the globe carrying their content around the clock…so a “local” target. Same for the BBC and RFI.

 

[DavidEduardo]

You can’t limit this to shortwave, however. The VOA and the other USAGM services have local FM stations in many cities across the globe carrying their content around the clock…so a “local” target. Same for the BBC and RFI.

But, apparently, all of those are leased facilities that let VOA program them for a fee. However, that invites the comparison with the stations that a Chinese government's agency was renting and programming with Chinese content.

The most interesting thing is that those rented stations carrying VOA programming don't get any rated audience in any market with ratings. Of course, the Chinese service in the U.S. got no listening, either.

 

[Mediafrog+]

The most interesting thing is that those rented stations carrying VOA programming don't get any rated audience in any market with ratings. Of course, the Chinese service in the U.S. got no listening, either.

Do the BBC and RFI local FMs do better or are they also “under the radar”?

 

[DavidEduardo]

Do the BBC and RFI local FMs do better or are they also “under the radar”?

Good question. Maybe Huff has some ratings data where there are full BBC or RFI "affiliates".

I remember when I was running my stations in Ecuador that I got never ending calls from as high up as the U.S. Ambassador asking why I did not run any VOA shows on any of my stations.

I explained, over and over, that were were live music format stations with local personality DJs and we did not do block programming and we did not do any talk or news blocks. This went on for years. Finally, I talked with one of my only friends at the U.S. Embassy who was the "Commercial Attaché" which I knew was a cover for the CIA station chief. I jokingly told him that unless he wanted all my jocks to be making fun of the very un-clever pressure being applied, he'd get them to stop trying. They did.

 

[Rusty Bridges]

I guess this is where this thread get a bit political in the sense that Russia, as it has been proven, did in fact interfere with the 2016 presidential election and did in fact attempt to interfere with the 2020 presidential election. The argument can be made that Russia and the operatives of Vladimir Putin didn't need radio to influence the election, they did it with digital, social media and, to an extent, purposefully erroneous reporting of Fox cable news (see Dominion lawsuit and pending Smartmatic lawsuit v. Fox News.)

OK, the preceding having been laid out in an objective manner, what would become of this country and our political and process(es) of governance if the Russians and communist Chinese owned majority stakes of OTA radio and television facilities? Yes, I'm aware (as noted by some very articulate responses [thank you] in this thread) that US entities own stakes in foreign RF providers. But I would wager that US (aside from VOA) companies do not exert an influence on the political landscape of those countries to the extent that China and Russia would if they owned controlling interests in US OTA broadcast facilities.

(I'm doing my best to keep[ it civil and apolitical.)

 

[TheBigA]

I would wager that US (aside from VOA) companies do not exert an influence on the political landscape of those countries to the extent that China and Russia would if they owned controlling interests in US OTA broadcast facilities.

The difference is you're talking about US companies vs. Russian and Chinese government. And as I've said, all foreign ownership of US broadcasting is subject to FCC approval. And as we've seen, if the congress doesn't agree with the FCC, they have the right to overrule. Foreign ownership is not an easy thing to get.

Cumulus Cleared By FCC To Become Up To 100% Foreign-Owned.

Cumulus Media has secured government approval to become as much as 100% foreign-owned. The FCC has approved a petition filed by the company, saying its approval would likely enable Cumulus

www.insideradio.com

The only condition that the FCC put on Cumulus is that it will need to obtain specific approval for any foreign individual, entity, or group that seeks to hold more than five percent of the equity and/or voting interests in the company. In some cases however that limit will be raised to 10%. Cumulus will also need to alert the Media Bureau if it becomes aware that it has fallen out of compliance with that requirement.