FCC Commissioner Copps Calls For Stricter Broadcast Station License Renewal Standards - Could It Happen?
In a speech given last week, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps called for a new regime to review the public interest performance of broadcasters - suggesting that license renewal become a more rigorous exercise for radio and television operators. In his address called "Getting Media Right, A Call to Action", given to the Columbia University School of Journalism, Copps specifically suggested a "Public Value Test" for broadcasters when they file their license renewals. If the broadcaster passes the test, the broadcaster would get a renewal. If the broadcaster did not pass - if it does not show that it has "earned" the right to "use the people's airways" - then the licensee would get a one year probation period to prove that it should keep its license. If it does not improve, then the license would be taken and given to "someone who will use it to serve the public interest."
So what would this Public Value Test look like? The Commissioner suggested that the following factors would be reviewed:
- A Meaningful Commitment to News and Public Affairs Programming - an increased commitment to news, local public affairs, election debates and issues oriented programming would be reviewed according to some quantitative benchmarks.
- Enhanced Disclosure - requiring broadcasters to provide more information about their programming performance, on the Internet, as the Commissioner believes that information in the public file is "laughable", and also requiring that the FCC review that information at renewal time
- Political Advertising Disclosure - requiring more information about the sponsors of political ads
- Reflecting Diversity - looking to increase the gender, ethnic and racial ownership of broadcast stations
- Community Discovery - requiring that broadcasters be required to, in some formal way, communicate with their communities to determine local programming needs and the interests of various groups within a station's community
- Local and independent programming - requiring that broadcasters provide more local and independent programming instead of "homogenized music and entertainment from huge conglomerates - the Commissioner suggesting 25% of local programming being dedicated to local and independent programs. More local PSAs too.
- Public Safety - requiring that all broadcasters have a plan to address emergencies and be either staffed during all hours of operation or be otherwise able to respond immediately to any local emergency.
What's likely to happen to these proposals?
This is not the first time that Commissioner Copps has suggested the need for a more rigorous review of a broadcaster’s license renewal application. During the years that Kevin Martin headed the FCC during the second half of the Bush administration, the FCC engaged in a very thorough review of the localism issues, conducting field hearings on these issues around the country, but not reaching any consensus among the various parties involved in the issues.
For broadcasters, it is good that Commissioner Copps recognizes the importance of the broadcast media, and cares about its performance. But there are significant difficulties, as recognized in the comments filed in the localism proceeding, in determining how to quantify any such obligations. One of the biggest difficulties in coming up with any objective standards to evaluate the service that broadcasters provide to their communities is the broad diversity of the broadcast community. Specific quantitative public service requirements that a TV station in New York City might be easily able to meet, might impose a crushing burden on a station in eastern Washington State, most cities in Montana or in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. A Mom and Pop radio station providing the only service to a county of 10,000 in rural Nebraska is going to be able to provide a much different program service, and to have an entirely different ability to handle specific government mandates, than is a big FM in Los Angeles or Dallas. Even in these cities, a rock and roll radio station is going to be expected by its listeners to provide a wholly different experience than an all news or news talk station. Coming up with standards that try to judge the public interest value of a Senatorial election debate versus promoting a Toys for Tots collection point at a Black Eyed Peas concert in a community is a daunting task.
In the early 1980s, the FCC decided, in its deregulation of radio and later of television, that the marketplace would be able to assure that broadcasters served the needs of their communities. If their programming did not meet the needs of the community, the broadcaster would not be successful and would not be able to continue to operate. At that time, there were essentially half as many broadcast stations as there are now, and nowhere near the number of audio and video competitors that there are today from the myriad of digital sources. It is my sense that much of the wringing of hands over the state of journalism and the future of the media is driven not by empirical evidence that there are fewer outlets for information and expression, as any Google or Bing search of almost any topic, no matter how local, will produce far more information about almost any issue than could have been received from local radio, TV or the newspapers in 1983. Perhaps the concern is that there is no unified single source of that information in each community – when there was a big newspaper, a full-service radio station and a couple of television stations in every market. In the broadcast world alone, as the number of stations has grown in answer to demands for more diversity and the broader inclusion of new owners into the media, stations have been forced to differentiate themselves, serving a smaller but targeted portion of the overall market - but often a dedicated set of listeners or viewers. Where there is intense competition for viewers and listeners, each outlet today needs to be more focused on delivering the content that its target audience wants. In very few markets do you have the single full service radio station that you would have found 20 or 30 years ago.
Digital and other media competition has also made specialization more important, and increased the burden that government mandates as to the types of programming a station broadcasts would put on a station. Forcing a subset of the content providers (FCC licensees) to ignore the demands of the marketplace for any substantial portion of its broadcast day to instead meet the demands of the government will cause listeners to go to another source that is doing what they want – and that source may well be a digital media source not covered by FCC rules, and not providing any public service programming whatsoever. The end of the broadcast monopoly on audio and video programming has also dictated, in my opinion, the end of the FCC’s ability to dictate what the public should be hearing or seeing on their stations. Instead, the successful stations must do what they can to meet the needs of their audience, or they will perish from competition from new and old media alike.
This is obviously a contentious issue, and there probably is no single answer as to whether the government can force broadcasters to meet some objective public interest standard. I’d be interested in reader reactions as to whether the FCC can or should embark on a proceeding to address the issues identified by Commissioner Copps in his speech last week.
I find it odd that no such requirement exists for other spectrum users or MPVDs. Nor does Mr Copps suggest same. If it is true that that Broadcast spectrum is better used for broadband, then where does the Commissioner think people will get the 'localism' he believes we all need?
What he really wants is a cross between college radio from the 60's and NPR. And Beck, Hannity and Rush, et al. silenced forever.
What he would get is everyone filling up Sunday morning with syndicated talk programs, Fox news every hour (heh, heh.) and, at renewal time, endless litigation by the professional "interest" groups.
We are in the middle of a coats drive (sponsored, by the way), with some 30 barrels out in our small market (#249).
Means driving some 200 miles to get the barrels out, then going back periodically to collect loads of smelly coats to drag to the cleaners. Then hauling the heavy, clean coats to churches, Salvation Army, etc. for distribution.
Under his regime--why bother? We wouldn't get credit for the effort. Now, if we did a yack show with 3 community activists urging the guv'mint to buy coats for the poor..
Note that the minority broadcasters already shot down his proposal for 24/7 staffing. They realize they'd be the first to go under. I could go on--but the but the bottom line is we stop Copps in his tracks if we don't let the head idiot get a second term.
With a background of 30 years in commercial radio and TV, and currently having an active Construction Permit for an FM station, I can't believe that I'm basically in agreement with Commissioner Copps - Wow! Pinch me! Did I write that? Yup! I've seen some broadcast operators who have no regard for their community and simply waste a space on the spectrum!
Currently, I live in a small town that is served by a local LPFM station. When the station went on the air (under different ownership) it was involved in community affairs, big on public service, high school football play-by-play, etc. It went broke (but, not because of its programming). So now, the station is owned by someone who is financially able to run it without outside compensation. It is his "toy." He brags about running over 1000 rock songs without interruption. (In his FCC file, he calls this educational because it teaches kids to count!) The station has (maybe) a handful of listeners. Another juke box in a town that could really, really use some of what Commissioner Copps was talking about. I believe Public Service can be synonmous with a creative presentation and draw listeners.
However, I also think that the commissioner needs to temper his thoughts with an understanding that his plan costs dollars. The dollars have to be there FIRST. And, as the saying goes "nothing happens until somebody sells something."
I challenge Copps to show it can be done by taking management of our multicast station (two channels which are NCE). I will gladly step aside. "independent programs? More local PSAs too." Yah, we do that, as there is plenty of unsold inventory, much of which is in the "independent news". With few dollars in the bank, having no money to convert to digital, but doing it anyway, instead of thanks, we get an FCC order canceling the license. Just for doing it the only way we could. Instead of going dark. Copps: Don't be a bureaucrat. Come here and show us how your plan can work.
What it boils down to me is that I will need to hire someone to do the paperwork on what we are ALREADY doing to prove that we are a vital part of our community....
I would like to see the commish deal with the lack of transparency in public radio stations. If they get public money, they should be required by federal law to give full financial disclosure. No more hiding mismanagement...
Hello GKG: Yah... Good point. As I see it, the proposed reallocation of spectrum from broadcast to cellular erases public interest in a vast swath of spectrum. Lets reverse that. How about a Petition for Rulemaking seeking that any spectrum formerly used for broadcasting have the same or similar public interest requirements as broadcasters. Not only should that apply to Mediaflo, which IS a TV broadcaster on TV channel 55, but all cellular companies operating in AMPS what was once television channels 70 to 83. Each mobile operator should have a local studio, at least one service free to the public, a local public file, a percentage of services for children, do KidVid reports, put "Problems Issues" reports in their public files, provide political campaigns lowest unit charges, and so forth. Someone should beat on Julius Genachowski about that after filing a petition. I think the comparative broadcast versus mobile value per megahertz per pop as found in the FCC "Broadband Initiative" would change. What would re-imposition of public interest requirements do to the value of cellular megahertz per pop?
I posted this on RBR a couple of days ago, but it bears repeating here:
Michael Copps and his incessant, meddling jabs at the broadcasting industry couldn't be more annoying; thankfully he has had difficulty implementing any of them. The man wants to blame us broadcasters for the situation in which we find ourselves, when, in fact, it was the federal government -- Congress and the Commission -- that created the current diminished state of broadcasting. Copps thinks that imposing onerous programming, localism, and reporting rules will somehow reverse the effects of the internet and the Telecom Act of '96. Unfortunately, that boat left the dock a long time ago. This situation is very much akin to the government wanting to blame everyone and everything else for the bursting of the housing bubble and the ensuing economic fallout, when in fact the culprit was the government itself -- Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the nonsense that home-ownership is a right. Mr. Copps, if you are truly interested in advancing your crusade, you won't have to look very far; your enemy is inside the Beltway.
The FCC obviously cannot manage its current workload , never mind taking on an impossible task of subjectively deciding which radio stations "deserve" to renew their licenses. When the Commission clears up the log jam of the thousands of translator applications still in limbo from the 2003 window we can revisit this issue. By that time, we may have a new administration and new commissioners and we may shift the topic of interest to some other topic of government meddling like regulation of the internet.
It appears that the justification for the public interest obgligation is the below market value exclusive use of the spectrum. This is an attempt at a barter deal where each side believes they are getting the bad end of the deal. A better approach, I believe, would be for spectrum users pay for their use of the spectrum. This is discussed in detail in my article of 10 years ago at http://louise.hallikainen.org/ijclp/ijclp_webdoc_6_5_2000.pdf .
Harold
The commission should keep it's nose out of content and stick to technical regulations only.