More great ideas from the Ogden Ethics Project
Just so we don't let the day slip by without at least something for our Weber County Forum readers to chew on, we're delighted to put the spotlight on the latest Dan Schroeder Op-ed piece, which has just been uploaded to the Standard-Examiner website. Noting the inherent and awkward ethical problems associated with the hosting and broadcasting of Ogden Municipal Election candidate "debates" on the Ogden City-owned Channel 17 Station, (affectionatly known locally as "the Godfrey Propaganda Channel"), Professor Schroeder, writing on behalf of the Ogden Ethics Project, urges the Ogden City Council (among other things) to "at least adopt an ordinance in advance to set out the rules for future candidate debates," and further to "take control over Channel 17 programming away from the mayor's office and put it in the hands of an independent volunteer board":
Sounds like a couple of danged great ideas to us.
So what say out Gentle Readers say about this?
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
9 comments:
The suggestion about taking exclusive program control out of the hands of the Mayor [whoever he or she may be] is a very good idea. The risk of the allegedly Ogden City Channel becoming instead The Mayor's Channel is far too great. And in fact, we've seen it become "The Godfrey Channel" under the present administration. Recall when the Mayor opposed a school bond issue on the channel, and the refused to give those supporting the bond issue time to state their views. Recall during Hizzonah's Flatland Gondola Obsession how the channel came to be know in some circles as the "All Godfrey, All Geigher, All Gondola, All The Time" Channel [only partly tongue in cheek].
The Mayor should certainly have access to the channel to present Administration ideas, proposals, etc. But it should not be exclusive access, particularly on controversial issues. Ultimate programming decisions should not be made (a) exclusively by a Mayoral appointee, and (b) be appealable only to the Mayor when challenged. This is something the Council should have taken care of long ago. I hope at some point in the next year, the Council and the Mayor will address the problem and reach a mutually acceptable solution in the public interest.
While having a city information channel is a good idea, it exists only on Comcast. Does anyone know what it costs us to do this? I think this information should be broadcast on all cable outlets (at what cost?) or not at all.
It probably went the way of the Fairness Doctrine, but aren't/weren't cable outlets required by law to provide free or low-cost channels for the public good?
One of the newspapers reported several weeks ago the amount the city pays for production of Channel 17 programming--but I can't find the reference. It may have been about $40,000 per year. Some of that comes from a surcharge on cable subscribers' bills, and the rest comes from the taxpayers. There's no additional charge for Comcast to actually broadcast the programming; that service is free as part of the city's franchise contract with Comcast.
I know that to receive Channel 17, the City's channel, I must pay Comcast a fee. I thought that as part of the broadcast wavelength system, there was a provision for free broadcast time for the benefit of the people. I just can't remember the details or if they don't apply to Utah.
ie. Why must I pay Comcast and presumably their stockholders a subscription fee to receive the Ogden City Government taxpayer subsidized Channel 17?
Probably because it would be prohibitively expensive for the city to own and operate its own broadcast station.
Is Comcast paying for Ogden City's Channel 17 or is Ogden City paying for Ogden City's Channel 17?
As I understand it, Comcast's revenue comes from cable customers. Ogden City doesn't pay any money directly to Comcast. Comcast also charges each customer a small fee for Channel 17, and passes this money along to the city. The city then takes that money, adds a chunk to it from the general fund, and uses this combined sum to pay Bill Francis's company to produce programming for Channel 17.
Much thanks for the clarification.
Post a Comment