Radio

Survey of Broadcasting: Assignment 2, Question 2. Discuss the legal definitions of obscenity and indecency. Consider how contemporary/local community standards are ascertained.

Posted on June 30, 2011. Filed under: Broadcasting, Ethical Practices, Ethics, Policies, Radio | Tags: , , , , |

The definition of obscenity that currently applies to broadcasting was set forth in the 1973 Supreme Court decision of Miller v. California.

For a radio or television broadcast to be considered obscene, it must meet a three-part test:

  1. Contain material that depicts of describes in patently offensive way certain sexual acts as defined in state law;
  2. Appeal to the prurient interests of the average person applying contemporary local community standards, where prurient means tending to excite lust;
  3. Lack of serious artistic, literary, political, or scientific value.

Indecency is content that is not obscene as set forth in the Miller v. California Supreme Court decision but still contains offensive elements. The common legal definition of broadcast indecency is as follows:

“Something broadcast is indecent if it depicts or describes sexual or excretory activities or organs in a fashion that’s patently offensive according to contemporary community standards for the broadcast media at a time of day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.”

Nudity and the use of words that describe sexual or excretionary acts are not obscene per se, however, they may be classified as indecent.

Contemporary community standards are ascertained or determined by jurors in obscenity and indecency cases prosecuted and brought before the courts.

Perversion for Profit: Part III

Perversion for Profit: Part IV

Community standards change overtime, by location and who makes up a jury in a specific case.

With the world-wide web or the internet linking people in many communities, what are contemporary community standards?

Today the prosecution of obscenity and indecency cases is considered normal.

Yet the ancient Greeks and Romans would consider the prosecution of obscenity and indecency as bizarre.

The determination of community standards appears to be both arbitrary, capricious and ever-changing.

Technology in the form of VCR, cable television and the internet have made eroded community standards and made the prosecution of obscenity cases difficult.

Jurors hearing an obscenity case will compare the evidence presented in court with what they have seen on cable television and over the internet or with videos that have watched in their homes.

The perverse unintended consequence is there are no contemporary community standards.

The Seven Words

Censored South Park F Word Scene

Background Articles and Videos

Should Obscenity be Illegal?: Lady Chatterley, Milk Nymphos, & John Stagliano

Censored! The First Amendment, Sex, and Obscenity

“How Obscene is This” Panel 2 | The New School

Obscenity and the Supreme Court

Perversion for Profit 1/2

Perversion for Profit 2/2

Perversion for Profit: Part III

Pt 1 PornHarms.com founder Patrick Trueman, Attorney at Law, at Briefing on Capitol Hill

Pt 2 PornHarms.com founder Patrick Trueman, Attorney at Law, at Briefing on Capitol Hill

Southpark Kyles mom a bitch with lyrics

I’m Gonna Kick His Ask

 

Obscenity

“…An obscenity is any statement or act which strongly offends the prevalent morality of the time, is a profanity, or is otherwise taboo, indecent, abhorrent, or disgusting, or is especially inauspicious. The term is also applied to an object that incorporates such a statement or displays such an act.

In a legal context, the term obscenity is most often used to describe expressions (words, images, actions) of an explicitly sexual nature. The word can be used to indicate a strong moral repugnance, in expressions such as “obscene profits”, “the obscenity of war”, etc. It is often replaced by the word salaciousness.

According to Merriam-Webster online dictionary, that which is obscene (i.e.: an obscenity) is quite simply defined as repulsive, or disgusting to the senses.[1]

The definition of what exactly constitutes an obscenity differs from culture to culture, between communities within a single culture, and also between individuals within those communities. Many cultures have produced laws to define what is considered to be obscene, and censorship is often used to try to suppress or control materials that are obscene under these definitions: usually including, but not limited to, pornographic material. As such censorship restricts freedom of expression, crafting a legal definition of obscenity presents a civil liberties issue.

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States states:

Congress shall make no law (…) abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Thus, the United States of America has constitutional protection for freedom of speech, which is not interpreted to protect every utterance, despite the lack of exception clauses (rare in a national constitution) in the text of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has found that, when used in the context of the First Amendment, the word obscenity is usually limited to content that directly refers to explicit sexual acts that are publicly accessible, though it has at times encompassed other subject matters, such as spoken and written language that can be publicly transmitted and received by the general public.

The legal term of obscenity is usually denoted to classify a distinction between socially permitted material and discussions that the public can access versus those that should be denied. There does exist a classification of those acceptable materials and discussions that the public should be allowed to engage in, and the access to that same permitted material—which in the areas of sexual materials ranges between the permitted areas of erotic art (which usually includes “classic nude forms” such as Michelangelo’s David statue) and the generally less respected commercial pornography. The legal distinction between artistic nudity, and permitted commercial pornography (which includes sexual penetration) that are deemed as “protected forms of speech” versus “obscene acts”, which are illegal acts and separate from those permitted areas, are usually separated by the predominant culture appreciation regarding such. However, no such specific objective distinction exists outside of legal decisions in federal court cases where a specific action is deemed to fit the classification of obscene and thus illegal. The difference between erotic art and (protected) commercial pornography, vs. that which is legally obscene (and thus not covered by 1st Amendment protection), appears to be subjective to the local federal districts inside the United States and the local moral standards at the time.

In fact, federal obscenity law in the U.S. is highly unusual in that not only is there no uniform national standard, but rather, there is an explicit legal precedent (the “Miller test”, below) that all but guarantees that something that is legally obscene in one jurisdiction may not be in another. In effect, the First Amendment protections of free speech vary by location within the U.S., and over time. With the advent of Internet distribution of potentially obscene material, this question of jurisdiction and community standards has created significant controversy in the legal community. (See United States v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 1996))

Even at the federal level, there does not exist a specific listing of which exact acts are to be classified as obscene outside of the legally determined court cases. Title 18, chapter 71 of the USC deals with obscenity, the workings out of the law described in this article, most notably the aforementioned Miller test.

Former Justice Potter Stewart of the Supreme Court of the United States, in attempting to classify what material constituted exactly “what is obscene”, famously wrote, “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced…[b]ut I know it when I see it…”[2]

However, in the United States, the 1973 ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States in Miller v. California established a three-tiered test to determine what was obscene—and thus not protected, versus what was merely erotic and thus protected by the First Amendment.

Delivering the opinion of the court, Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote:

The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.[3]

Justice Douglas wrote a dissenting opinion that eloquently expressed his dissatisfaction with the ruling:

The idea that the First Amendment permits government to ban publications that are ‘offensive’ to some people puts an ominous gloss on freedom of the press. That test would make it possible to ban any paper or any journal or magazine in some benighted place. The First Amendment was designed ‘to invite dispute,’ to induce ‘a condition of unrest,’ to ‘create dissatisfaction with conditions as they are,’ and even to stir ‘people to anger.’ The idea that the First Amendment permits punishment for ideas that are ‘offensive’ to the particular judge or jury sitting in judgment is astounding. No greater leveler of speech or literature has ever been designed. To give the power to the censor, as we do today, is to make a sharp and radical break with the traditions of a free society. The First Amendment was not fashioned as a vehicle for dispensing tranquilizers to the people. Its prime function was to keep debate open to ‘offensive’ as well as to ‘staid’ people. The tendency throughout history has been to subdue the individual and to exalt the power of government. The use of the standard ‘offensive’ gives authority to government that cuts the very vitals out of the First Amendment. As is intimated by the Court’s opinion, the materials before us may be garbage. But so is much of what is said in political campaigns, in the daily press, on TV, or over the radio. By reason of the First Amendment—and solely because of it—speakers and publishers have not been threatened or subdued because their thoughts and ideas may be ‘offensive’ to some. [4]

In U.S. legal texts, therefore, the question of “obscenity” presently always refers to this “Miller test obscenity”. As articulated in several sections of 18 USC Chapter 71, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is constitutional to legally limit the sale, transport for personal use or other transmission of obscenity. However, it has ruled unconstitutional the passing of law concerning personal possession of obscenity per se. Federal obscenity laws at present apply to inter-state and foreign obscenity issues such as distribution; intrastate issues are for the most part still governed by state law. “Obscene articles… are generally prohibited entry” to the United States by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.[5]

At present, there are only two legally protected areas of explicit commercial pornography. The first is “mere nudity” as upheld in “Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U.S. 153 (1974)” whereby the film Carnal Knowledge was deemed not to be obscene under the constitutional standards announced by Miller. As declared by the judge at trial “The film shows occasional nudity, but nudity alone does not render material obscene under Miller’s standards.” This was upheld time and again in later cases including “Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville FL, 422 U.S. 205 (1975)” in which the city of Jacksonville stated that showing films containing nudity when the screen is visible from a public street or place is a punishable offense. The law was determined to be invalid as it was an infringement of First Amendment rights of the movie producer and theatre owners. The second is single male to female vaginal-only penetration that does NOT show the actual ejaculation of semen, sometimes referred to as “soft-core” pornography wherein the sexual act and its fulfillment (orgasm) are merely implied to happen rather than explicitly shown.

In June 2006, the U.S. Federal government in the district of Arizona brought a case against JM Productions of Chatsworth, California in order to classify commercial pornography that specifically shows actual semen being ejaculated as obscene. The four films that were the subject of the case are entitled “American Bukkake 13”, “Gag Factor 15”, “Gag Factor 18” and “Filthy Things 6”. The case also includes charges of distribution of obscene material (a criminal act under 18 USC § 1465 – “Transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution”) against Five Star DVD for the extra-state commercial distribution of the JM Productions films in question. The case was brought to trial on October 16, 2007. At the first date of trial, the US DoJ decided not to pursue the JM obscenity case any further, leaving the matter without resolution, possibly fearing the formal establishment of films depicting ejaculation as a nationally protected material if the trial was decided in favor of JM Productions.[6] While the US DoJ decided to abandon its legal pursuit of the JM productions, U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn O. Silver has forced the legal case against Five Star DVD distributors to continue, whereby the legal classification of whether “sperm showing through ejaculation” is an obscene act and thus illegal to produce or distribute will be definitely answered in order to convict Five Star of being guilty of “18 USC 1465 – Transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution”.[7] The jury found that Five Star Video LC and Five Star Video Outlet LC were guilty of “18 USC 1465 – Transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution” for having shipped JM Productions’ film “Gag Factor 18”.[8] However, the specific content in that film that the jury deemed to actually fulfill the legal qualification of being “obscene” has not been specifically stated at this point.

Obscenity v. indecency

Main article: Indecency

The differentiation between indecent and obscene material is a particularly difficult one, and a contentious First Amendment issue that has not fully been settled. Similarly, the level of offense (if any) generated by a profane word or phrase depends on region, context, and audience.

Non image-based obscenity cases in the USA

While most of the obscenity cases in the United States have revolved around images and films, there have been many cases that dealt with textual works as well.

The classification of “obscene” and thus illegal for production and distribution has been judged on printed text-only stories starting with “Dunlop v. U.S., 165 U.S. 486 (1897)” which upheld a conviction for mailing and delivery of a newspaper called the ‘Chicago Dispatch,’ containing “obscene, lewd, lascivious, and indecent materials”, which was later upheld in several cases. One of these was “A Book Named “John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure” v. Attorney General of Com. of Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966)” wherein the book “Fanny Hill”, written by John Cleland c. 1760, was judged to be obscene in a proceeding that put the book itself on trial rather than its publisher. Another was “Kaplan v. California, 413 U.S. 115 (1973)” whereby the court most famously determined that “Obscene material in book form is not entitled to any First Amendment protection merely because it has no pictorial content.”

However, the book was labeled “erotica” in the 1965 case (206 NE 2d 403) and there a division between erotica and obscenity was made—not all items with erotic content were automatically obscene. Further, the 1965 “John Cleland’s ‘Memoirs'” case added a further qualification for the proving of “obscenity” — the work in question had to inspire or exhibit “prurient” (that is, “shameful or morbid”) interest.

In 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Grove Press, Inc. v. Gerstein, cited Jacobellis v. Ohio (which was decided the same day) and overruled state court findings of obscenity against Henry Miler’s Tropic of Cancer. A copyright infringing “Medusa” edition of the novel was published in New York City in 1940 by Jacob Brussel; its title page claimed its place of publication to be Mexico. Brussel was eventually sent to jail for three years for the edition,[9] a copy of which is in the Library of Congress.

In September 2005 an FBI “Anti-Porn Squad” was formed, which has initially targeted for prosecution websites such as Red Rose Stories (www.red-rose-stories.com, now defunct), one of many sites providing text-only fantasy stories.[10] Other websites such as BeautyBound.com have closed themselves down despite not being targeted, due to these risks and legislative burdens.[citation needed]

Past standards

These standards were once used to determine exactly what was obscene. All have been invalidated, overturned, or superseded by the Miller Test.
  • Wepplo (1947): If material has a substantial tendency to deprave or corrupt its readers by inciting lascivious thoughts or arousing lustful desires. (People v. Wepplo, 78 Cal. App.2d Supp. 959, 178 P.2d 853).
  • Hicklin test (1868): the effect of isolated passages upon the most susceptible persons. (British common law, cited in Regina v. Hicklin, 1868. LR 3 QB 360 – overturned when Michigan tried to outlaw all printed matter that would ‘corrupt the morals of youth’ in Butler v. State of Michigan 352 U.S. 380 (1957))
  • Roth Standard (1957): “Whether to the average person applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest”. Roth v. United States 354 U.S. 476 (1957) – overturned by Miller
  • Roth-Jacobellis (1964): “community standards” applicable to an obscenity are national, not local standards. Material is “utterly without redeeming social importance”. Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 US 184 (1964) – famous quote: “I shall not today attempt further to define [hardcore pornography] …But I know it when I see it”.
  • Roth-Jacobellis-Memoirs Test (1966): Adds that the material possesses “not a modicum of social value”. (A Book Named John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure v. Attorney General of Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966))

Under FCC rules and federal law, radio stations and over-the-air television channels cannot air obscene material at any time and cannot air indecent material between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.: language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.

Many historically important works have been described as obscene or prosecuted under obscenity laws, including the works of Charles Baudelaire, Lenny Bruce, William S. Burroughs, Allen Ginsberg, James Joyce, D. H. Lawrence, Henry Miller, Samuel Beckett, and the Marquis de Sade.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIqshWvIO7M

Decency

“…Decency is the measure of an object’s worth and value.[citation needed]

The category of issues that includes matters of “sex and decency in advertising” is a constant and ubiquitous problem concerning products, services, concepts, claims and imageries eliciting reactions of distaste, disgust, offense or outrage when mentioned or presented in advertisements.[1] Issues such as decency are more difficult to define and handle because they reflect a large variety of personally subjective, culturally related and historically changing values and attitudes.[1] The types of controls and their shortcomings present dangers for freedom of commercial communication.[1] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indecency

Miller v. California

“…Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) was an important United States Supreme Court case involving what constitutes unprotected obscenity for First Amendment purposes. The decision reiterated that obscenity was not protected by the First Amendment and established the Miller test for determining what constituted obscene material.

The appellant, Marvin Miller, operator of one of the West Coast’s largest mail-order businesses dealing in sexually explicit material, had conducted a mass mailing campaign to advertise the sale of illustrated books, labeled “adult” material (also referred to in the vernacular as pornography). He was found guilty in the Superior Court of Orange County, California (the state trial court) of having violated California Penal Code 311.2 (a), a misdemeanor, by knowingly distributing obscene material. The conviction was affirmed by the California Court of Appeals. As stated in the preface to Chief Justice Warren Burger’s majority opinion, the

Appellant’s conviction was specifically based on his conduct in causing five unsolicited advertising brochures to be sent through the mail in an envelope addressed to a restaurant in Newport Beach, California. The envelope was opened by the manager of the restaurant and his mother. They had not requested the brochures and complained to the police.

According to the Court’s decision, the materials in question primarily… consist[ed] of pictures and drawings very explicitly depicting men and women in groups of two or more engaging in a variety of sexual activities, with genitals often prominently displayed. Since the Court’s decision in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957), the Court had struggled to define what constituted constitutionally unprotected obscene material. Under the common law rule that prevailed before Roth, articulated most famously in the 1868 English case Regina v. Hicklin, any material that tended to “deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences” was deemed “obscene” and could be banned on that basis. Thus, works by Balzac, Flaubert, James Joyce, and D. H. Lawrence were banned based on isolated passages and the effect they might have on children. Roth repudiated the Hicklin test and defined obscenity more strictly, as material whose “dominant theme taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest” to the “average person, applying contemporary community standards.” Only material meeting this test could be banned as “obscene.”

Hugo Black and William O. Douglas, First Amendment “literalists,” chafed at the Roth test and argued vigorously that the First Amendment protected obscene material. In subsequent cases the Court encountered tremendous difficulty in applying the Roth test, which did not define what it meant by “community standards.” For example, in the 1964 case Jacobellis v. Ohio, involving whether Ohio could ban the showing of a French film called Les Amants (FRENCH FOR The Lovers), the Court ruled that the film was protected by the First Amendment, but could not agree as to a rationale, yielding four different opinions from the majority, with none garnering the support of more than two justices, as well as two dissenting opinions. In his concurring opinion in Jacobellis, Justice Potter Stewart, holding that Roth protected all obscenity except “hard-core pornography,” famously wrote, “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”

In Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966), a plurality of the Court further redefined the Roth test by holding unprotected only that which is “patently offensive” and “utterly without redeeming social value,” but no opinion in that case could command a majority of the Court either, and the state of the law in the obscenity field remained confused.

Pornography and sexually oriented publications proliferated as a result of the Court’s holdings, the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s flowered, and pressure increasingly came to the Court to allow leeway for state and local governments to crack down on obscenity. During his ill-fated bid to become Chief Justice, Justice Abe Fortas was attacked vigorously in Congress by conservatives such as Strom Thurmond for siding with the Warren Court majority in liberalizing protection for pornography. In his 1968 presidential campaign, Richard Nixon campaigned against the Warren Court, pledging to appoint “strict constructionists” to the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Warren Burger came to the Court in 1969 believing that the Court’s obscenity jurisprudence was misguided and governments should be given more leeway to ban obscene materials. In consideration of Miller in May and June 1972, Burger pushed successfully for a looser definition of “obscenity” which would allow local prosecutions, while Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., who by now also believed the Roth and Memoirs tests should be abandoned, led the charge for protecting all “obscenity” unless distributed to minors or exposed offensively to unconsenting adults. Decision of the case was contentious, and Miller was put over for reargument for October term 1972, and did not come down until June 1973, with Burger prevailing by a bare 5-4 vote.

The decision

The question before the court was whether the sale and distribution of obscene material was protected under the First Amendment’s freedom of speech guarantee. The Court ruled that it was not. It indicated that “obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment”, thereby reaffirming part of Roth.[1]

However, the Court acknowledged “the inherent dangers of undertaking to regulate any form of expression,” and said that “State statutes designed to regulate obscene materials must be carefully limited.”[2] The Court, in an attempt to set such limits devised a set of three criteria which must be met in order for a work to be legitimately subject to state regulation:

  1. whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards (not national standards, as some prior tests required), would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
  2. whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[3] specifically defined by applicable state law; and
  3. “whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”[4]

This obscenity test overturns the definition of obscenity set out in the Memoirs decision, which held that “all ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance . . . have the full protection of the guaranties [of the First Amendment]” and that obscenity was that which was “utterly without redeeming social importance.”[5]

The Miller decision vacated the judgment of the Appellate Department of the Superior Court of California and remanded the case to that court for further proceedings consistent with the First Amendment standards established by the opinion.

Effects of the decision

Miller provided states greater freedom in prosecuting alleged purveyors of “obscene” material because, for the first time since Roth, a majority of the Court agreed on a definition of “obscenity.” Hundreds of “obscenity” prosecutions went forward after Miller, and the Supreme Court began denying review of these state actions after years of reviewing many “obscenity” convictions (over 60 appeared on the Court’s docket for the 1971-72 term, pre-Miller). A companion case to Miller, Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, provided states with greater leeway to shut down adult movie houses. Controversy arose over Miller’s “community standards” analysis, with critics charging that Miller encouraged “forum shopping” to prosecute national producers of what some believe to be “obscenity” in locales where community standards differ substantially from the rest of the nation. For example, under the “community standards” prong of the Miller test, what might be considered “obscene” in Massachusetts might not be considered “obscene” in Utah, or the opposite might be true; in any event, prosecutors tend to bring charges in locales where they believe that they will prevail.

The “community standards” portion of the decision is of particular relevance with the rise of the Internet, as materials believed by some to be “obscene” can be accessed from anywhere in the nation, including places where there is a greater concern about “obscenity” than other areas of the nation.

In the years since Miller, many localities have cracked down on adult theatres and bookstores, as well as nude dancing, through restrictive zoning ordinances and public nudity laws. These types of actions have been upheld by the Supreme Court. Additionally, in 1982’s New York v. Ferber, the Court declared child pornography is unprotected by the First Amendment, upholding the state of New York’s ban on that material. In the recent Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition case, however, the Court held that sexually explicit material that appears to depict minors might be constitutionally protected.

In American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland, plaintiffs American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, joined by various publishers, retailers, and web site operators, sued Ohio’s Attorney General and Ohio county prosecutors in United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiffs alleged that Ohio Revised Code §2907.01(E) and (J), which prohibited the dissemination or display of “materials harmful to juveniles,” unconstitutionally violated both the First Amendment and the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Plaintiffs specifically challenged the statute’s definition of “harmful to juveniles,” as well as the provisions governing internet dissemination of those materials. The court held the statute unconstitutional because the statute’s definition of “material harmful to minors” did not comply with Miller. Defendants appealed the decision to the Sixth Circuit. …”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIqshWvIO7M

Community Standards

“…Community standards are local norms bounding acceptable conduct. Sometimes these standards can be itemized in a list that states the community’s values and sets guidelines for participation in the community. Alternatively, informal standards may be imprecisely described as “I’ll know it when I see it.”

Often, such standards are invoked in legal situations to resolve disputes, especially around pornography. Critics argue that puritanical moralists have used community standards to wrongly punish minorities such as homosexuals or those in interracial marriages.

Colleges and universities enforce their standards through conduct offices in their Student Affairs divisions. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_standards

Obscenity vs. Freedom of Expression: The John Stagliano Trial

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Survey of Broadcasting: Assignment 2, Question 3. Give an example of and define, in detail, the term “psychographics”.–Videos

Posted on June 30, 2011. Filed under: Advertising, Demographics, Psychographics, Radio | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

Advertisers and media buyers target their commercials or messages to the listeners of a radio station.

Radio stations in turn use one of about twenty distinct formats such as music, news, talk, and sports to attract listeners to their radio station.

Radio stations use both the demographics and psychographics of their listening audience to attract advertiser and advertising revenues.

Advertisers and radio stations need to know who are listening to their programs and commercials.

Demographic traits of an individual include their age, gender, income, marital status, racial/ethnic background and other attributes of the individual.

Psychographics are an individual’s personality traits such as their attitudes, beliefs, values, lifestyles, hobbies, political interests, passions, opinions and other motivating factors for listening to a particular radio station.

Listener psychographics, also known as qualitative, values or lifestyle research, are studies used to determine a radio station’s listeners or what the listeners are really like.

The station’s audience  is segmented by various personality traits and their listening or viewing behavior.

The individual rates himself on a number of different scales, such as active-passive, leader-follower, relaxed-tensed, romantic-practical, independent-dependent, and so forth.

Lifestyle surveys put more emphasis on values that influence consumer behavior.

The best known lifestyle survey is the VALS II developed at the Standard Research Institute that divides people into eight groups (Achievers, Actualizers, Believers, Innovators, Makers, Strivers, Strugglers, and Thinkers)

Advertisers develop ad campaigns that are consistent with their target audiences based on VALS II.

Background Articles and Videos

Psychographic Profile: Communicating with Your Target Market

Psychographics Who Is Most Likely to Buy?

Are You My Audience? – Intro to Surveys and Psychographics: Part 1

Are You My Audience? – Intro to Surveys and Psychographics: Part 2

Are You My Audience? – Intro to Surveys and Psychographics: Part 3

Are You My Audience? – Intro to Surveys and Psychographics: Part 4

NICHE – demographics vs psychographics

Psychographic

“…In the field of marketing, demographics, opinion research, and social research in general, psychographic variables are any attributes relating to personality, values, attitudes, interests, or lifestyles. They are also called IAO variables (for Interests, Activities, and Opinions). They can be contrasted with demographic variables (such as age and gender), behavioral variables (such as usage rate or loyalty), and firmographic variables (such as industry, seniority and functional area).

Psychographics should not be confused with demographics. For example, historical generations are defined by psychographic variables like attitudes, personality formation, and cultural touchstones. The traditional definition of the “Baby Boom Generation” has been the subject of much criticism[by whom?] because it is based on demographic variables where it should be based on psychographic variables[citation needed]. While all other generations are defined by psychographic variables, the Boomer definition is based on a demographic variable: the fertility rates of its members’ parents.

When a relatively complete profile of a person or group’s psychographic make-up is constructed, this is called a “psychographic profile”. Psychographic profiles are used in market segmentation as well as in advertising.

Some categories of psychographic factors used in market segmentation include:

  • Activity, Interest, Opinion (AIOs)
  • Attitudes
  • Values

Psychographics can also be seen as an equivalent of the concept of “culture” as used most commonly in national segmentation. “Psychographics is the study of personality, values, attitudes, interests, and lifestyles” [1] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychographic

VALS

“…VALS (“Values, Attitudes and Lifestyles”) is a proprietary research methodology used for psychographic market segmentation. Market segmentation is designed to guide companies in tailoring their products and services to appeal to the people most likely to purchase them.

VALS was developed in 1978 by social scientist and consumer futurist Arnold Mitchell and his colleagues at SRI International. It was immediately embraced by advertising agencies, and is currently offered as a product of SRI’s consulting services division. VALS draws heavily on the work of Harvard sociologist David Riesman and psychologist Abraham Maslow. [1]

Mitchell used statistics to identify attitudinal and demographic questions that helped categorize adult American consumers into one of nine lifestyle types: survivors (4%), sustainers (7%), belongers (35%), emulators (9%), achievers (22%), I-am-me (5%), experiential (7%), societally conscious (9%), and integrated (2%). The questions were weighted using data developed from a sample of 1,635 Americans and their partners, who responded to an SRI International survey in 1980. [2]

The main dimensions of the VALS framework are primary motivation (the horizontal dimension) and resources (the vertical dimension). The vertical dimension segments people based on the degree to which they are innovative and have resources such as income, education, self-confidence, intelligence, leadership skills, and energy. The horizontal dimension represents primary motivations and includes three distinct types:

  • Consumers driven by knowledge and principles are motivated primarily by ideals. These consumers include groups called Thinkers and Believers.
  • Consumers driven by demonstrating success to their peers are motivated primarily by achievement. These consumers include groups referred to as Achievers and Strivers.
  • Consumers driven by a desire for social or physical activity, variety, and risk taking are motivated primarily by self-expression. These consumers include the groups known as Experiencers and Makers.

At the top of the rectangle are the Innovators, who have such high resources that they could have any of the three primary motivations. At the bottom of the rectangle are the Survivors, who live complacently and within their means without a strong primary motivation of the types listed above. The VALS Framework gives more details about each of the groups.

Psychographic segmentation has been criticized by well-known public opinion analyst and social scientist Daniel Yankelovich, who says psychographics are “very weak” at predicting people’s purchases, making it a “very poor” tool for corporate decision-makers. [3] VALS has also been criticized as too culturally specific for international use. [4]

VALS Framework and Segment

  • Innovator. These consumers are on the leading edge of change, have the highest incomes, and such high self-esteem and abundant resources that they can induldge in any or all self-orientations. They are located above the rectangle. Image is important to them as an expression of taste, independence, and character. Their consumer choices are directed toward the “finer things in life.”
  • Thinkers. These consumers are the high-resource group of those who are motivated by ideals. They are mature, responsible, well-educated professionals. Their leisure activities center on their homes, but they are well informed about what goes on in the world and are open to new ideas and social change. They have high incomes but are practical consumers and rational decision makers.
  • Believers. These consumers are the low-resource group of those who are motivated by ideals. They are conservative and predictable consumers who favor American products and established brands. Their lives are centered on family, church, community, and the nation. They have modest incomes.
  • Achievers. These consumers are the high-resource group of those who are motivated by achievement. They are successful work-oriented people who get their satisfaction from their jobs and families. They are politically conservative and respect authority and the status quo. They favor established products and services that show off their success to their peers.
  • Strivers. These consumers are the low-resource group of those who are motivated by achievements. They have values very similar to achievers but have fewer economic, social, and psychological resources. Style is extremely important to them as they strive to emulate people they admire.
  • Experiencers. These consumers are the high-resource group of those who are motivated by self-expression. They are the youngest of all the segments, with a median age of 25. They have a lot of energy, which they pour into physical exercise and social activities. They are avid consumers, spending heavily on clothing, fast-foods, music, and other youthful favorites, with particular emphasis on new products and services.
  • Makers. These consumers are the low-resource group of those who are motivated by self-expression. They are practical people who value self-sufficiency. They are focused on the familiar-family, work, and physical recreation-and have little interest in the broader world. As consumers, they appreciate practical and functional products.
  • Survivors. These consumers have the lowest incomes. They have too few resources to be included in any consumer self-orientation and are thus located below the rectangle. They are the oldest of all the segments, with a median age of 61. Within their limited means, they tend to be brand-loyal consumers.

[edit] References

  1. ^ Yankelovich, Daniel; David Meer (February 6, 2006). Harvard Business Review: 1-11. http://www.viewpointlearning.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/segmentation_0206.pdf. Retrieved 7 June 2011.
  2. ^ Beatty, Sharon E.; Pamela M. Homer, Lynn R. Kahle (1988). “PROBLEMS WITH VALS IN INTERNATIONAL MARKETING RESEARCH: AN EXAMPLE FROM AN APPLICATION OF THE EMPIRICAL MIRROR TECHNIQUE”. Advances in Consumer Research 15: 375-380. http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/display.asp?id=6655. Retrieved 7 June 2011.
  3. ^ Yankelovich, Daniel; David Meer (February 6, 2006). Harvard Business Review: 1-11. http://www.viewpointlearning.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/segmentation_0206.pdf. Retrieved 7 June 2011.
  4. ^ Beatty, Sharon E.; Pamela M. Homer, Lynn R. Kahle (1988). “PROBLEMS WITH VALS IN INTERNATIONAL MARKETING RESEARCH: AN EXAMPLE FROM AN APPLICATION OF THE EMPIRICAL MIRROR TECHNIQUE”. Advances in Consumer Research 15: 375-380. http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/display.asp?id=6655. Retrieved 7 June 2011.

Use of the VALS Framework

Marketing classes use this tool to determine the placement of a given product to a certain niche in an industry. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VALS

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Survey of Broadcasting: Assignment 2: Question 2. Strategize about what you would do if you were the weakest station in a market. How would you plan your media buys? What would you do to make your station more attractive to advertisers?

Posted on June 30, 2011. Filed under: Audio, Broadcasting, Business, Communications, Defamation, Demographics, Economics, Formats, Mass Communications, Music, News, Radio, Talk | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

Question 2. Strategize about what you would do if you were the weakest station in a market.

How would you plan your media buys?

What would you do to make your station more attractive to advertisers?

If I were the weakest radio station in a market I would first do an analysis of the current format of the station.

Success in radio programming requires finding a unique niche in a market that would attract a large radio audience and in turn attract advertisers and revenues.

I would look for the format hole in a market or listening area by considering internal and external factors.

An internal analysis would consider such factors as the station’s dial location, power, technical facilities, management philosophy and station ownership.

An external analysis would begin with a competitive market study and consider such factors as existing competitor station’s current formats, ratings, financial performance, and technical properties.

Both the strengths and weaknesses of each competitor station should be examined.

By searching for a format hole I should be able to find a new or different format that is not currently available in a market.

If no format hole is found, then I should be able to find at least one or more competitors with a format that I could compete with head-to-head.

I would plan by media buys by first ascertaining my station’s target audience or the primary group of people the station seeks to reach with it programming.

The target audience should be clearly defined in terms of its demographics including age, gender, marital status, income, racial/ethnic background and other descriptors.

In addition to demographics I would try to define the target audience listeners in terms of their psychographics including listener attitudes, beliefs, hobbies, interests, lifestyles and motivations for listening to the station.

I would make the station more attractive to advertisers by first having very low if not the lowest rates for advertising commercials.

This should attract advertisers looking for bargains especially local small businesses.

I would provide advertisers with both the demographics and psychographics of the station’s target listening audience.

This should attract advertisers of products and services whose customers have the same or similar demographics and psychographics of the station’s target listening audience.

Background Articles and Videos

Advertising Techniques : How Do Media Buying Services Operate?

Media Buying 101

5 Sins of an Accomplished Media Buyer

Media Buying 101 (Everything BUT Google)

Meet Media Buying Expert Dan Zifkin

Media Buying Strategy in a Web 2.0 World

Media Buying and Planning Services – Eliminate a Costly Learning Curve

Media Buying Testing Strategies – Discovering New Winners

Media Buying

“…Media Buying is a sub function of Advertising management. Media Buying is the procurement of the best possible placement and price of a piece of media real-estate within any given media. The main task of Media Buying lies within the negotiation of price and placement to ensure the best possible value can be secured.

Buyers

Media Buyers are individuals responsible for purchasing time and advertising space for the purpose of advertising.[1] When planning what to buy, they must evaluate factors based on but not limited to station formats, pricing rates, demographics, geographic, and psychographics relating to the advertisers particular product or service objectives. The Media Buyer needs to optimize what is bought and that is dependent on budget, type of medium (radio, internet, TV, print), quality of the medium (target audience, time of day for broadcast, etc.), and how much time and space is wanted. Media Buyers can purchase spot, regionally, or nationally. National Media Buyers might have to factor in determinates based on a state by state basis. Rates, demand of leads, space, and time, and state licenses will vary from state to state. National Media Buyers will need National Media Planning to generate National Media Marketing strategies and National Media Advertising that can be adaptable from area to area but also work on a national level.

There is an apparent distinction between General Marketing Media Buyers and Direct Response Media Buyers. General Market Media Buyers enact or actualize media plans drawn up by media planners. They negotiate rates and create media schedules based on a media plan constructed by a Media Planner. Through the Media Planner, General Market Media Buyers rely on published cost per point guides which in actuality, are often based on hypothetical benchmarks, and rather outdated models[citation needed]. An experienced Direct Response Media Buyer knows what stations generate a specific quantity of response and knows within reason, the break even point of the expenditure versus the return. With that information, the Direct Response Media Buyer is efficient in negotiating a functional rate and in purchasing media from the appropriate stations[citation needed]. The Direct Response Buyer attaches unique phone numbers to each station they purchase media from and track the sales, and make adjustments to the media plan and schedule as necessary to optimize results. With these differing methodologies, Direct Response Marketing can be considered a specialized arena. Few advertising and marketing agencies are qualified to support clients in their Direct Response efforts[citation needed].

Media Research Planning can be done by Media Buyers as well as Media Specialists. Depending on product and service, Media Buyers and Media Specialists must do a fair amount of research to determine how best to spend the allotted budget[citation needed]. This includes research on the target audience and what type of medium will work best to reach the largest amount of consumers with the most effective method. Media Planners and Media Specialists have a vast array of media outlets at their disposal, both traditional media and new media. Traditional media would include radio, TV, magazines, newspapers, and out of home. New media might include Satellite TV, cable TV, Satellite radio, and internet. The internet offers a number of Online Media that has surfaced with the improvement of technology and the accessibility of the internet. Online Media can include emails, search engines and referral links, web portals, banners, interactive games, and video clips. Media Planners and Specialists can pick and choose what and/or which combination of media is most appropriate and effective to achieve their goal, whether it is to make a sale, and/or to deliver a message or idea. They can also strategize and make use of product placements and Positioning. Inserting advertisements as print ads in newspapers and magazines, buying impressions for advertisements on the internet, and airing commercials on the radio or TV, can be utilized by Direct Response Advertisers as well as Remnant Advertisers.

All the major marketing services holding companies own specialist media-buying operations.

Prior to the late 1990s, media buying was generally carried out by the media department of an advertising agency. The split between creative agencies and media agencies is often referred to as “unbundling”. In 1999, WPP Group created MindShare from the media departments of its two advertising networks, Ogilvy & Mather and J Walter Thompson, now JWT.

In 2003, after purchasing Young & Rubicam and Tempus, WPP further consolidated all of its media operations including media buying and media planning through the formation of GroupM, which is now the number one media investment management company in terms of billings.[2] The other major media holdings include Omnicom’s OMD, Publicis’s Vivaki and ZenithOptimedia, Interpublic’s Mediabrands, Aegis’s Aegis Media and Havas’s Havas Media. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_buying

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Survey of Broadcasting: Assignment 1, Question 1: Describe the five general steps of signal processing–Videos

Posted on June 21, 2011. Filed under: Audio, Broadcasting, Communications, Digital Communication, Radio, Signal Processors, Sound, Television | Tags: , , , , , , |

1. Describe the five general steps of signal processing.

Roger Waters – Radio KAOS – Radio Waves

    The five general steps in signal processing are as follows:

  1. Signal generation
  2. Signal amplification and processing
  3. Signal transmission
  4. Signal reception
  5. Signal storage.

Step 1 Signal Generation: Signal generation is the conversion or transduction of the sound or light waves from the source into electrical energy which corresponds to the frequency of the original source. The audio signal may be generated  mechanically using a microphone or turntable to create an analog of the original sound signal such as a phonograph record or audio cassette.  Microphones are used to transduce the physical energy of music and voice into electrical energy.The audio signal may be generated electromagnetically using tape recorders.The audio signal may also be generated digitally by using laser optics to create a binary or digital equivalent of the original sound.  Television signal generation requires electronic line-by-line scanning of an image using an electron beam to scan each element of the picture. The image is subsequently retraced by the television receiver.

Step 2 Signal Amplification and Processing: Audio and video signals are amplified and mixed using audio consoles and video switchers. After the audio signal has been converted from a physical sound wave into an electrical or digital facsimile, the audio signal must be amplified to boost the signal and processed including the mixing, combining and routing for broadcast transmission and/or recording. Sound sources are combined at the mixing board. The amplified sound may be fine tuned using equalizers and special effects. The switcher is used to mix TV signals and put the desired picture on the air. A special effect generator is used to add transitions, split screen and keying. Digital video editing and effects can also be produced using computer software such as Adobe Premiere Pro and After Effects.

Step 3 Signal Transmission: The electronic signal is superimposed  by a modulation process on a carrier wave  generated or propagated by the radio station on its assigned frequency. The generated sound wave may travel by ground, sky and direct waves. Radio waves occupy a segment of the electromagnetic spectrum. AM radio channel frequencies are divided into three main types: clear channels, regional channels and local channels. FM channel frequencies are classified by antenna height and power. Stereo broadcasting and other nonbroadcast services are accomplished with the wide bandwidth of the FM channel. Digital radio is satellite-based  or in-band on channel. Television signal transmission includes over-the-air broadcasting using the electromagnetic radiation on the VHF and UHF portions of the spectrum or by wire through a cable system using coaxial cable that can carry programming on more than 100 channels.. New transmission technologies used for transmission and distribution include satellite and fiber optics for digital signals.

Step 4 Signal Reception: After the radio signal has been transduced, modulated and transmitted, the radio waves are picked up on a radio receiver where they are transduced or converted by the speaker system back into sound waves. The characteristics of the electromagnetic spectrum and modulation  method used in transmission determine the type of radio receiver needed to convert the signal back into sound waves.There are several types of radio receivers including AM, AM stereo, FM, shortwave, and multiband. These receivers can be equipped with either analog tuners or a digital system. For moving images both large and small-screen TVs are now receiving high-definition television vision signals. 

Step 5 Signal Storage: Both audio and video technology is used in the storage and retrieval of sounds and moving images.  Audio or video signals are transduced or converted for storage and eventual playback or rebroadcast. The storage medium have included glass discs, wire, vinyl, magnetic type, compact disc, video tapes, digital storage media such as digital versatile discs (DVDs) and computer hard drives including high-capacity disc drives.

Roger Waters – Radio KAOS – Tide Is Turning

Background Articles and Videos

 

Amplitude modulation tutorial & AM radio transmitter circuit 

 

The Professor – How does a radio work?

 

AM Modulation and Demodulation Part 1

 

Introduction to Radio Waves Training Course

 

High Definition Television (HDTV) : Difference Between High & Standard

 

Roger Waters – Radio KAOS – Intro

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Survey of Broadcasting: Assignment 1, Question 3: Describe in detail the four “core” departments usually found at most radio stations.

Posted on June 20, 2011. Filed under: Law, Music, News, Public Relations, Radio, Regulations, Technology, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , |

3: Describe in detail the four “core” departments usually found at most radio stations.

http://www.ablongman.com/stovall1e/chap06/radioorgchart.html

The four “core departments” usually found at most radio stations are sales, operations, engineering, and programming.

The sales department  led by a sales manager is responsible for the sale of all commercial time to local, regional, and national sales advertisers. Larger stations may have a sales manager for local advertisers and a national sales manager of spot advertising accounts. The sales department usually includes a promotions director and research manager.

The operations department or traffic department led by an operations manager is responsible for placing the advertising on the air in compliance with the contracts executed with advertisers. This can be a complicated and difficult task in that there may be dozens of different contracts each requiring scheduled air time, position and length. Therefore many stations have automated their traffic functions to varying degrees using computer applications and systems.

The engineering department led by the chief engineer is responsible for keeping the station on the air with the best signal possible. The improvement of electronic equipment, competition from other businesses for engineering talent, and relaxed Federal regulations has led to smaller or streamlined engineering departments at most stations. Some stations also employ a part-time consulting engineer to keep the station operating optimally.

The programming department led by the program director is responsible for the audio sound and format of the station including news, music and public affairs coverage. Stations with a news/talk format may have a news director to coordinate news and public affairs coverage. Stations with a music format may have a music director to coordinate the development and implementation of the station’s music format.

The general manager or station manager has overall responsibility for  leading the four “core departments” and the day-to-day operation of the radio station. The general manager must hire the department heads and establish their goals and monitor and evaluate their performance. The general manager has overall responsibility for the station’s business performance including profits and losses, business and financial matters, budgeting, and forecasting revenues and expenses. The general manager must maintain the station’s reputation in the community. Finally the general manager must run the station in compliance with all local, county, state and Federal government laws and regulations.

 

Background Articles and Videos

CBS Tour- On Air at WCBS Radio -Part1

 

Google Radio Automation Product Tour

 

Presenter Radio Automation Demo from ENCO Systems

 

iMediaTouch Radio Automation Broadcast Software by OMT Technologies

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Survey of Broadcasting: Assignment 1, Question 2:–Describe the economic and political dynamics that brought about the birth of RCA.–Videos

Posted on June 20, 2011. Filed under: Audio, Broadcasting, Business, Inventions, Mass Media, Radio, Technology | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

II. Describe the economic and political dynamics that brought about the birth of RCA.

 

        A hundred years ago radio or the wireless was used as a point-to-point communications device similar to the use of the telegraph and telephone using wires. 

   Radio waves instead of wires were used primarily in maritime communications to send messages from ship to ship and ship to shore.

   British-owned Marconi Company and its subsidiary,  Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company of America, dominated the radio industry and controlled important patents including the Fleming value invented by John Fleming.

Sir John Ambrose Fleming

The Fleming value or vacuum tube consisted of a metal plate and thin wire enclosed in a glass bulb. The device enable the translating of an alternating current, like a radio wave, into direct current that could be detected by a radio receiver.

   The challenge was the detection of weak radio signals by radio receivers. Lee De Forest solved this problem by his invention of the audion that amplified weak radio signals. This was accomplished using a modified Fleming value with a tiny wire grid between the wire and the plate. The wire grid acted as an amplifier and boasted weak radio signals millions of times so that radio signals could be easily detected.

 

Lee De Forest

AT&T Archives: Bottle of Magic

 

Radio Commentator Jean Shepherd Meets Lee De Forest During WW2

 

A small bit of Radio History, Lee De Forest Audion, Marconi

De Forest envisioned radio as a broadcasting medium where entertainment and information would be received by a wide audience with radio receivers.

 This was in sharp contrast to the then use of radios as wireless telegraphy and telephony or a point-to-point communication device.

   The Marconi Company sued De Forest for patent infringement in using the Fleming value.

Faced with legal challenges from both the Marconi Company and the stockholders of his own company, De Forest Radio Telephone Company, De Forest sold his right to the audion to American Telephone & Telegraph or AT&T.

AT&T in turn used the audion to amplify signals in long distant calls.

De Forest continued to manufacture audions to radio hobbyists and manufactured radios or wireless sets for the military in World War I.

   General Electric or GE was also interested in radio.

GE held the patent rights to the high-speed alternators that produced electrical current with much higher frequencies than ordinary generators.

These alternators were used as continuous radio-wave generators.

Reginald Fessendon had invented this alternator design and demonstrated that the human voice could be carried by continuous radio waves generated by this transmitter.

Reginald Fessendon

GE had also improved the vacuum tube used in radios.

    Westinghouse, a major rival of General Electric, was also interested in radio. Westinghouse had acquired the patent rights to both an improved vacuum tube and the heterodyn radio receiver that was invented by Reginald Fessenden.

   Also, Edwin Armstrong had improved the audion by developing a positive feedback regenerative circuit that increased radio wave reception by regeneration amplification.

Edwin Armstrong

 

RCA Radio Model RC Operation

This RC radio is among one of the first products marketed by RCA in and about 1921. Westinghouse produced this RC radio for RCA. It is a battery set and uses three 01A vacuum tubes. The circuit is Edwin Howard Armstrong first major discovery, the regenerative circuit patented in 1914.

 

   In summary, the patents for radio transmitters and receivers were held by a number of companies and individuals including British Marconi, American Marconi, General Electric (GE), Westinghouse, American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T), Lee De Forest and Edwin Armstrong.

For radio to advance in the future would require the pooling of these patents among economic competitive rivals.

   When the United States entered World War I in April 1917, the Federal Government gave the United States Navy the responsibility for all radio operations.

The United States Navy took over all commercial radio stations including forty-five commercial and eight high-powered stations owned and operated by American Marconi.

The Navy also assumed responsibility and full liability for all patent infringement.

Thus companies doing radio research and development were free to pool discoveries to develop a better radio system.

This resulted in better radio transmitters, radio receivers and vacuum tubes when War World I ended in November 1918.

   After the war, the United States Navy wanted to retain its control and monopoly over their radio system.

However, public sentiment was against this idea. The Navy then announced it was no longer responsible for patent infringement law suits.

This immediately lead to the patent problems that existed prior to the outbreak of the war.

  The Marconi Company was trying to purchase from General Electric the exclusive use of the high-powered alternators developed during World War 1.

Should the Marconi Company  be successful, it would dominate the radio transmitter market in America.

The United States Federal Government went to GE to come up with a solution to the situation. GE did not want to sell its alternators to the Marconi Company and the U.S. Government was opposed to  Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company of America controlled by the  British Marconi Company to dominate the radio industry in America.

Given this economic and political pressure, the  Marconi Company agreed to sell American Marconi to a new American company, Radio Corporation of America or RCA.

The stockholders of Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company of America exchanged their stock for shares of stock in RCS and British Marconi got cash from General Electric.

   RCA was born on October 17, 1919 when  Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company of America became RCA.

RCA viewed radio not as a medium for mass communications by broadcasting but as a point-to-point communications device like the telegraph or telephone.

The RCA business model was focused on making money by sending wireless telegraph and telephony to Europe, Latin America and Asia.

    The patent infringement and law suit problem was solved by GE and RCA entering into a cross-licensing agreement which allowed each company to use the other company’s discoveries.

Since AT&T still owned the De Forest audion patent, the U.S. government pressured AT&T to sign a cross-licensing agreement with RCA.

Westinghouse, a major GE rival, also held several important radio related patents. With GE having a major ownership stake in RCA, Westinghouse started its own wireless company, International Radio Telegraph Company.

GE offered Westinghouse a large stake in RCA in exchange for placing Westinghouse’s patents in the patent pool.

    By 1921, the major stockholders of RCA were GE with 30% of the shares, Westinghouse with about 20%, AT&T with about 10% and another 4% held by the United Fruit Company.

The cross-licensing of patents solved the existing patent problem. The radio industry was divided up with AT&T’s Western Electric subsidiary manufacturing radio transmitters, GE and Westinghouse manufacturing radio receivers or equipment, and RCA selling the radio receivers and equipment.

What the architects of RCA had failed to recognize is the future of radio was in broadcasting–mass communications.

Radio broadcasting took off in the roaring 20s and continues today.

 

 

Background Articles and Videos

Radio History

 

1920’s the radio

 

When Radio Was #1

 

When Radio Was #2

 

When Radio Was #3

 

When Radio Was #4

 

When Radio Was #5

 

When Radio Was #6

 

When Radio Was #7

 

 

The beginning of Commercial Radio

 

RCA

“…RCA Corporation, founded as the Radio Corporation of America, was an electronics company in existence from 1919 to 1986. Currently, the RCA trademark is owned by the French conglomerate Technicolor SA through RCA Trademark Management S.A., a company owned by Technicolor. The trademark is used by Sony Music Entertainment and Technicolor, which licenses the name to other companies like Audiovox and TCL Corporation for products descended from that common ancestor.[2]

Origins

 RCA’s organization by General Electric

On August 4, 1914, the United Kingdom and France declared war on the German Empire and Austria-Hungary, following the German and Austrian invasions of their neighbors, including Serbia and the Russian Empire, which started World War I. Radio traffic across the Atlantic Ocean increased dramatically after the western Allies cut the German transatlantic submarine communication cables (telegraph-only at that time, well-before the first transatlantic telephone cable connected the United States with France in 1956.) Germany, Austria-Hungary, and their allies in Europe (the Central Powers) maintained contact with neutral countries in the Americas, such as the United States, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and Peru via long-distance radio communications, as well as via telegraph cables owned by neutral countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark.

In 1917, the U.S. Federal Government took charge of the patents owned by the major companies involved in radio manufacture in the United States in order to devote radio technology to the war effort. All production of radio equipment was allocated to the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, and the U.S. Coast Guard. The U.S. Department of War and the U.S. Department of the Navy sought to maintain a Federal monopoly of all uses of radio technology. However, the wartime takeover of all radio systems ended with the tabling of a bill to continue this by the U.S. Congress sometime in the latter part of 1918. {World War I ended on November 11th.)

The ending of the Federal Government’s monopoly in radio communications did not prevent the Departments of War and of the Navy from creating a national radio system for the United States.[3] On April 8, 1919, the naval and Admiral W. H. G. Bullard and Captain Stanford C. Hooper met with executives of the General Electric Corporation (G.E.) to ask that their corporation to discontinue selling any of its Alexanderson alternators (used in the high-power amplitude modulation radio transmitters of that era) to the British-owned Marconi Company, and to its subsidiary, the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company of America.

The gist of the Army’s and Navy’s proposal was that if G.E. created an American-owned radio company, then the Army and Navy would be able to bring into effect a monopoly of long-distance radio communications via this company. This marked the beginning of a series of negotiations through which G.E. would buy the American Marconi company and then incorporate what would be called the Radio Corporation of America.[4]

Establishment

The incorporation of the assets of Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company of America (including David Sarnoff[5]), the Pan-American Telegraph Company, and those already controlled by the United States Navy led to a new publicly held company formed by General Electric (which owned a controlling interest) on 17 October 1919.[6] The following cooperation among RCA, General Electric, the United Fruit Company, the Westinghouse Electric Corporation, and American Telephone & Telegraph (AT&T) brought about innovations in high-power radio technology, and also the founding of the National Broadcasting Company (NBC) in the United Sates. The Army and the Navy turned over the former American Marconi radio terminals (to RCA) that had been confiscated during World War I. (Note: there were no commercial radio stations anywhere in the world before 1922 when the station KDKA started broadcasting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.) Admiral Bullard received a seat on the Board of Directors of RCA for his efforts in establishing RCA. The result was Federally-created monopolies in radio for GE and the Westinghouse Corporation and in telephone systems for the American Telephone & Telegraph Company.

The argument by the Department of War and the Department of the Navy that the usable radio frequencies were limited, and hence needed to be appropriated for use before other countries, such as the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Canada monopolized them, collapsed in the mid-1920s following the discovery of the practicality of the use of the shortwave radio band (3.0 MHz though 30.0 MHz) for very long-range radio communications.[7]

The first chief executive officer of RCA was Owen D. Young;[8] David Sarnoff became its general manager. The documents of incorporation of RCA explicitly required it be mostly owned by Americans. RCA took over the marketing of the radio equipment of G.E. and Westinghouse Westinghouse, and in follow-on agreements, RCA also acquired the radio patents that had been held by Westinghouse and the United Fruit Company. As the years went on, RCA either took over, or produced for itself, a large number of patents, including that of the superheterodyne receiver.

Over the years, RCA continued to operate international telecommunications services, under its subsidiary RCA Communications, Inc., and later the RCA Global Communications Company. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Corporation_of_America

 

John Ambrose Fleming

“…Sir John Ambrose Fleming (29 November 1849 – 18 April 1945) was an English electrical engineer and physicist. He is known for inventing the first thermionic valve or vacuum tube, the diode, then called the kenotron in 1904.[1] He is also famous for the left hand rule (for electric motors). …”

“…After leaving the University of Nottingham in 1882, Fleming took up the post of “Electrician” to the Edison Electrical Light Company, advising on lighting systems and the new Ferranti alternating current systems. In 1884 Fleming joined University College London taking up the Chair of Electrical Technology, the first of its kind in England. Although this offered great opportunities, he recalls in his autobiography that the only equipment provided to him was a blackboard and piece of chalk. In 1897 the Pender Laboratory was founding at University College, London and Fleming took up the Pender Chair after the £5000 was endowed as a memorial to John Pender, the founder of Cable and Wireless.[4] In 1899 Fleming became Scientific Advisor to the Marconi Company and soon after began work on the designing the power plant to enable the Marconi Company to transmit across the Atlantic.

In November 1904, he invented the two-electrode vacuum-tube rectifier, which he called the oscillation valve. He would later patent this invention.[5] It was also called a thermionic valve, vacuum diode, kenotron, thermionic tube, or Fleming valve. The Supreme Court of the United States later invalidated the patent because of an improper disclaimer and, additionally, maintained the technology in the patent was known art when filed.[6] This invention is often considered to have been the beginning of electronics, for this was the first vacuum tube.[7] Fleming’s diode was used in radio receivers and radars for many decades afterwards, until it was superseded by solid state electronic technology more than 50 years later.

Fleming retired from University College, London in 1927 at the age of 77. He remained active, becoming a committed advocate of the new technology of Television which included servicing as the first president of the Television Society.

John Ambrose Fleming (1906)

In 1906, Lee De Forest of the U.S. added a control “grid” to the valve to create a vacuum tube RF detector called the Audion, leading Fleming to accuse him of copying his ideas. De Forest’s device was shortly refined by him and Edwin H. Armstrong into the first electronic amplifier, a tube called the triode. The triode was vital in the creation of long-distance telephone and radio communications, radars, and early electronic digital computers (mechanical and electro-mechanical digital computers already existed using different technology). The court battle over these patents lasted for many years with victories at different stages for both sides. Fleming also contributed in the fields of photometry, electronics, wireless telegraphy (radio), and electrical measurements. He coined the term Power Factor to describe the true power flowing in an AC power system. He was knighted in 1929, and died at his home in Sidmouth, Devon in 1945. His contributions to electronic communications and radar were of vital importance in winning World War II. Fleming was awarded the IRE Medal of Honor in 1933 for “the conspicuous part he played in introducing physical and engineering principles into the radio art”.

Note from eulogy at the Centenary celebration of the invention of the thermionic valve:

One century ago, in November 1904, John Ambrose Fleming FRS, Pender Professor at UCL, filed GB 190424850  in Great Britain, for a device called the Thermionic Valve. When inserted together with a galvanometer, into a tuned electrical circuit, it could be used as a very sensitive rectifying detector of high frequency wireless currents, known as radio waves. It was a major step forward in the ‘wireless revolution’.

In November 1905, he patented the “Fleming Valve” (US 803684  ). As a rectifying diode, and forerunner to the triode valve and many related structures, it can also be considered to be the device that gave birth to modern electronics.

In the ensuing years, valves quickly superseded “cat’s whiskers” and were the main device used to create the huge electronics industry that we take for granted today. They remained dominant until the transistor took dominance in the early 1970s

Today, descendants of the original valve (or vacuum tube) still play an important role in a range of applications. They can be found in the power stages of radio and television transmitters, in some high-end audio amplifiers, as detectors of optical and short wavelength radiation, and in sensitive equipment that must be “radiation-hard”. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ambrose_Fleming

Lee De Forest

“…Lee De Forest (August 26, 1873 – June 30, 1961) was an American inventor with over 180 patents to his credit. De Forest invented the Audion, a vacuum tube that takes relatively weak electrical signals and amplifies them. De Forest is one of the fathers of the “electronic age”, as the Audion helped to usher in the widespread use of electronics. He is also credited with one of the principal inventions which brought sound to motion pictures.

He was involved in several patent lawsuits and he spent a substantial part of his income from his inventions on the legal bills. He had four marriages and 25 companies, he was defrauded by business partners (as well as defrauding business partners himself), and he was once indicted for mail fraud, but was later acquitted.

He typically signed his name “Lee de Forest.”

He was a charter member of the Institute of Radio Engineers, one of the two predecessors of the IEEE (the other was the American Institute of Electrical Engineers).

DeVry University was originally named DeForest Training School, after Lee De Forest, by its founder Dr. Herman A. DeVry, who was a friend and colleague of De Forest’s.

“…Audion

De Forest had an interest in wireless telegraphy and he invented the Audion in 1906. He then developed an improved wireless telegraph receiver.

In January 1906, De Forest filed a patent for diode vacuum tube detector, a two-electrode device for detecting electromagnetic waves, a variant of the Fleming valve invented two years earlier. One year later, De Forest filed a patent for a three-electrode device that was a much more sensitive detector of electromagnetic waves. It was granted US Patent 879,532 in February 1908. The device was also called the De Forest valve, and since 1919 has been known as the triode. De Forest’s innovation was the insertion of a third electrode, the grid, between the cathode (filament) and the anode (plate) of the previously invented diode. The resulting triode or three-electrode vacuum tube could be used as an amplifier of electrical signals, notably for radio reception. The Audion was the fastest electronic switching element of the time, and was later used in early digital electronics (such as computers). The triode was vital in the development of transcontinental telephone communications, radio, and radar after Nikola Tesla’s and Guglielmo Marconi’s progress in radio in the 1890s, until the 1948 invention of the transistor.

De Forest had, in fact, stumbled onto this invention via tinkering and did not completely understand how it worked. De Forest had initially claimed that the operation was based on ions created within the gas in the tube when, in fact, it was shown by others to operate with a vacuum in the tube. The American inventor Irving Langmuir of General Electric Corp. was the first to correctly explain the theory of operation of the device, and also to significantly improve it.

 

In 1904, a De Forest transmitter and receiver were set up aboard the steamboat Haimun operated on behalf of The Times, the first of its kind.[3] On July 18, 1907, De Forest broadcast the first ship-to-shore message from the steam yacht Thelma. The communication provided quick, accurate race results of the Annual Inter-Lakes Yachting Association (I-LYA) Regatta. The message was received by his assistant, Frank E. Butler of Monroeville, Ohio, in the Pavilion at Fox’s Dock located on South Bass Island on Lake Erie. DeForest disliked the term “wireless”, and chose a new moniker, “radio”. De Forest is credited with the birth of public radio broadcasting when on January 12, 1910, he conducted experimental broadcast of part of the live performance of Tosca and, the next day, a performance with the participation of the Italian tenor Enrico Caruso from the stage of Metropolitan Opera House in New York City.[4] [5]

 

De Forest came to San Francisco in 1910, and worked for the Federal Telegraph Company, which began developing the first global radio communications system in 1912. California Historical Landmark No. 836 is a bronze plaque at the eastern corner of Channing St. and Emerson Ave. in Palo Alto, California which memorializes the Electronics Research Laboratory at that location and De Forest for the invention of the three-element radio vacuum tube.

 Middle years

The United States Attorney General sued De Forest for fraud (in 1913) on behalf of his shareholders, stating that his claim of regeneration was an “absurd” promise (he was later acquitted). Nearly bankrupt with legal bills, De Forest sold his triode vacuum-tube patent to AT&T and the Bell System in 1913 for the bargain price of $50,000.

De Forest filed another patent in 1916 that became the cause of a contentious lawsuit with the prolific inventor Edwin Howard Armstrong, whose patent for the regenerative circuit had been issued in 1914. The lawsuit lasted twelve years, winding its way through the appeals process and ending up before the Supreme Court in 1926. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of De Forest, although the view of many historians is that the judgment was incorrect.[6]

Radio pioneer

In 1916, De Forest, from experimental radio station 2XG in New York City, broadcast the first radio advertisements (for his own products) and the first Presidential election report by radio in November 1916 for Charles Evans Hughes and Woodrow Wilson. A few months later, DeForest moved his tube transmitter to Highbridge, Bronx. [7] Like Charles Herrold in San Jose, California — who had been broadcasting since 1909 with call letters “FN”, “SJN”, and then “6XF” — De Forest had a license from the Department of Commerce for an experimental radio station, but, like Herrold, had to cease all broadcasting when the U.S. entered World War I in April 1917. From April 1920 to November 1921, DeForest broadcast from station 6XC at the California Theater at Market and Fourth Streets in San Francisco. In late 1921, 6XC moved its transmitter to Ocean View Drive in the Rockridge section of Oakland, California and became KZY.[8][9]

Just like Pittsburgh’s KDKA four years later in November 1920, DeForest used the Hughes/Wilson presidential election returns for his broadcast. The New York American installed a private wire and bulletins were sent out every hour. About 2000 listeners heard The Star-Spangled Banner and other anthems, songs, and hymns. DeForest went on to sponsor radio broadcasts of music, featuring opera star Enrico Caruso and many other events, but he received little financial backing.

In April 1923, the De Forest Radio Telephone & Telegraph Company, which manufactured De Forest’s Audions for commercial use, was sold to a coalition of automobile makers, who expanded the company’s factory to cope with rising demand for radios. The sale also bought the services of De Forest, who was focusing his attention on newer innovations.[10] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_De_Forest

 

Reginald Aubrey Fessenden

“…Reginald Aubrey Fessenden (October 6, 1866 – July 22, 1932), a naturalized American citizen born in Canada, was an inventor who performed pioneering experiments in radio, including early—and possibly the first—radio transmissions of voice and music. In his later career he received hundreds of patents for devices in fields such as high-powered transmitting, sonar, and television. …”

“…The development of a rotary-spark transmitter was something of a stop-gap measure, to be used until a superior approach could be perfected. Fessenden felt that, ultimately, a continuous-wave transmitter—one that produced a pure sine wave signal on a single frequency—would be far more efficient, particularly because it could be used for quality audio transmissions. His design idea was to take a basic electrical alternator, which normally operated at speeds that produced alternating current of at most a few hundred hertz, and greatly speed it up in order to create electrical currents at tens of kilohertz. Thus, the high-speed alternator would produce a steady radio signal when connected to an aerial. Then, by simply placing a carbon microphone in the transmission line, the strength of the signal could be varied in order to add sounds to the transmission—in other words, amplitude modulation would be used to impress audio on the radio frequency carrier wave. However, it would take many years of expensive development before even a prototype alternator-transmitter would be ready, and a few more years beyond that for high-power versions to become available.

Fessenden contracted with General Electric to help design and produce a series of high-frequency alternator-transmitters. In 1903, Charles Proteus Steinmetz of GE delivered a 10 kHz version which proved of limited use and could not be directly used as a radio transmitter. Fessenden’s request for a faster, more powerful unit was assigned to Ernst F. W. Alexanderson, and in August, 1906 he delivered an improved model which operated at a transmitting frequency of approximately 50 kHz, although with far less power than Fessenden’s rotary-spark transmitters.

The alternator-transmitter achieved the goal of transmitting quality audio signals, but the lack of any way to amplify the signals meant they were somewhat weak. On December 21, 1906, Fessenden made an extensive demonstration of the new alternator-transmitter at Brant Rock, showing its utility for point-to-point wireless telephony, including interconnecting his stations to the wire telephone network. A detailed review of this demonstration appeared in The American Telephone Journal.[2]

A few days later, two additional demonstrations took place, which appear to be the first audio radio broadcasts of entertainment and music ever made to a general audience—maybe. (Beginning in 1904, the U.S. Navy had broadcast daily time signals and weather reports, but these employed spark transmitters, transmitting in Morse code). On the evening of December 24, 1906 (Christmas Eve), Fessenden used the alternator-transmitter to send out a short program from Brant Rock. It included a phonograph record of Ombra mai fu (Largo) by George Frideric Handel, followed by Fessenden himself playing the song O Holy Night on the violin. Finishing with reading a passage from the Bible: ‘Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to men of good will’ (Gospel of Luke 2:14).[3] He petitioned his listeners to write in about the quality of the broadcast as well as their location when they heard it. Surprisingly, his broadcast was heard several hundred miles away, however accompanying the broadcast was a disturbing noise. This noise was due to irregularities in the spark gap transmitter he used.[4]

On December 31, New Year’s Eve, a second short program was broadcast. The main audience for both these transmissions was an unknown number of shipboard radio operators along the East Coast of the United States. Fessenden claimed that the Christmas Eve broadcast had been heard “as far down” as Norfolk, Virginia, while the New Year Eve’s broadcast had reached places in the Caribbean. Although now seen as a landmark, these two broadcasts were barely noticed at the time and soon forgotten— the only first-hand account appears to be a letter Fessenden wrote on January 29, 1932 to his former associate, Samuel M. Kinter.[3] There are no known accounts in any ships’ radio logs, nor any contemporary literature, of the reported holiday demonstrations.

(Broadcasting historian James E. O’Neal, in a series of articles on the Radio World website [5] ,[6] suggests that Fessenden, writing a quarter-century after the fact, may have confused the dates; O’Neal suggests Fessenden was remembering instead a series of tests he’d conducted in 1909.)

There is solid historical evidence, however, that Fessenden’s demonstrations of “wireless telephony” were well know at the time. Documentation of Fessenden’s demonstration of radio-transmitted voice is provided by a New York Time’s article, dated Sunday, September 1, 1907, titled: “Telephoning at Sea”. It announced that the “Navy Department is about to install wireless telephone apparatus on all battleships destined for the Pacific, this Fall. Practicable wireless telephony over a distance of five miles in all weathers is guaranteed by the company furnishing the instruments. Under favorable conditions, it is reported, a much greater distance for communication is possible.” The article accurately describes the science involved, saying: “The Hertzian waves will penetrate opaque substances, and the amplitude and intensity of the waves may be so varied as to reproduce faithfully the vibrations of the human voice.” The same article further states that: “recently, the Fessenden wireless system demonstrated the practicability of transmitting spoken words from a tall mast at Brent Rock to Plymouth, twelve miles away.” [7] Intense competition among developers of wireless technology, and the expectation of possible government contracts may have limited the scope of public promotion of the apparatus features and capabilities.

Fessenden’s broadcast foreshadowed of the future of radio. (Although primarily designed for transmissions spanning a few kilometers, on a couple of occasions the test Brant Rock audio transmissions were apparently overheard by NESCO employee James C. Armor across the Atlantic at the Machrihanish site). …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Fessendon

Edwin Howard Armstrong

“…Edwin Howard Armstrong (December 18, 1890 – January 31, 1954) was an American electrical engineer and inventor. Armstrong was the inventor of modern frequency modulation (FM) radio.

Edwin Howard Armstrong was born in New York City, New York, in 1890. He studied at Columbia University and later became a professor there. He invented the regenerative circuit while he was an undergraduate and patented it in 1914, the super-regenerative circuit (patented 1922), and the superheterodyne receiver (patented 1918).[2][3]

“…Work and patent disputes

Armstrong’s “feed back” circuit drawing, from Radio Broadcast vol. 1 no. 1 1922.

Howard Armstrong contributed the most to modern electronics technology. His discoveries revolutionized electronic communications. Regeneration, or amplification via positive feedback is still in use to this day. Also, Armstrong discovered that Lee De Forest’s Audion would go into oscillation when feedback was increased. Thus, the Audion could not only detect and amplify radio signals, it could transmit them as well.

While De Forest’s addition of a third element to the Audion (the grid) and the subsequent move to modulated (voice) radio is not disputed, De Forest did not put his device to work. Armstrong’s research and experimentation with the Audion moved radio reception beyond the crystal set and spark-gap transmitters. Radio signals could be amplified via regeneration to the point of human hearing without a headset. Armstrong later published a paper detailing how the Audion worked,[5] something De Forest could not do. De Forest did not understand the workings of his Audion.

Armstrong’s discovery and development of superheterodyne technology made radio receivers, then the primary communications devices of the time, more sensitive and selective. Before heterodyning, radio signals often overrode and interfered with each other. Heterodyning also made radio receivers much easier to use, rendering obsolete the multitude of tuning controls on radio sets of the time. The superheterodyne technology is still used today.

Armstrong is possibly best known for his discovery of wide-band frequency modulation. FM was born of a request by David Sarnoff of RCA as a means to eliminate static in radio reception. While Sarnoff was understandably impressed with Armstrong’s FM system, he also understood that it was not compatible with his own AM empire. Sarnoff came to see FM as a threat and refused to support it further.

Many of Armstrong’s inventions were ultimately claimed by others in patent lawsuits. In particular, the regenerative circuit, which Armstrong patented in 1914 as a “wireless receiving system,” was subsequently patented by Lee De Forest in 1916; De Forest then sold the rights to his patent to AT&T. Between 1922 and 1934, Armstrong found himself embroiled in a patent war, between himself, RCA, and Westinghouse on one side, and De Forest and AT&T on the other. At the time, this action was the longest patent lawsuit ever litigated, at 12 years. Armstrong won the first round of the lawsuit, lost the second, and stalemated in a third. Before the Supreme Court of the United States, De Forest was granted the regeneration patent in what is today widely believed to be a misunderstanding of the technical facts by the Supreme Court.[6]

By early 1923, Armstrong was a millionaire as a result of licensing his patents to RCA.[4]

In 1946 the FCC’s decision to use Armstrong’s FM system as the standard for NTSC television sound gave Armstrong another chance at royalty payments. However, RCA refused to pay royalties and encouraged other television makers not to pay them either. …”

…FM Radio

Even as the regenerative-circuit lawsuit continued, Armstrong was working on another momentous invention. While working in the basement laboratory of Columbia’s Philosophy Hall, he created wide-band frequency modulation radio (FM). Rather than varying the amplitude of a radio wave to create sound, Armstrong’s method varied the frequency of the wave instead. FM radio broadcasts delivered a much clearer sound, free of static, than the AM radio dominant at the time. (Armstrong received a patent on wide-band FM on December 26, 1933.[7]

In 1922, John Renshaw Carson of AT&T, inventor of Single-sideband modulation (SSB modulation), had published a paper in the Proceedings of the IRE arguing that FM did not appear to offer any particular advantage.[8] Armstrong managed to demonstrate the advantages of FM radio despite Carson’s skepticism in a now-famous paper on FM in the Proceedings of the IRE in 1936,[9] which was reprinted in the August 1984 issue of Proceedings of the IEEE.[10]

Today the consensus regarding FM is that narrow band FM is not so advantageous in terms of noise reduction, but wide band FM can bring great improvement in signal to noise ratio if the signal is stronger than a certain threshold. Hence Carson was not entirely wrong, and the Carson bandwidth rule for FM is still important today. Thus, both Carson and Armstrong ultimately contributed significantly to the science and technology of radio. The threshold concept was discussed by Murray G. Crosby (inventor of Crosby system for FM Stereo) who pointed out that for wide band FM to provide better signal to noise ratio, the signal should be above a certain threshold, according to his paper published in Proceedings of the IRE in 1937.[11] Thus Crosby’s work supplemented Armstrong’s paper in 1936.

Armstrong conducted the first large scale field tests of his FM radio technology on the 85th floor of RCA’s (Radio Corporation of America) Empire State Building from May 1934 until October 1935. However RCA had its eye on television broadcasting, and chose not to buy the patents for the FM technology.[12] A June 17, 1936, presentation at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) headquarters made headlines nationwide. He played a jazz record over conventional AM radio, then switched to an FM broadcast. “[I]f the audience of 50 engineers had shut their eyes they would have believed the jazz band was in the same room. There were no extraneous sounds,” noted one reporter. He added that several engineers described the invention “as one of the most important radio developments since the first earphone crystal sets were introduced.”[13]

In 1937, Armstrong financed construction of the first FM radio station, W2XMN, a 40 kilowatt broadcaster in Alpine, New Jersey. The signal (at 42.8 MHz) could be heard clearly 100 miles (160 km) away, despite the use of less power than an AM radio station.[14]

RCA began to lobby for a change in the law or FCC regulations that would prevent FM radios from becoming dominant. By June 1945, the RCA had pushed the FCC hard on the allocation of electromagnetic frequencies for the fledgling television industry. Although they denied wrongdoing, David Sarnoff and RCA managed to get the FCC to move the FM radio spectrum from (42-50 MHz), to (88-108 MHz), while getting new low-powered community television stations allocated to a new Channel 1 in the 44-50 MHz range. In fairness to the FCC, the 42-50 MHz band was plagued by frequent tropospheric and E-layer stratospheric propagation which caused distant high powered stations to interfere with each other. The problem becomes even more severe on a cyclical basis when sunspot levels reach a maximum every 11 years and lower VHF band signals below 50 MHz can travel across the Atlantic Ocean or from coast to coast within North America on occasion. Sunspot levels were near their cyclical peak when the FCC reallocated FM in 1945. The 88-108 MHz range is a technically better location for FM broadcast because it is less susceptible to this kind of frequent interference. (Channel 1 eventually had to be deleted as well, with all TV broadcasts licensed at frequencies 54 MHz or higher, and the band is no longer widely used for emergency first responders either, those services having moved mostly to UHF.)

But the immediate economic impact of the shift, whatever its technical merit, was devastating to early FM broadcasters. This single FCC action would render all Armstrong-era FM receivers useless within a short time as stations were moved to the new band, and it also protected both RCA’s AM-radio stronghold and that of the other major competing networks, CBS, ABC and Mutual. Armstrong’s radio network did not survive the shift into the high frequencies and was set back by the FCC decision. This change was strongly supported by AT&T, because loss of FM relaying stations forced radio stations to buy wired links from AT&T.

Furthermore, RCA also claimed invention of FM radio and won its own patent on the technology. A patent fight between RCA and Armstrong ensued. RCA’s momentous victory in the courts left Armstrong unable to claim royalties on any FM receivers, including televisions, sold in the United States. The undermining of the Yankee Network and his costly legal battles brought ruin to Armstrong, by then almost penniless and emotionally distraught. Eventually, after Armstrong’s death, many of the lawsuits were decided or settled in his favor, greatly enriching his estate and heirs—but the decisions came too late for Armstrong himself to enjoy his legal vindication.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

News Journal: Number 35, December 1, 2010: The Audacity of Grope: A TSA Exposé–Progressive Pervert Petulent Prevaricating President–Must View Video!

Posted on December 1, 2010. Filed under: Communications, Democratic Party, Digital Communication, Ethical Practices, Ethics, Issues, Law, Mass Media, News, Newspapers, Policies, Political Parties, Politics, Print Media, Public Relations, Radio, Recordings, Republican Party, Society, Speech, Television, Web | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

Campaign for Liberty launches a public relations campaign against President Obama’s TSA government interventionism:

“…Got questions about the TSA? This video’s got answers. Jam-packed with all the information you need to get up to speed on the 2010 holiday airport security uproar. Get the inside scoop on full body scanners, radiation health risks, pat-downs, screw-ups, underwear bombers, cavity searches, special interests, government officials, the Constitution (specifically, the 4th Amendment), scanner storage capability, and hear from some of the most engaged minds in the debate; including Congressman Ron Paul…”

Campaign for Liberty Mission Statement

“Our mission is to promote and defend the great American principles of individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and a noninterventionist foreign policy, by means of educational and political activity.”

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/about.php

http://www.youtube.com/user/campaignforliberty

One point that the above video failed to address is the spread of disease as a direct result of the TSA not changing their blue gloves after each pat down.

Instead the TSA screeners use the same pair of blue gloves most of the day.

Imagine going to a doctor or dentist who wore the same blue gloves while examining many patients during the day.

An unintended consequence of the government grope will be the spread of the various influenza (flu) viruses.

The time has come to stop this security theater nonsense and start profiling passengers and targeting individuals that are more likely to be terrorist bombers.

Flawless Airline Security on Israeli Planes

TSA: Enemy of the American People?

Ron Paul: TSA Has Gone too Far

Enough is enough.

Terminate the TSA peepers and pat downs.

President Obama responds:

President Obama explains the new TSA Airport Security Screenings

Wink

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

News Journal: Number 34, November 12, 2010: TSA–Thousands Standing Around To Trained Sexual Assaulters To Tyrants Scanning Americans–Videos

Posted on November 12, 2010. Filed under: Audio, Balanced Budgets, Budget, Communications, Debt, Deficits, Democratic Party, Digital Communication, Economics, Fiscal Policy, Issues, Law, Mass Media, News, Newspapers, Political Parties, Politics, Print Media, Radio, Taxes, Web | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, housses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

~United States Constitution, Fourth Amendment

If you are planning to fly this Thanksgiving or Christmas holiday to visit family and friends, you might want to seriously consider driving or taking a bus instead of flying or just stay home.

The American people’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures…” is being challenged by the Transportation Security Administration of the United States Government.

When you go to through airport security you must first pass through a metal detector then a full body radiation scan.

If you elect not to have the full body radiation scan, you are called a opt outer and subject to a perverted pat down of your entire body including genitals, breast and buttocks by the government gropers of the TSA.

Woman, children, and the disabled in wheel chairs may have to go through both the full naked body radiation scan and the perverted pat down.

You choices are as follows when you opt out:

  1. Full naked body radiation scan
  2. Perverted pat downs
  3. Interrogation and possible detention, arrest and lawsuit
  4. Leave airport and drive to destination
  5. Just stay home

More and more Americans are electing to just stay home and save the time, money and invasion of their bodies and property and the legal molestation of their children by Federal Government Employees.

The American people should respond to the use of full naked body radiation scans and perverted pat downs by simply not travelling on commercial airlines.

The commercial airlines and not the Government should be responsible for security and safety on an airline flight.

When the airlines and the travel industry experience significant drops in their revenues and profits, they will insist the full naked body scans and pat downs not be used and current TSA employees become employees of the airline and not the government.

Time for Congress to revisit the whole subject of TSA, government unions, and unreasonable searches and seizures.

Metal detectors and thermal detectors are fine.

Airport Security and Screening on Fox News Channel profiling Thermal Matrix and the ACT System

End the full naked body radiation scans.

End the perverted pat downs.

End the Transportation Security Administration or TSA.

Stop unreasonable searches and seizures.

Start profiling passengers and target those who have the higher probability of being terrorists or suicide bombers.

Give the airlines the responsiblity for security and screening passengers.

 

Airline Attack Highlights Israel’s Security Success

 

Terminate Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano for approving these unreasonable searches.

Demand that your local airport opt out of TSA and select another company to perform security. 

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano

Pushes Perverted Pat Downs and

 Full Naked Body Radiation Scans

TSA Posts Airport Screening Manual Online

TSA Manual Posted on the Internet

Senator Collins questions TSA officials on security procedure posting

TSA Fondles Women and Children Refusing Airport Naked Body Scanners

TSA airport full body scanner: a perverts dream come true.

\

TSA Child Porn or Protection ?

Invasive TSA Airport Pat-Down

TSA Gropping People With New Pat Down Procedure-Getting Lawsuits

Air Travelers Not Happy With New TSA Security Measures

LIVE DEMONSTRATION OF NEW BODY AIRPORT SCANNER

TSA installs full-body scanners at Boston Logan International, other airports nationwide

TSA Body Scanners Deprive Americans of their Dignity

Scanners Too Revealing?

Woman Claims Security at DC Airport Beat Her Up

Airline Pilot to TSA: ‘No Groping Me and No Naked Photos!’ DNA Damage, Cancer Risk

Full-Body Scanners Damage Human DNA

Alex’s Encounter with TSA During Latest Trip to California

Paul Watson Discusses TSA Agents Gone Wild on The Alex Jones Show 1/2

Paul Watson Discusses TSA Agents Gone Wild on The Alex Jones Show 2/2

EPIC FOIA – Feds and TSA save and transmit Body Scan images

TSA pulls pants off 71 y/o man with knee implant

Full Body Scanner Images Stored

Paul Watson Feds Caught Storing Body Scan Images at Florida Courthouse Security Checkpoint

TSA not screening screeners

Nude Protest: Airport Body Scanners in Germany

Airport scanner – TheBikerSite

Funny Body Scanner

EXCLUSIVE: TSA Unveils New Genital Visualizers

Background Articles and Videos

Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

by Declan McCullagh

“…For the last few years, federal agencies have defended body scanning by insisting that all images will be discarded as soon as they’re viewed. The Transportation Security Administration claimed last summer, for instance, that “scanned images cannot be stored or recorded.” Now it turns out that some police agencies are storing the controversial images after all. The U.S. Marshals Service admitted this week that it had surreptitiously saved tens of thousands of images recorded with a millimeter wave system at the security checkpoint of a single Florida courthouse. This follows an earlier disclosure (PDF) by the TSA that it requires all airport body scanners it purchases to be able to store and transmit images for “testing, training, and evaluation purposes.” The agency says, however, that those capabilities are not normally activated when the devices are installed at airports. Body scanners penetrate clothing to provide a highly detailed image so accurate that critics have likened it to a virtual strip search. Technologies vary, with millimeter wave systems capturing fuzzier images, and backscatter X-ray machines able to show precise anatomical detail. The U.S. government likes the idea because body scanners can detect concealed weapons better than traditional magnetometers. This privacy debate, which has been simmering since the days of the Bush administration, came to a boil two weeks ago when Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that scanners would soon appear at virtually every major airport. The updated list includes airports in New York City, Dallas, Washington, Miami, San Francisco, Seattle, and Philadelphia. …” Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html#ixzz14ztWIFHJ

Pilots and passengers rail at new airport patdowns

By Jeremy Pelofsky

“…Executives from the travel industry, including online travel sites, theme parks and hotels, were set to meet Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Pistole on Friday to discuss their concerns that security is crimping travel. “We have received hundreds of e-mails and phone calls from travelers vowing to stop flying,” said Geoff Freeman, an executive vice president of the U.S. Travel Association, which set up the meeting with the Obama administration officials. “You can’t talk on the one hand about creating jobs in this country and getting this economy back on track and on the other hand discourage millions of Americans from flying, which is the gateway to commerce,” he said. Privacy groups have challenged the new body scanners in court, saying they are a violation of privacy and illegal. Lawmakers plan to hold hearings on aviation security next week when they return to Washington. Some travelers are also livid about how children are being screened. During a trip last Sunday by a father and son through Orlando airport in Florida, the 8-year-old boy was selected for extra screening by TSA after going through the metal detector. The father said the officer described the procedure before conducting it. Then he patted down the boy in the open security area, using the backside of his hands to check his genital area, he said. “I didn’t think it was going to be as horrible as he was describing,” said the boy’s father, Bill, who works as a lobbyist in Washington and did not want his full name used. …” http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AA55S20101111?ref=nf

U.S. Marshals Service Storing Naked Body Scanner Images

Kurt Nimmo “…Now it turns out police agencies, including the U.S. Marshals Service, are storing naked body scanner images too. In response, the advocacy group Electronic Privacy Information Center has filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to grant an immediate injunction and putting a kibosh to the intrusive and unconstitutional snoop program. Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct Despite the revelation, the TSA steadfastly maintains that naked body scanners are delivered to airports with the image recording functions disabled. “We’re not recording them,” TSA spokeswoman Sari Koshetz told CNET on Wednesday. “I’m reiterating that to the public. We are not ever activating those capabilities at the airport.” Let’s get serious here. Naked body scanners are obviously being used to compliment existing dossiers on Americans. The NSA, FBI, CIA, and multitudinous government agencies have long profiled all aspects of the lives of American citizens. Images captured by naked body scanners, including images of genitals, are merely the next logical step in this process. …” http://www.infowars.com/u-s-marshals-service-storing-naked-body-scanner-images/

Transportation Security Administrion

PROCUREMENT SPECIFICATION FOR WHOLE BODY IMAGER DEVICES FOR CHECKPOINT OPERATIONS

“…3.1.1.1.2 Privacy TSA policy dictates that passenger privacy is maintained and protected during passenger screening. To ensure passenger privacy safeguards arc in place, WEI systems will prohibit the storage and exporting of passenger images during normal screening operations. When not being used for normal screening operations, the capability to capture images of non-passengers for training and evaluation purposes is needed. To ensure that image capturing maintains passenger privacy, the WEI will provide two distinct modes of operation: Screening Mode and Test Mode as defined in 3.1.1.3.1. During Screening Mode, the WEI shall (6) be prohibited from exporting passenger image data, including via STIP. During Test Mode, the WEI shall (7) not be capable of conducting passenger screening. The WBI shall (8) prohibit local storage of image data in all modes. The WEI shall (9) employ 256-bit encryption for image data in accordance with Fcderal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 197 Advanced Encryption Standard (AES). http://epic.org/open_gov/foia/TSA_Procurement_Specs.pdf

Are airport full body scanners a danger?

Jane Jamison

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) “Technology Review” reports the technology can harm human DNA:

“The evidence that terahertz radiation damages biological systems is mixed. “Some studies reported significant genetic damage while others, although similar, showed none,” say Boian Alexandrov at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and a few buddies. Now these guys think they know why.

The airport scanning technology creates a “picture” of the passenger’s body. Clothing is not really visible. Body parts, or any “additions” or augmentations to the body, such as an implanted plastic bag of explosives, are visible. …”

By Wesley Clark, MD
“…The Department of Homeland Security has the authority to stop, search, and detain anyone and anything (including the contents of your computer), for any reason, within a “Constitution-Free Zone,” resident or traveler, without a warrant and without even having probable cause — only a reasonable suspicion, which by DHS rules and case law can include even ethnic indicators. Two-thirds of Americans live within this Constitution-Free Zone, especially the “liberal” residents of coastal cities in the “blue states.”
Ostensibly, your decision to travel by airline implies your choice to abandon your rights to privacy in order to serve the cause of collective security. If you don’t like it, just travel by car or bus instead — but don’t venture within one hundred miles of the border or the coast, or you may be subject to warrantless search without probable cause by other TSA agents with the Border Patrol or the Immigration and Customs Enforcement divisions.
The newly infamous body scanners are of two types. Millimeter wave scanners generate high-frequency photons, in the “terahertz” radiation band from 30 to 300 gigahertz frequency, that are able to penetrate clothing to strike the body — but penetrating much less than x-rays, that have a higher frequency and energy levels.
Backscatter scanners generate low-energy x-rays, which readily penetrate clothing, while some portion are reflected (backscattered) from the surface of the skin, detected, and used by the scanner to generate the detailed image. X-rays are ionizing radiation and are judged to have no minimum safe threshold exposure. Exposure is cumulative over one’s lifetime. This has potential implications for frequent fliers and flight personnel, who also accumulate increased lifetime exposure from cosmic ray exposures at altitude.
Consequently, serious concerns have been raised regarding unrecognized radiation effects of the body scanners. Exposure to high-energy photons of terahertz frequencies may be damaging to the

Airport Body Scanners Finding Controlled Substances NOT Bombs!

TSA Screeners Frequently Miss Fake Bombs!

How the airport body scanner is used

TSA – Three Simple Steps

TSA – Laptops and Electronics

TSA – Why ID?

TSA – Traveling with Children

AT X-ray and Advanced Belts: TSA Checkpoint Evolution

Composure Benches: TSA Checkpoint Evolution

Transportation Security Administration (TSA)

“…The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was created as part of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush on November 19, 2001. The TSA was originally organized in the U.S. Department of Transportation but was moved to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on March 25, 2003. The agency is responsible for security in all modes of transportation.[1] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Administration

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

News Journal: Number 31, November 3, 2010: Tea Party Tidal Wave Falls and Rises–Videos

Posted on November 3, 2010. Filed under: Books, Issues, Law, News, Newspapers, Politics, Print Media, Radio, Society, Speech, Web | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

The tea party movement supported many candidates for public office in the 2010 elections.

Some lost and some won.

One candidate for public office had a record of failure if you believed the press and lost several races for public office in the past.

The person lost his job.

The person failed in business.

The person lost a state representative race.

The person had a nervous breakdown.

The person lost a state house speaker race.

The person lost a U.S. Senate race.

The person lost the nomination to be U.S. Vice President.

The person lost again a U.S. Senate race.

The person finally ran for President of the United States.

The person won.

Abraham Lincoln, one of America’s most respected Presidents was the first Republican President of the United States.

 One tea party supported candidate who lost for a second time a U.S. Senate race was Christine O’Donnell of Delaware.

Tea Party Favorite Christine O’Donnell

O’Donnell’s Internal Opposition

Delaware is a very liberal state where union endorsements and support play a big role in determining who wins a state-wide election.

Delaware’s Senator for 36 years had been Joe Biden, the current Vice-President of the United States.

Christine O’Donnell lost the U.S. Senate race in 2008 against Senator Biden who was running for both Senator and Vice-President of the United States.

Christine O’Donnell lost again the U.S. Senate race in 2010.

Character and integrity matter and ideas have consequences.

A person with character and integrity and the right ideas does not always win a political race.

Christine O’Donnell has character and integrity and the right ideas.

Like Abraham Lincoln, I do not believe the American people have heard the last from Christine O’Donnell.

Many tea party movement supported candidates did win the privilege of governing their state and to represent the citizens of their state in Congress and the Senate.

Four standout.

Vicky Hartzler: A Friend to Small Business in Congress

Rand Paul: ‘It’s a Tea Party Tidal Wave’

REPLAY: Marco Rubio acceptance speech

NIKKI HALEY (R-SC)

NIKKI HALEY (R-SC) on HANNITY GOP Gubernatorial Candidate

Vicky Hartler was elected to represent Missouri’s 4th District in the United States House of Representatives.

Rand Paul was elected to represent Kentucky as Senator in the United States Senate.

Marco Rubio was elected to represent Florida as Senator in the United States Senate.

Nikki Halley was elected to govern South Carolina as Governor.

All four favor limited Constitutional government, balanced budgets, lower taxes, less regulation, capitalism and a free market place.

The Founding Fathers were men of character and integrity and knew that ideas have consequences.

The Founding Fathers–Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and others– gave the American people the benefit of their wisdom contained in The Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.

The Founding Fathers gift to the American people was a representative republic with separation of powers and a system of checks and balances.

On Tuesday the American people elected a few of their fellow citizens to represent them in Congress and the Senate and govern their states.

The tea party movement goes to Washington and will have its own caucus in the House and Senate.

Rand Paul on Tea Party’s Future

Only time will tell whether the American people choose wisely.

Background Articles and Videos

Tea party candidates win in Fla., Ky.; lose Del.

“…Two tea party champions won high-profile Senate elections Tuesday, spearheading a likely cadre of libertarian-leaning Republicans who will press party leaders to be more adamant about lower taxes, less spending and smaller government.

Rand Paul of Kentucky and Marco Rubio of Florida rocked the GOP establishment last spring by routing leadership favorites in party primaries. Then they beat back Democrats’ efforts to paint them as too extreme, winning comfortably on Tuesday. However, another well-publicized tea party darling, Christine O’Donnell of Delaware, lost to Democrat Chris Coons. She also won a stunning GOP primary victory, beating longtime Rep. Mike Castle, but she failed to extend her popularity to the broader November electorate. …”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101103/ap_on_el_se/us_senate_14

“…List of Lincoln’s failures

A common list of the failures of Abraham Lincoln (along with a few successes) is:

  • 1831 – Lost his job
  • 1832 – Defeated in run for Illinois State Legislature
  • 1833 – Failed in business
  • 1834 – Elected to Illinois State Legislature (success)
  • 1835 – Sweetheart died
  • 1836 – Had nervous breakdown
  • 1838 – Defeated in run for Illinois House Speaker
  • 1843 – Defeated in run for nomination for U.S. Congress
  • 1846 – Elected to Congress (success)
  • 1848 – Lost re-nomination
  • 1849 – Rejected for land officer position
  • 1854 – Defeated in run for U.S. Senate
  • 1856 – Defeated in run for nomination for Vice President
  • 1858 – Again defeated in run for U.S. Senate
  • 1860 – Elected President (success)

That looks like a pretty glum résumé, making you wonder how he ever made it to the top. But when you really think of it, to run for office or high positions so many times, you have to have something on the ball and have more successes than meet the eye. …”

http://www.school-for-champions.com/history/lincoln_failures.htm

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

News Journal: Number 30, November 2, 2010: Dump Democrats–Vote–Remember Tuesday Is Soylent Green Day–Trust But Verify–Videos

Posted on November 2, 2010. Filed under: Audio, Communications, Digital Communication, Issues, Law, Mass Media, Movies, News, Newspapers, Politics, Print Media, Radio, Television, Web | Tags: , , , , , , , |

SOYLENT GREEN music – Fred Myrow (HQ + ending)

Trust but verify

I still stand by my wild ass guess (WAG) that the Republicans will win 77 seats in the House of Representatives for a total of 255 seats and 10 seats in the Senate for a total of 51 seats giving the Republican Party majority control of both the House and Senate.

There will also be 35 state Republican  governors.

The Democratic Party led by President Obama have lost the independents, older voters, white voters, the unemployed and increasingly the young.

Since the core progressive/liberal base of the Democratic Party is between 20% and 25% even in the best of turnout election years, they simply cannot win in districts that have a high percentage of Republican and Independent voters.

The conservative and libertarian movement is more than energized–they want to throw the bums out of office.

The major issues were jobs, spending, taxes, deficits, debt, bailouts, illegal immigration and Obama care.

On all these issues the Democratic Party is simply on the minority side of the issue and their economic policies of a stimulus package, green jobs, and Obama care have been an abject failure in creating jobs and reducing spending and deficits.

The tea party patriots have become a political force to be reckoned with by the political establishments of the Democratic and Republican parties.

The real test for the Republican Party will be in the next two to four years.

At a bare minimum the Republican Party must cut back spending and balance the budget with no tax or debt increases.

If the Republican Party does not deliver on this, more and more tea party patriots will look to forming a new political party instead of taking over the Republican Party.

I am simply not optimistic that the current Republican Party establishment is up to the job.

The Republican establishment lacks both vision and courage to do what needs to be done.

What the Republican Party should be doing is closing down entire Federal Departments and passing the FairTax.

Very few Republicans and Republican talk radio and television show hosts mention either.

Instead it is business as usually with the same talking points that we need to cut spending by x% and tax rates by y%.

This approach has failed time and time again for the simple reason that it is quickly reversed by the progressives in both the Democratic and Republican parties when they win majorities in the House and Senate.

Only by passing the FairTax and eliminating ten Federal Departments will the cancer of out-of-control government intervention be permanently stopped.

The time for a new political party that replaces either the Republican or Democratic Party is fast approaching.

Tea parties or rallies are great but results count and that requires MOMMA–Money, Organization, Message, Momentum and Ambition.

MOMMA is what is required to win elections.

A new political party that favors limited constitutional government is required–American Citizens Alliance Party–ACAP on spending, deficits, debt, regulations, and taxes.

The American people are also waiting for its twenty-first century George Washington and Thomas Paine to emerge from the tea party patriots.

The election of 2016 is the one to watch out for.

By then I fully expect that both the Democratic and Republican parties will be so widely perceived as failures in delivering results that the American people will finally support candidates that want limited constitutional government and belong to another political party.

NRA Tribute to Charlton Heston

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

« Previous Entries

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...