By now you've heard about "Touch 106," a pirate radio station that was recently raided by the FCC in Boston. Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick is reportedly unhappy that Touch 106 was shut down after eight years of operation, saying it has been an important voice for the black community and that he has been interviewed on the station multiple times.
Radio consultant Donna Halper, Ph.D, associate professor of communications at Lesley University in Cambridge, MA, tells me she has mixed feelings about the story. She says, "Boston needs a live and local station that serves the minority community; on the other hand, [Touch operator Charles L.] Clemons had numerous opportunities to make his station legal and chose not to, plus he used the station to boost his own unsuccessful run for mayor."
She continues, "As a radio consultant, and one who used to consult WILD -- which at one time was the dominant voice in the black community, until it was sold and abandoned live programming -- I think the Touch 106 story speaks to a much bigger issue: the FCC's lack of interest in promoting 'live and local' programming and its willingness to allow a handful of giant conglomerates to simulcast and voicetrack rather than be a presence in the communities they are supposed to serve."
There are so many issues raised by this story. First, how is it the FCC allowed a pirate radio station to be on the air for eight years? It seems that one of the FCC's primary roles is to keep an eye on signals/frequencies and the allocations of those signals. Pirate radio stations interfere with that. Shame on the FCC for not doing its job. Perhaps the agency will say it's overloaded and underfunded, but eight years? Really? Broadcasters have to go through rigorous processes to apply for and maintain our licenses, and the FCC is not protecting broadcaster rights.
Of course, another issue concerns the use of a pirate signal to influence an election, and the governor's appearing on an illegal frequency. Perhaps he didn't know.
The central issue, however, is that historically, pirate radio stations have developed because the community has a need for the service. The success of this station seems to have been driven by the fact that it was live, local, and serving the needs of the local black community. I'm not in Boston, nor do I know how much impact this Touch 106 station really had, and I'd be curious how it would do in the Nielsen reports if compared to other local stations. That doesn't make it OK -- a broadcast license is required, period -- but it does raise the question of who is serving communiaty needs.
I suspect this story is not over. "Touch 106" will tug at the heartstrings of the city, generate lots more publicity, and try to say the community it serves deserves to have it on the air. But that's not good enough. In fact, in my opinion, a onetime pirate operator should be prevented from ever holding a legitimate license -- just as a felon cannot own a radio station. The FCC should continue to levy serious penalties on pirate operators, and in states where operating a pirate station is a state crime (such as Florida and New Jersey), the law should be vigorously enforced.
I don't know how many pirate stations are on the air in America, but I know there is one in my town. I've been wondering how they have been getting away with it all this time. Now I know that the FCC has simply been lazy.
But another giant issue in all of this is that a pirate station has been perceived as serving the needs of Boston's black community better than legitimate radio. I'm sure local broadcasters in Boston -- and everywhere -- feel they're doing their best to serve their communities. But are cost savings through automation and voicetracking becoming the real first priority?
I honestly cannot answer that question. My gut tells me that if broadcast companies thought they could make more money by being "live and local," they would do it in a heartbeat.
But in Boston, it looks like there's a big opening for another station to step up to the plate and become what "Touch 106" was for the community. Will anyone take advantage of that opening? I'd think one or more Boston broadcasters would be looking very closely at whether such a move would make economic sense.
As legitimate broadcasters, we cannot stand for pirates, no matter how long-running or how much they're loved in the community. And if the FCC doesn't do its job, what is to be done? I'd be curious to hear your opinions on this matter, and the pirate situation in Boston and other communities.
Comments