In the Public Interest
"Our coverage is certainly adequate given everything else that the public has access to — the Internet, the ads they see and hear, the billboards, the unwelcome calls from candidates."
--Bill Johnstone, President, Oregon Association of Broadcasters
In the United States, the right to broadcast radio and television is given in trust to private companies. Unlike print or cable media, the airwaves on which radio and television stations broadcast are finite--and therefore place private companies who use them in a unique position. Stemming from the Communications Act of 1934, these companies are considered "trustees" of the public interest, which means that they have agreed to include programming that informs, not just the content that will earn the most revenue.
In what is probably a doomed venture, a coalition of watchdog groups filed a petition with the Federal Communications Commission asserting that broadcasters in Portland, Chicago, and Milwaukee have failed to meet this standard.
"Look, these are miserably low percentages spent covering local elections," [Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center] says. "This is not saying broadcasters are evil. They are doing their job -- making money within the rules they have to operate under.
"The side that's not working is the public policy side," McGehee said. "Public officials are supposed to say that the payment in return for using the public airways is to fulfill the public interest obligation" and define that obligation in clear terms.
Their contention is that the local Portland affiliates did a woeful job of covering elections--just 5% of their totally broadcasts, according to a report prepared by the Center for Media and Public Affairs. And this was during the 2004 election, when Oregon was a swing state in a Presidential election. When you begin to break down the numbers, they look a whole lot worse. Fully four-fifths of the overall political coverage was devoted to the Presidential election; conversely, the four stations ran a total of just eight stories on local legislative races--of the 1450 total political stories they ran. Stations also aired information about ballot measures less than 1% of the time, despite the critical importance of Measures 36 and 37. (A .pdf of the report can be found here.)
But I think the issue is far deeper than mere election coverage. Over the past generation, a feedback loop has slowly eroded the public's understanding of how politics affect their lives. News stations don't report in depth about public policy, so it becomes more remote to people who in turn are less interested in hearing political news. Since they don't really understand the context or know who the players are, they tune out.
What they are offered in lieu of real reportage are two varieties of stories that add nothing to viewers' knowledge--the useless "he said/she said" stories which regurgitate talking points from politica foes and scandal news. During election cycles, these run amid attack ads, which round out voters' information--and disgust. When Bill Johnstone argues that people aren't interested in the "mud-slinging" of politics, he's right. And no wonder. But it is the stations' fault that people aren't interested in public policy. Johnstone blames the victims.
So long as the FCC is peopled by political hacks like chairman Kevin J. Martin, who's interest is identical to broadcast's advertisers, we will see no real change in the content of local news. It is impossible to imagine that this petition will excite the FCC--they are the foxes in the regulatory henhouse. But it is worth a public discussion about whether local stations are being adequate trustees. By any reasonable measure, they're failing miserably.
|
December 28, 2006 |
Jeff Alworth | Comments (14 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Dec 28, 2006 12:19:33 PM
I think Janice's comments above are right on target. The failure of regulation should not silence us. Without struggle, there will be no change.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Dec 28, 2006 12:35:11 PM
Janice,
Don't get me wrong--I am totally in favor of this move. I was both delighted and surprised to hear about it. My cynicism arises from my knowledge of the current composition of the FCC, and my pessimism arises from thinking that they'll do anything but bury this.
On the other hand, taking this action may accomplish the goal in a more indirect way; by discussing this, getting it out in front of people, and shedding a little light on the communications cartel in the Federal government, you'll put political pressure on the folks who can make change. This is a long-term battle, and I commend you and thank for taking the first step.
Posted by: John Calhoun | Dec 28, 2006 1:34:40 PM
Jeff,
I thought that you left off one of the most damning parts of the article. Johnstone's view of politicians;
"Very few politicians can tell the truth," and all are trained to stick to the negative scripts that make political ads so unpalatable, Johnstone said. Asking TV stations to air more stories quoting those same mud-slinging politicians would not serve the public interest, he said.
Basically he doesn't believe that democracy is worthwhile since politicians can't tell the truth so that there is no point in covering what they say. Why don't we all just give up this political stuff and enjoy life in a dictatorship.
What really gets me is that this industry is claiming that they don't need to offer public service time because they should have the right to broadcast whatever they want. A right that results from the work of politicians that "can't tell the truth".
This guy makes the case for re-regulation better than anyone I know. His cynicism about his civic responsibilities is as extreme as I have ever seen. Is it any wonder that the public has such an ignorant view of government and politics.
Posted by: Janice Thompson | Dec 28, 2006 6:06:40 PM
"Very few politicians can tell the truth,"
This was a remarkable statement. One would think that would be a nice meaty topic for TV news coverage of political campaigns - evaluating candidate statements.
That said, I have heard from a TV news reporter that it can be difficult to get some candidates to appear in a setting where they aren't controlling the questions.
But as Jeff points out the statement by the OR Broadcast Association representative is overall an example of blaming the victim.
Posted by: rick metsger | Dec 28, 2006 7:09:16 PM
I doubt that the action will have a measurable impact but I applaud the effort. Mr. Johnstone's comment is unbelievable. Essentially he is saying that today's tv news reporters dont have a clue, cant interrogate candidates and evaluate campaigns to provide unbiased news evaluation rather, they are just mindless "news models" who are only capable of reporting what candidates want to proliferate.They are not capable of independent thought or evaluation. While in many cases that may be true, it is an embarassment to admit that today's tv news broadcasts are basically worthless as a meaningful scource of news. To readily admit that and say "get your news from the internet," etc' is slamming the industry he is supposed to represent,he is in fact making the case for the FCC to take action. Jeff, It is nice to see the Communications Act of 1934 referred to at all. I dare say few citizens and very few broadcasters, unfortunately, actually have a clue about the 1934 Communications Act. It would be wise to study people like Fred Friendly, Edward R. Murrow and long ago( 70's) FCC chairman Nicholas Johnson, people who actually believed their was a public responsibility to having a broadcast license. God bless you Mike Donahue, the last true journalist owning a microphone in Portland.TV owes us so much more. Tom Dargon of KATU knew that. So did ted bryant at KOIN. Now its nothing more than "if it bleeds, it leads." A sad commentary on what people like Tom McCall had originally brought to the public discussion.
Posted by: spicey | Dec 29, 2006 8:31:31 AM
my first thought was blueoregon TV, anyone?
what would be super cool is if at least OPB would do a story on this so people in the mainstream find out about it. guess we can do our part - to talk about it here, and pass the info onto our friends. I'm curious if folks can join in on the complaint, go on record against the re-upping of the TV stations' contracts... I'll have a look at the website. Thanks, Janice.
Posted by: TL | Dec 29, 2006 10:28:39 AM
Very few politicians can tell the truth
Reading this quote got me fired up. Perhaps a better quote would be "very few reporters pose challenging and probing questions to politicians." It's sad to me that it is the rare exception, not the rule, when a reporter challenges a politician:
Posted by: Bob Tiernan | Dec 29, 2006 12:08:08 PM
Jeff Alworth:
Unlike print or cable media, the airwaves on which radio and television stations broadcast are finite--and therefore place private companies who use them in a unique position.
Bob T:
That's exactly what the State wanted you to believe when
it nationalized the airwaves back when, citing "problems"
that didn't really exist or were blown out of proportion.
The result is that the State from the get-go gave itself
the ability to control news if it wants to (in ways you
don't always realize).
As for being finite, do you believe that there is enough
paper, ink etc for everyone to have their own newspaper?
If the 1st Amendment didn't include the word "press", we'd
probably see control of newspapers. It does, so they can't.
There are only so many newspapers that can be seen by more than a few hundred people, certainly a tiny, tiny fraction
of the total population. So.....
Jeff Alworth
Stemming from the Communications Act of 1934...
Bob Tiernan:
The Radio Act of 1927 is a good place to start. Herbert
Hoover, then Sec of Commerce, remarked that he hated the
idea that if something wasn't done all we'd hear on radio
would be bad music (I guess he didn't like jazz of the 20s).
In other words, it was all about taste in sound, similar to
using aesthetics to control use of property. The State was,
in fact, squashing a new kind of property that it would be
able to control as much as it could control newspapers, which
was not much. So it invented the "public" aspect.
We are now seeing attempts of what logically follows -- Michae Powell (son of Colin) as head of the FCC already
suggested regulating cable content although no "airwaves"
are involved. By the way, can wireless phone calls be
regulated accordingto you guys? Public airwaves, you know.
Bob Tiernan
Bob Tiernan
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Dec 30, 2006 11:19:00 AM
Bob, when you cite Michael Powell as too overly regulatory, I'm afraid I have a hard time taking your argument as more than Chicken-Littlism. And Herbert Hoover? Surely you can dredge up someone a little more contemporary--Goldwater, maybe?
As an FYI, the Communications Act of 34--still the regulatory law on the books--was a rewrite of the Radio Act Bob cites. It may be a good place to start, but not a useful place to end, as Bob does.
Posted by: Bob Tiernan | Dec 31, 2006 11:03:03 PM
Jeff Alworth:
Bob, when you cite Michael Powell as too overly regulatory, I'm afraid I have a hard time taking your argument as more than Chicken-Littlism.
Bob T:
I can't imagine why. When he was head of the FCC (he
was originally a Clinton appointee, by the way) he
stated that regulating cable ("non-airwave", we'll
call it) the way we regulate "airwaves" is coming.
He's certainly not the first, and I find this kind
if frightening. Don't you? The way the USSC has, over
the years, created precedent after precedent for more
government infringments of rights and usurpations of
power, you should be concerned.
After all, we once had better court decisions regarding
property rights, eminent domain etc, and now precedents
led to Kelo (the left was AWOL for decades on that one,
but I'd rather welcome your help now than beat you down
for it).
Jeff Alworth:
And Herbert Hoover? Surely you can dredge up someone
a little more contemporary--Goldwater, maybe?
Bob T:
Why? The argument was "settled" long before
Goldwater came along. I mentioned Hoover because
he was the main force (apparently) behind State
regulation of what was actually the press using
new technology. Hoover kept trying despite court
rulings in 1923 and 1926 favoring the people over
the State, and in the meantime courts were settling
the so-called "chaos" of squabbling over frequencies
-- see Tribune Co. v. Oak Leaves Broadcasting
Station (Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois, 1926).
As Jefferson warned, the State will keep on
trying to expand, court rulings be damned.
Jeff Alworth:
As an FYI, the Communications Act of 34--still
the regulatory law on the books--was a rewrite
of the Radio Act Bob cites. It may be a good
place to start, but not a useful place to end,
as Bob does.
Bob T:
What makes you think I want to end there?
Both acts were statist acts, despite
progressive rhetoric about "public ownership"
of the airwaves, which only played into the
State's hands (as with much progressive
legislation, sorry).
We've had both conservative and progressive
useful idiots in this country. That's all.
Bob Tiernan
Posted by: Bob Tiernan | Jan 1, 2007 10:24:23 PM
Jeff Alworth:
Unlike print or cable media, the airwaves on which
radio and television stations broadcast are finite
Bob T:
So, being "finite" gives the State the authority
to regulate? How about Van Gogh paintings?
Again, this "finite" argument was an excuse for
the State to control a press of a newer technology
than paper and ink. Recognizing TV and radio
broadcasting as such would, in fact, have been
an example of a real "living Constitution" (as
opposed to examples of that doctrine such as the
Dred Scott decision).
By the way, in 1931 the FRC (Federal Radio Commission)
denied an applicant's license renewal because, in the
words of a commissioner reviewing it, "...Many of his
utterances are vulgar, if not indeed indecent.
Assuredly they are not uplifting or entertaining".
As Murray Rothbard wrote regarding this, "Can we imagine
if the federal government were to put a newspaper or a
book publisher out of business on similar grounds?"
If licensing and regulation were the answer, how
come it led to NBC, CBS, and ABC, network corporations
that became so powerful there was no real competiton
until cable came along? Who created those monsters
or created the climate which allowed such monsters?
I'll give you one guess.
Bob Tiernan
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jan 2, 2007 9:43:31 AM
Bob, I am a liberal. I believe in the government managing the country's resources for the benefit of all its citizens, not just those who have money. Your arguments about the analogue of broadcast rights to Van Gogh is spurious at best--these rights are instead akin to our rivers, forests, and seas. You may wish to leave these resources up to private ingenuity, all else being "statist," but that radical view isn't really on any agenda.
Everyone from the Supreme Court down now knows the Constitution gives the feds the rights to regulate. It's reality.
Posted by: Bob Tiernan | Jan 2, 2007 10:27:04 PM
Jeff Alworth:
Bob, I am a liberal. I believe in the government managing
the country's resources for the benefit of all its citizens,
not just those who have money.
Bob T:
We'll have to agree to disagree. The "airwaves" are not
water and are not air. And if it was about preventing
those with money from enriching themselves, government
itself created the powerhouse networks by making it
a restricted industry for the privileged few who were
happy to be regulated in exchange for the flow of money
with little competition. Very little worth noting.
Are you also for breaking up newspaper ownership?
Man, that'll be something to explain. If you
cite the First Amendment as your reason for not
advocating this, then your argument of preventing
the rich few from controling something that admittedly
few of us can break into is meaningless.
Government claimed that it was trying to prevent
large franchises from being established in the
broadcast indistry, but regulation made just that
pssible, and even worse because of the near monopoly
status due to legal squashing of competition. Gee,
that really worked.
The government even screwed up with its regulation of
theThe government made things worse in TV by making
VHF zone the main area of frequencies instead of UHF,
making channels even more scarce.
Jeff Alworth:
Your arguments about the analogue of broadcast rights
to Van Gogh is spurious at best--these rights are instead
akin to our rivers, forests, and seas.
Bob T:
Nonsense. Just because you (we) were told this from
childhood doesn't make it true. Again, you can say the
same thing about regulating newspapers, books, journals
etc because there aren't enough trees and stacks of
paper for recycling to allow everyone who want so
start a journal or newspaper to start one. Where are
the airwaves? Can you touch them? Do planes get snagged
on them? Give me a break.
By the way, did you like that stupid and silly flap
over Janet Jackson's breast flash at a Super Bowl
the other year, or the attack on Howard Stern over
words? Such nonsense exists because of the
legislation you support, not me. That legislation
had no business being enacted in a free society.
Jeff Alworth:
You may wish to leave these resources up to private
ingenuity, all else being "statist," but that radical
view isn't really on any agenda.
Bob T:
If all frequencies were owned privately, what's that
to you anymore than food production and distribution
being in private sector hands? Most of what you'd
imagine it would be like would be, well, in your
imagination. The best thing government has going for
it in this regard is that we don't have that scenario
where statist frequency control (control of expression)
doesn't exist, so they and their supporters get to make
up the "what if" stories which they are good at.
What makes you think radio and TV would be any
different from print media in its variety and
independence? I don't fear this mess of democracy.
Why do you?
Jeff Alworth:
Everyone from the Supreme Court down now knows the
Constitution gives the feds the rights to regulate.
It's reality.
Bob T:
Flapdoodle. The only reason the government (particularly
the Feds) have their super regulatory powers is because
of garbage USSC decisions. Maybe you think it's
great that the State can tell a farmer that he can't
grow wheat for his own consumption, but I see that as
a bogus power. Regulation is fine if it involves safety
and nuisance, but that has been allowed to become the
means of massive economic controls we now have. It's
one thing to step in and tell New York State that it
can't prevent a New Jersey ferry owner from taking people
across the Hudson River in the early 1830s', and quite
another thing to get to decide who can operate such
a ferry at the expense of other's opportunities
to run a ferry as well.
Bob Tiernan
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Janice Thompson | Dec 28, 2006 12:00:48 PM
The issue is deeper than how political campaigns are covered on broadcast TV news. More on that later.
And as head of the local group involved in the license renewal challenge the Money in Politics Research Action Project I understand your skepticism about the FCC doing the right thing, but am concerned that people don't just throw up their hands in despair.
These are difficult issues with deep pocketed political players. But over two million public complaints to the FCC in 2003 about proposed rules that opened the door to even greater consolidation of media ownership and a successful legal challenge brought that rule making to a halt.
Not that they gave up, the FCC is currently accepting comments and holding hearings on essentially the same set of media ownership rules. A December 21st deadline has been extended to January 16th. For more information and links go to the Take Back the Media link
Ultimately the FCC operates under rules set by Congress, and in 2007 they will take another run at updating the 1996 Telecommunications Act. This has enormous implications for net neutrality and other telecom/media issues.
In terms of public interest the FCC and Congress should make it clearer to broadcast TV and radio what it means to meet public interest obligations. Our involvement in the current challenge is because we felt that a basic measure of meeting the public interest is providing information to voters to help them make informed choices on their ballot.
But the FCC needs to get this message as much as the TV stations.
Finally, back to the issue is deeper than news coverage, a lot must be done to stem the tide of voter turnout. The death of Gerald Ford helps to recall the days of a more civil Congress. Courageous candidates who focus on issues and not mudslinging would also help.
Structural changes like Election day registration, campaign finance reform, and ethics reforms are just a handful of the democracy issues for which my organization advocates. The current opportunity, especially since FCC licenses are only renewed every 8 years, was to participate in this license renewal challenge.
More is needed to overcome voter apathy than just better political coverage, but broadcast TV also needs to pull their weight in improving political debate.