Talk:WSNS-TV/GA1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 00:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Responded to each of these issues. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately tagged.

• What is the Daily Breeze?
  • This newspaper: Daily Breeze.
• What makes runningusa.org a reliable source?
  • Oof, it's press release city. I'd love to mention the Marathon here as a big local programming piece, but all I can get that talks about it are press releases...so I'm in a pickle.
• "In 1965, WSNS-TV proposed constructing instead": isn't the company still called Essaness at this point, not WSNS-TV? Or when the FCC approved the application, did that automatically create an entity with the approved station name?
  • Reworded. It's the former.
• "the collapse of their TV rights deal": what does this refer to? The deal was with WSNS, so it seems the details might be relevant.
  • More detail added.
• "The loss of most of WSNS's non-STV programming motivated a filing by a consortium of Chicago businessmen organized as Monroe Communications Corporation": what does this mean? A "filing" doesn't convey much to me; is it a term of art here? OK, I see there are details at the end of the section but I think we need some of that information here.
  • I've tried to reword this area.
• What's the import of "a 'minimal' service"? Presumably this breaks a regulatory requirement? Maybe a footnote to explain?
  • Basically, Chachkin ruled WSNS didn't do enough as a licensee in terms of public service programming. Minimal is in quotes as a direct quote from the initial decision. The quote box that goes here has more detail, but I've tried to add some to the article text.
• The sequence of rulings is confusing me. First Chachkin rules in favour of Monroe; WSNS appeals. The review board remands it back to Chachkin to consider another issue raised by the challengers. What did Chachkin do? Looks like we don't say. Then the case goes back to the review board which overturns Chachkin's findings -- that is, the original findings? Nothing to do with the obscenity issue? And the overturning is in Monroe's favour, but the board says the problem is he should have considered Monroe's obscenity claims further, which sounds like Chachkin had ruled against Monroe in the first place?
  • Welcome to the FCC. Short timeline. 85 initial decision for Monroe; WSNS appeals. Review board remands the case initially for consideration of the obscenity issue, which the FCC decides should be scrubbed from the proceeding altogether (there is some new content here to improve the flow). The case comes back as a result to the review board, which overturns. Full FCC affirms. Monroe challenges the FCC in federal appeals court and wins. The FCC affirms the appeals court verdict. This is appealed—under heavy political pressure—and then settled out of court.

    That's much clearer. One more question: in that case wouldn't it make sense to drop ", without addressing the obscenity issue"? Chachkin should not have taken the obscenity issue into account, so to overturn him there's no relevance to saying he did not address the issue, is there? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, @Mike Christie. Fixed. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "for its relationship to changes in the composition of the FCC": what does this refer to? If it's the sequence of events described in the next paragraph, I think we need a paragraph glide of some kind to make that clear, and I don't see why those events would be described in that way.
  • Quote:

But sources said the FCC, under different leadership with different standards, itself approved WSNS's plan as a subscription channel with an understanding that such channels could veer from normal programming rules, because viewers had to pay to watch.

The new decision was so surprising that even the general manager of Channel 44's competitor, WCIU-Channel 26, was bitter about the FCC action.

"It appears the present ownership was the victim of coincidence and timing and the fact that there has been a change in the composition of (the FCC) commission," said Howard Shapiro, WCIU president and general manager. "This was a remarkable series of circumstances that may never be duplicated again."

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last issue fixed; passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]