Broadcast Law Blog

As we wrote earlier this week, the FCC is to consider at its meeting next Tuesday a Report on the results of its "Localism" proceeding, and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking public comment on the findings contained in the Report.  From rumors going around Washington today, that Notice may ask for comments on tentative findings that would roll back of much of the broadcast deregulation of the last 25 years.   Rumors are that the Commission will be issuing "tentative conclusions" determining that the FCC should re-impose specific ascertainment requirements of some sort (requiring that broadcasters regularly meet with specific types of community leaders to get their input on station programming).  Also, the Commission will tentatively conclude that there should be quantitative programming requirements - that each station do a specific amount of local programming and perhaps specific amounts of news, public affairs other types of programs each week. If a licensee does not meet the requirements, the station's license renewal application would not be granted routinely by the FCC's staff, but instead would be subject to an additional level of scrutiny by the full Commission. The Commission is also apparently proposing that it return to the old rules that all stations have a manned main studio during all hours of operation. There is reportedly also a proposal that stations report to the FCC about how they decide what music they play.

Staring in the early 1980s, the FCC did away with many of the specific, detailed programming requirements that had previously bound broadcasters.  These requirements were quite burdensome, especially for small stations and stations in small markets with limited staffs.  Rather than spending their time on broadcast operations, station staff had to make sure that their operations met programming standards imposed from Washington, dictating the government's ideas of what was good for the station's audience, even if the station might feel, because of its format or the demographics of its audience that a particular type of programming did not serve the needs of its community.  In the mid-1980s, the FCC concluded that these rules were no longer necessary, as it was concluded that there was enough media diversity that the marketplace would dictate that broadcasters serve their audiences with appropriate content that met the needs of that audience as, if they did not, some other broadcaster would.  The economic incentive of the fear of the loss of audience to a competitor who better served the public was deemed enough to insure that the broadcaster acted responsibly.
.

Now, here we are 25 years later, when the number of broadcast stations has doubled from the mid-1980s, and when there is all sorts of other competition that forces the broadcaster to serve its community, and the FCC is looking to reimpose a paternalistic regime where all stations have to broadcast specific types of content to avoid license renewal difficulties?  In today's world, with satellite and Internet radio and video and all of the other digital choices of entertainment, the broadcaster is forced by his or her self-interest to address what the local audience finds relevant, or the broadcaster will have that audience abandon the station for some other medium.  Now, more than ever, specific quantitative standards for broadcast programs are not needed. 

While the FCC and others seem to yearn for the "good old days", what really did the old rules mandate?  They required specific amounts of public affairs programs, so that usually meant that every radio station in a market was doing boring talk programs on a Sunday morning to satisfy the requirements.  And no one listened, and there was no choice of what to hear during those hours.  Every station was required to do specifically labeled "news" programs.  In the old days, most stations ran network newscasts to help fulfill these requirements, even though the audience of a particular station might not care about hard news.  Now, broadcasters use many different methodologies to determine the needs of their audiences, and meet those needs though "information" about local events supplied by the broadcaster  but maybe not in a traditional format, but perhaps as part of an entertainment format, but in a way that nevertheless builds up a  bond with the local community.  Do we want to do away with that flexibility so that someone in Washington can dictate the type of programming that best serves the public?

These findings by the Commission have not been made, and broadcasters can still submit letters or comments before the end of the comment period at 5:30 Eastern time on Friday, December 14. And then whatever proposals are ultimately adopted by the Commission will be available for comment as part of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.  Clearly, this is a proceeding in which all broadcasters should participate. 

Submit Comments?

As if that will make any difference.

Fix is in to protect the big boys--who can just hire a minority to run 6 stations at once while generating reams of BS of the public file.

While those of us with one or two stations go broke.

About what one can expect from a bunch of political hacks,ex-telco and puc lawyers.

Does it matter any more with 80% of the public watching cable television with NO LOCAL SERVICE commitment beyond the three geeks on the public access channel. Broadcasting has changed because of the finances, now they can no longer compete against first-run cable and re-applying the public service commitment will drive the bottom feeder groups like Sinclair and Pappas out of broadcasting completely.

to lagislate to protect some typical nichs is always a must for the public government. protect own local community is important as protect U.S. music or U.S. industry.
Why not?
the way is not say "what radios must do", but set a percentage of their programs to local community advantage.

regards
s.

There's no rule that says public affairs programming has to be boring, appear only after midnight or on Sunday morning or not attract a sizeable audience.
If that's how it was for many broadcasters, it was simply their own fault for not caring to put resources or creativity into their local programming. Having worked on some highly-listened-to and profitable public affairs shows, I know what I'm talking about.
In the 60s, Newsradio was very highly rated and profitable and was public affairs all the time. So then chains said that if there were one news station in the market, why duplicate the format?
Well, come on... there are so many way to be interesting in radio and TV. But the first thing is that you have to CARE about your audience as much as you do about your advertisers.
Whether people get their fix from the internet, over-the-air, cable or in print, those who have a license to use the public airwaves have more of an obligation than just the quick buck.
Consolidation may work well as an aggresive business model and kudos to those businessmen and women who have made their billions from it. But the public airwaves need to have public service in addition to simple lip service.
If, as the broadcasters say, they, then can't compete by adding more local content, then let those wise businesspeople sell their assets and put their efforts into another private industry.
These people stand to rake in a billion dollars just from campaign advertising between now and the election. That's going to give them a tidy profit. Tidy's fine. Obscene's not.
Perhaps, then, the real obscenity in broadcasting isn't in the content, but in the character of how the business is conducted.

If commercial broadcasters wonder why their stock values are at an all time low... it is NOT because of the economy, or competition from XM radio. It's that the Big Corporations dont understand the reality of broadcasting. Broadcast stations can be profitable (10 - 20 % Profit) but there are Giant Cprporations that re making 45 to 50% profits by automating stations, eliminating news, public service and public affairs. In the 70's and 80's radio ran 10 to 12 minutes of commercials per hr. Now it's 16 to 20 minutes. Stations run attomated... no news, weather... not even the current time. Radio was once fun and entertaing when you listened. Now it's an IPOD with lots of commercials. The FCC should take over and give the airwaves back to the public (the rightful owners) by requireing news, PSA's and Public Affairs and most importantly LOCAL LIVE PROGRAMMING. No satellite, or automation.