Broadcast Law Blog : Broadcast Lawyer & Attorney : Broadcast Law Blog : Seattle, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., New York, San Francisco, Shanghai

Last week, the FCC Commissioners appeared before Congress for an "oversight hearing." In such hearings, Congressmen often raise many different issues that may be on their mind – everything from issues about the administration of the FCC to detailed policy issues. In the hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee last week, one issue arose that broadcasters should monitor carefully to see what develops. During the course of the hearing, the FCC Commissioners were asked why the FCC had not taken steps to make sure that the sponsors of political advertisements were disclosed on the air. While the FCC rules already require disclosure of the sponsor of any ad, and enhanced disclosure for political ads or other "issue ads" on matters of public importance, what were the Senators after in this line of inquiry? 

It appears that the Senators were asking the FCC to ask for more information about the source of the money used by political action groups to buy television advertising time on election issues - including the money used by PACs, SuperPACs and the other types of advocacy groups that spent so much money in the last election cycle, and are already beginning to run ads in states that have Senate races that are likely to be hotly contested in 2014. What do the FCC rules currently require?

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The FCC proposed a $44,000 fine on a Chicago radio station for running 11 announcements that did not contain a sponsorship identification.  This fine was not for 11 different announcements for different groups, but instead a single announcement run 11 times.  Each airing of the announcement triggered a $4000 fine (which is the amount of the FCC "base fine" for a sponsorship identification violation).  According to the FCC decision, a group called the Workers Independent News ("WIN") bought 2 two-hour programs, one one-hour program, and a number of shorter promotional announcements for those programs. 11 of the promotional announcements did not specifically state that they were sponsored.  Instead, these 11 announcements - each 90 seconds long - consisted of an interviewer, identifying himself as being with Workers Independent News, discussing a local issue with local legislator.  While the announcement did open with a mention of WIN, it didn't specifically say that they had paid for the spot.  Presumably, the FCC feared that the spot sounded like a program element, perhaps even a news interview (even though it ran in a commercial break), and held that the mere reference to WIN without any explicit statement that the spot was paid for by that group was not enough to convey sponsorship of the ad or to meet the FCC rules requiring sponsorship identification.

The decision here shows how seriously the FCC takes the issue of being able to identify who is trying to influence listeners by providing some form of valuable consideration to a broadcast station in exchange for the broadcast of a message.  This issue is the subject of an FCC rulemaking proceeding, has previously led to fines for other stations (though rarely ones of this magnitude, even where the FCC has found whole programs or portions of programs to have been sponsored - see, for example, the cases we've written about here and here dealing with "video news releases"), and has become part of the proposals for the new on-line public file, suggesting that sponsorship identification information be made available for any "pay-for-play" programming in such a file.  The issue has even become important in the online world, with the FTC issuing rules that require similar sponsorship identification even in connection with social media posts for which the author has received consideration (see our summary of the FTC order here).

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The full text of the FCC's Order overturning its 2007 decision on online public inspection files for TV broadcasters and the adoption of the Form 355 "enhanced disclosure form" has now been released.  This order, adopted at the FCC's open meeting this week (held on October 27, 2011, which we wrote about here), also contains a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking again suggesting an online public file, but this time it would be one hosted by the FCC.  In reading the full text, more details of the FCC's proposal become clear.  As set forth below, the Order suggests everything from a future application of these rules to radio once the bugs have been worked out, to an examination of whether a station needs to save Facebook posts and other social media comments in the same way that it preserves letters from the public and emails about station operations, to a proposal for stations to document in their files information about all "pay for play" sponsorships.  Comments on these proposals, and the others summarized below, which include a request for detailed information about the costs of compliance with the proposals, are due 30 days from when the order is published in the Federal Register, with Reply Comments due only 15 days thereafter.  The FCC, after sitting on these obligations for almost 5 years, now seems to be ready to move quickly. 

In reaching it's decision, the order first discusses some proposals that it was rejecting - some for the time being.  For radio broadcasters, the most important of the rejected thoughts was the extension of this rule to radio.  The Commission noted that there were proposals pending and ripe for action as part of the Localism proceeding (which we summarized here), to extend the online public file obligations to radio.  In this week's order, the FCC decided that it was not yet ready to apply these rules to radio.  The Commission noted that there might need to be differences in the rules for radio (implying that, at least partially, there might be resource issues making it difficult for radio broadcasters to comply with these rules), and also finding that it would be better to see how an online file works for TV before extending the rule to radio.  But, from the statements made in the Order, there is no question but that, at some point in the future, some form of the obligations that are proposed for TV will also be proposed for radio broadcasters. 

Also, it is important to note that the FCC's Localism proceeding is not dead yet.  While this week's Order stems from the FCC's Future of Media Report (renamed the Report on the Information Needs of Communities), and that report recommended that the Localism proceeding be terminated, this Order did not do that.  The Commission notes its plans to start a new proceeding designed to force broadcasters to complete a more comprehensive report on their public interest programming.  That proceeding may be where the looming Localism proposals are finally dealt with.  Statements at the meeting and passages in the Order make clear that the examination of the public interest obligations for broadcasters will begin with a Notice of Inquiry, which is a most preliminary stage of an FCC proceeding (which would be followed by a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking after the inquiry comments are reviewed) and then an Order.  So final resolution of these issues seem to be far down the road.  If that is the case, will the Localism proposals stay on the table until the Order in this new proceeding is adopted?  It is certainly unclear from the Commission's statements thus far.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A consent decree entered into by a radio broadcaster, which included a $12,000 "voluntary contribution" to the US Treasury, demonstrates once again the FCC's concerns about sponsorship identification issues.  The week before last, we wrote about the FCC fine levied on a television broadcaster for not including sufficient sponsorship information when a "video news release" was broadcast on a local television station without disclosing that the video footage had been produced by the automobile company whose products were featured.  The recent FCC Report on the Information Needs of Local Communities (formerly known as the Future of Media report) also focused on the need for more disclosure in connection with sponsored material carried on broadcast stations and other media (see our summary here).  With a long outstanding Rulemaking proceeding on these issues that remains unresolved (see our summary here), the Commission almost appears as if it is setting its policies in these areas through case law rather than through the rulemaking process.

In this most recent "payola" case, a complaint was lodged against a Texas radio station owned by Emmis Broadcasting alleging that the host of one music program was receiving compensation from a local music club, a local record store, and a manager of local bands in exchange for featuring music on the show.  The allegation contended that other local bands could not get their music played on this show without sponsoring Station events hosted by this particular personality.  The Consent Decree does not resolve the question of whether these allegations were true, but instead requires that the licensee make the voluntary contribution, adopt procedures to make sure that Station employees are aware of the requirements of the sponsorship identification rules, and report  to the Commission on a regular basis on the actions taken by the licensee to ensure compliance with the FCC rules.  In addition to general requirements that the Station educate its employees about the sponsorship identification rules, the Consent Decree also contained conditions setting forth rules governing the relationship that station employees could have with record labels, even though the decree makes no mention of any allegations of improper consideration having come from record companies.  These conditions were ones that appear to have come from consent decrees entered into with a number of broadcasters 4 years ago in the last major FCC payola investigation (which we wrote about here).

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 

The FCC has issued a Forfeiture Order, confirming a $4000 fine levied against a Minneapolis TV station for airing a video news release ("VNR") without sponsorship identification.  This case was previously discussed in our March 25th blog entry, when the Commission issued a Notice of Apparent Liability ("NAL") against the station for this violation.  The primary lesson to be learned from this decision is that video supplied for free may require sponsorship ID if furnished for the purpose of identifying a product or furthering a sponsor's message beyond any independent (i.e., newsworthy) reason a station has for airing it.

In arguing against the NAL, the station put forth several arguments, all of which were rejected by the FCC.  The station argued that its use of a video supplied by General Motors for a story about the popularity of convertibles in the summer was equivalent to use of a company press release, which the FCC has found acceptable in the past.  But the FCC said that use of a press release without sponsorship ID is permitted only if references to products or brand names are "transient or fleeting."  Here, by contrast, the FCC found the identification of GM cars to be "disproportionate to the subject matter of the news report."

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Politico ran a story last week, indicating that a number of radio talk show hosts were paid to endorse, during their shows, certain causes and groups that might be of interest to their listeners.  The article suggests that the endorsements included live read commercials, as well as other comments made during the course of the program, as asides or during discussions of the issues of the day.  While we have not reviewed any of these programs, and have no idea if the story is accurate or how any paid mentions were handled during the program, radio stations do need to be cautious in this area, and consider the sponsorship identification issues that may be raised by such conduct.  And this consideration is not just in connection with political talk programs - but wherever any on-air talent receives consideration for making a plug for a product or service on the station.

This issue has already been a big deal on the video side of the media house, with both broadcasters and cable companies having been fined for including material in their programs without disclosing that they had received consideration for the inclusion of the material.  Recently, we wrote about two TV stations who were fined by the FCC for broadcasting "video news releases", where the stations broadcast content from third parties which was deemed to have a promotional message included for the third party's product, where the station did not specifically disclose that the video material had been provided at no charge to the station.  The provision of the tape alone was deemed to be consideration.  Almost four years ago, we wrote about another station that was hit with a fine when a syndicated TV talk show host was revealed to have been receiving government money to promote a government program (No Child Left Behind), was promoting that government program during his show, and not mentioning that he had received this consideration.  The station was fined - even though they did not produce the program, as they had not inquired about whether any sort of consideration had been received by the host.  The Communications Act puts the burden on stations to reveal sponsors when consideration has been paid for the airing of any programming, and the FCC has said that this burden requires that the station take efforts to make sure that all programming - even that coming from syndicators - complies with the rules.   

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The FCC today heard from its Future of Media task force, when its head, Steven Waldman presented a summary of its contents at its monthly meeting.  At the same time, the task force issued its 475 page report - which spends most of its time talking about the history of media and the current media landscape, and only a handful of pages presenting specific recommendations for FCC action.  The task force initially had a very broad mandate, to examine the media and how it was serving local informational needs of citizens, and to recommend actions not only for the FCC, but also for other agencies who might have jurisdiction over various media entities that the FCC does not regulate.  Those suggestions, too, were few in the report as finally issued.  What were the big headlines for broadcasters?  The report suggests that the last remnants of the Fairness Doctrine be repealed, and that the FCC's localism proceeding be terminated - though some form of enhanced disclosure form be adopted for broadcasters to report about their treatment of local issues of public importance, and that this information, and the rest of a broadcaster's public file, be kept online so that it would be more easily accessible to the public and to researchers.  Online disclosures were also suggested for sponsorship information, particularly with respect to paid content included in news and informational programming.  And proposals for expansion of LPFMs and for allowing noncommercial stations to raise funds for other nonprofit entities were also included in the report. 

While we have not yet closely read the entire 475 page report, which was tiled The Information Needs of Communities: The Changing Media Landscape in a Broadband Age, we can provide some information about some of the FCC's recommendations, and some observations about the recommendations, the process, and the reactions that it received.  One of the most important things to remember is that this was simply a study.   As Commissioner McDowell observed at the FCC meeting, it is not an FCC action, and it is not even a formal proposal for FCC action.  Instead, the report is simply a set of recommendations that this particular group of FCC employees and consultants came up with.  Before any real regulatory requirements can come out of this, in most cases, the FCC must first adopt a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, or a series of such notices, and ask for public comment on these proposals.  That may take some time, if there is action on these suggestions at all.   There are some proposals, however, such as the suggestion that certain LPFM rules be adopted in the FCC's review of the Local Community Radio Act so as to find availability for LPFM stations in urban areas, that could be handled as part of some proceedings that are already underway.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The FCC has issued two Notices of Apparent Liability, each proposing fines of $4000 to TV station licensees, both for airing video news releases ("VNR") in news or information programs without sponsorship identifications.  In both cases, the station received the VNRs for free, but was paid nothing for including them in their programming.  The station had no indication that any other party supplying the VNRs were paid for providing them to the station.  Nevertheless, relying on some very old statements of policy contained in an FCC Public Notice from 1975, the FCC concluded that the provision of the VNRs in and of themselves, constituted valuable consideration to the station, and the fact that they highlighted the commercial products of the companies that produced them "to an extent disproportionate to the subject matter of the film", mandated a sponsorship identification.

Both cases rely on an FCC Public Notice, first issued in 1963 and updated in 1975 (which I have been unable to locate on the FCC's website), which sets out examples of how to comply with the sponsorship identification rules. These two old Public Notices were cited, but not reproduced, in a 2005 Public Notice, warning broadcasters to be careful with their use of VNRs.  The specific example cited by the FCC was one set out in these notices dealing with a film on scenic roadtrips provided by a bus company.  In the examples provided, the FCC stated that if the video did not show the bus company's name, or the bus company's name was shown only "fleetingly" in pictured of the highway in a manner reasonably related to the program, there would be no sponsorship identification requirement.  In cases where the bus company's name was clearly shown, "disproportionate to the subject matter of the film", then sponsorship identification would be required "as the broadcaster has impliedly agreed to broadcast an identification beyond that reasonably related to the subject matter of the film."  Based on these examples, the FCC levied the fines in the cases just released.  An examination of the facts of these cases is important to understand these fines and how far the FCC ruling in these cases extends.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Many broadcasters, both television and radio, have been running the NAB spots on the Future of Television.  Those spots contain a description of the service available from local television stations and the new technologies that over-the-air television are in the process of deploying, and end with the suggestion that the Future of Broadcast Television lies in "technology not regulation from Washington DC."  Obviously, these ads are geared to address some of the many legislative and administrative issues facing TV broadcasters - including the proposals to take back some of the TV spectrum for wireless broadband uses.  Given that these spots could be arguably be seen as addressing Federal issues, to be safe, they should be identified as issue ads in stations' public inspection files, and appropriate information about those spots should be placed in the files.

The NAB, in announcing the availability of these spots, suggested this same precaution.  We've written before about issue ads, and the need to place notations in the public file about these ads. For instance, when stations ran ads on the broadcast performance royalty, we suggested that same treatment (and proponents of the royalty complained that broadcasters might not be making such notations).  What needs to go in the public file?  As the issues are Federal ones (as opposed to state and local issues that have lesser disclosure obligations), the requirements are similar to those that apply to political candidates. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The FCC today announced a $1,000,000 Consent Decree with Univision Radio to settle payola investigations underway at both the FCC and the Department of Justice.  Payola, or "pay for play" as it is called in the FCC Press Release issued today, is a violation of FCC rules and Federal criminal law, which both prohibit the broadcast of program content for which payment was received without disclosing the receipt of that consideration.  The payment of money to programming employees in exchange for the playing of certain music on the radio has been the situation where pay-for-play has received the most publicity.  Where payment is made for playing a song, without acknowledging to the public that the station's decision to play the music was based on payments and not on the station's determination of the merit of the music being played, then a violation exists.  In many cases, it is station employees who receive the payment, sometime unknown to station management.  But where the station has not taken sufficient steps to guard against pay-for-play situations by its employees, the licensee can still face penalties.  The Consent Decree sets out specific steps for Univision to take to make sure that the situations alleged to have occurred at the company's stations don't reoccur in the future.

The Consent Decree is virtually identical to the $12.5 million in settlements reached three years ago with four of the country's largest radio broadcast companies.  At that time, we published an advisory that explored each of the provisions of the Consent Decree and the obligations that it imposed on the broadcasters that were involved - and suggested that all stations use it as a Guide to their operations to insure that they, too, don't find themselves facing a similar situation in the future.  As payola seems to run in cycles, check out our Guide and make sure that you are taking steps to insure compliance with the FCC rules and policies on payola.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the last few weeks, I've been asked several times by broadcasters whether an ad should be considered an "issue ad."   Usually, the ad in question deals with some sort of faintly controversial issue, and the broadcaster seems torn about how to classify the ad.   In many ways, the answer is almost irrelevant as, other than some public file obligations, whether or not an ad is an issue ad has little practical significance.  Issue ads are not entitled to special rates - lowest unit rates are reserved for candidate ads.  They are not entitled to special placement in broadcast schedules.  As there is no Fairness Doctrine, there isn't even a requirement that you treat both sides of an issue in the same fashion (except perhaps, where a Fairness obligation may still arise if the issue being discussed is a candidate in an election, when the last remnant of Fairness, the Zapple Doctrine, has not officially been declared dead).  So why worry about whether or not something is an issue ad?

The principal reason is the public file. Commission rules require that the sponsor of an issue ad be identified in a broadcaster's public file, along with the sponsor's principal officers or directors.  This is required for any ad dealing with a controversial issue of public importance.  The ad does not need to deal with a political issue, or one to be considered by a government body.  Any controversial issue of public importance merits the public file treatment.  For ads dealing with a "federal issue", one to be considered by the US Congress, any Federal administrative agency or any other branch of the United States government, additional disclosures need to be made in the file (which we have listed before), setting out all the information that you would need to provide with respect to a candidate ad - including the price paid for the ad and the schedule on which the ad will run. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Another year is upon us, and it’s time for predictions as to what Washington may have in store for broadcasters in 2010.  Each year, when we look at what might be coming, we are amazed at the number of issues that could affect the industry – often issues that are the same year to year as final decisions are often hard to come by in Washington with the interplay between the FCC and other government agencies, the courts and Congress. This year, as usual, we see a whole list of issues, many of which remain from prior years. But this year is different, as we have had a list topped by issues such as the suggestion that television spectrum be reallotted for wireless uses and the radio performance royalty, that could fundamentally affect the broadcast business.  The new administration at the FCC is only beginning to get down to business, having filling most of the decision-making positions at the Commission.  Thus far, its attention has been focused on broadband, working diligently to complete a report to Congress on plans for implementation of a national broadband plan, a report that is required to be issued in February.  But, from what little we have seen from the new Commission and its employees, there seems to be a willingness to reexamine many of the fundamental tenants of broadcasting.  And Congress is not shy about offering its own opinions on how to make broadcasting "better."  This willingness to reexamine some of the most fundamental tenets of broadcasting should make this a most interesting, and potentially frightening, year. Some of the issues to likely be facing television, radio and the broadcasting industry generally are set out below.

Television Issues.

In the television world, at this time last year, we were discussing the end of the digital television transition, and expressing the concern of broadcasters about the FCC’s White Spaces decision allowing unlicensed wireless devices into the television spectrum. While the White Spaces process still has not been finalized, that concern over the encroachment on the TV spectrum has taken a back seat to a far more fundamental issue of whether to repurpose large chunks of the television spectrum (if not the entire spectrum) for wireless users, while compressing television into an even smaller part of what’s left of the television band – if not migrating it altogether to multichannel providers like cable or satellite, with subscription fees for the poorest citizens being paid for from spectrum auction receipts. This proposal, while floated for years in academic circles, has in the last three months become one that is being legitimately debated in Washington, and one that television broadcasters have to take seriously, no matter how absurd it may seem at first glance. Who would have thought that just six month after the completion of the digital transition, when so much time and effort was expended to make sure that homes that receive free over-the-air television would not be adversely impacted by the digital transition, we could now be talking about abolishing free over-the-air television entirely? This cannot happen overnight, and it is a process sure to be resisted as broadcasters seek to protect their ability to roll out new digital multicast channels and their mobile platforms. But it is a real proposal which, if implemented, could fundamentally change the face of the television industry.  Watch for this debate to continue this year.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On December 1, 2009,  FTC revised Guidelines went into effect updating policies dealing with advertising using testimonials and endorsements, specifically affecting celebrity endorsements and sponsorship disclosure.  These revised guidelines directly impact the established practices of broadcasters and new media companies.  These revised endorsement and testimonial guidelines effectively ban the old standard “results not typical” disclaimer so commonly in use in connection with a great deal of testimonial advertising, confirm independent liability for the “endorser” (including celebrities) for false product or service claims, and expand and clarify the need for disclosure of “material connections”, that is consideration (money and other “freebies”) received by new media companies in connection with reviews or other online coverage of products or services.  It is vital that media companies, in particular new media, understand the key provisions of these guidelines to make sure that they don’t become a target of any FTC enforcement action.  The FTC has indicated that for now at least, its focus will be on enforcement in the new media world (bloggers, social media, viral campaigns) and other “non-traditional” advertising (celebrity guests on news and entertainment shows, endorsements by media personnel such as on-air DJ’s).

Like all FTC Guidance concerning advertising, the revised guidelines are specific regulations, but instead they set out standards (in essence a safe harbor) that outline how the FTC will review advertising to determine if it is “false and deceptive” or otherwise misleading to the consumer in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act.  The revised guidelines provide specific examples as to how they will apply to insure sufficient disclosure so that the listener has all the background necessary to be able to evaluate the strength of the endorsement for him or herself.  For broadcast advertising, the new guidelines make clear that endorsers can themselves be liable for misleading statements made during a product pitch.  So a radio announcer paid to try a diet plan or some other product and to report about its results on the air needs to be sure not only that his statements are truthful, but that the “results” claimed are in line with what the advertiser can actually prove for the product through clinical study and research.  The radio pitchman cannot turn a blind eye to claims that are inherently incredible.  In the past, a simple disclosure that "your results may vary" or "these results are not necessarily typical" was sufficient.  Today, that disclaimer is no longer enough.  Instead, the new guidelines state that any testimonial about the results of using a product be accompanied with a disclosure of the results that a typical user can expect to get from the product.  So the announcer must be informed as to what results can be expected by the typical user, and that these results are objectively verifiable, so that the proper disclosure can be made.  As the announcer (or the station) can now be liable for statements made in such testimonials, stations should take care to be prepared to make the required disclosures. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A story in today's Wall Street Journal discusses the significant amount of money being spent on television advertising for and against pending proposals for health care reform.  As we have written before, broadcasters are required to keep in their public file information about advertising dealing with Federal issues - records as detailed as those kept for political candidates.  Information in the file should include not only the sponsor of the ad, but also when the spots are scheduled to run (and, after the fact, when they did in fact run), the class of time purchased, and the price paid for the advertising.  Clearly, the health care issue is a Federal issue, as it is being considered by the US Congress in Washington.  So remember to keep your public file up to date with this required information. 

Section 315 of the Communications Act deals with these issues, stating that these records must be kept for any request to purchase time on a "political matter of national importance", which is defined as any matter relating to a candidate or Federal election or "a national legislative issue of public importance."  Clearly, health care would fit in that definition.  The specific information to be kept in the file includes:

• If the request to purchase time is accepted or rejected
• Dates on which the ad is run
• The rates charged by the station
• Class of time purchased
• The issue to which the ad refers
• The name of the purchaser of the advertising time including:
  • The name, address and phone number of a contact person
  • A list of the chief executive officers or members of the executive committee or board of directors of the sponsoring organization.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The MusicFirst coalition last week asked that the FCC investigate broadcast stations that allegedly cut back on playing the music of artists who back a broadcast performance royalty, and also those stations who have run spots on the air opposing the performance royalty without giving the supporters of the royalty an opportunity to respond.  While the NAB and many other observers have suggested that the filing is simply wrong on its facts, pointing for instance to the current chart-topping position of the Black Eyed Peas whose lead singer has been a vocal supporter of the royalty, it seems to me that there is an even more fundamental issue at stake here - the First Amendment rights of broadcasters.  What the petition is really saying is that the government should impose a requirement on broadcasters that they not speak out on an issue of fundamental importance to their industry.  The petition seems to argue that the rights of performers (and record labels) to seek money from broadcasters is of such importance that the First Amendment rights of broadcasters to speak out against that royalty should be abridged.

While the MusicFirst petition claims that it neither seeks to abridge the First Amendment rights of broadcasters nor to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, it is hard credit that claim.  After all, the petition goes directly to the heart of the broadcasters ability to speak out on the topic, and seems to want to mandate that broadcasters present the opposing side of the issue, the very purpose of the Fairness Doctrine.  As we've written, the Fairness Doctrine was abolished as an unconstitutional abridgment on the broadcaster's First Amendment rights 20 years ago.  As an outgrowth of this decision, FCC and Court decisions concluded that broadcasters have the right to editorialize on controversial issues, free of any obligation to present opposing viewpoints.  What is it that makes this case different?

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A recent stir was created when a Midwestern television company was reported to have signed a contract with a state government agency, promising to market the agency and its programs throughout the state.  This promotion was to include a segment in the company's televised news promoting the effects of the work of the agency.  Questions were immediately raised about whether this was prohibited by FCC rules.  But, when the news pieces ran, the company was very careful to state after these segments that they were sponsored by the station and the state agency.  As the FCC has no rules about what can be included in the "news" (and probably could not consistent with the First Amendment), the only real issue was one of sponsorship identification.  As the licensee did here, if the sponsor of the story is identified, making clear to the public who was attempting to persuade them on the issue addressed, there should be no FCC issues.

This is different from the issues that have arisen previously at the FCC, where there have been fines levied against television stations and cable systems for airing programming that was sponsored, but for which no sponsorship identification was provided (see our posts here and here).  This includes the video news release or VNR issues, where the FCC has fined stations for using news actualities provided by groups with a financial interest in the issue that was being addressed, but without identifying the fact that the material was provided by the interested parties.  Where a program addresses a controversial issue of public importance, the disclosure rules are more strict, requiring that the station not only disclose that it received money to air a story - but to also disclose anything that it got from the interested party - including tapes or scripts.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Come the New Year, we all engage in speculation about what’s ahead in our chosen fields, so it’s time for us to look into our crystal ball to try to discern what Washington may have in store for broadcasters in 2009. With each new year, a new set of regulatory issues face the broadcaster from the powers-that-be in Washington. But this year, with a new Presidential administration, new chairs of the Congressional committees that regulate broadcasters, and with a new FCC on the way, the potential regulatory challenges may cause the broadcaster to look at the new year with more trepidation than usual. In a year when the digital television transition finally becomes a reality, and with a troubled economy and no election or Olympic dollars to ease the downturn, who wants to deal with new regulatory obstacles? Yet, there are potential changes that could affect virtually all phases of the broadcast operations for both radio and television stations – technical, programming, sales, and even the use of music – all of which may have a direct impact on a station’s bottom line that can’t be ignored. 

With the digital conversion, one would think that television broadcasters have all the technical issues that they need for 2009. But the FCC’s recent adoption of its “White Spaces” order, authorizing the operation of unlicensed wireless devices on the TV channels, insures that there will be other issues to watch. The White Spaces decision will likely be appealed. While the appeal is going on, the FCC will have to work on the details of the order’s implementation, including approving operators of the database that is supposed to list all the stations that the new wireless devices will have to protect, as well as “type accepting” the devices themselves, essentially certifying that the devices can do what their backers claim – knowing where they are through the use of geolocation technology, “sniffing” out signals to protect, and communicating with the database to avoid interference with local television, land mobile radio, and wireless microphone signals.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

According to numerous press articles, including this one in Multichannel News, the FCC has begun an investigation into several commentators on TV news programs to see if they were receiving payments or other consideration for presenting a particular viewpoint on military issues on which they were interviewed.  According to press reports, the FCC has sent letters requesting information about the arrangements to both television networks and the commentators themselves.  This investigation would appear to be a continuation of the FCC's concern about undisclosed sponsors of programming attempting to convince the public of a particular position on any controversial issue of public importance.

This investigation seems to be very similar to a case about which we wrote last year, where the FCC issued fines to a station group that aired programming that included commentator Armstrong Williams, who had been receiving consideration to speak in support of the No Child Left Behind program.  The FCC has also been looking at similar issues in its Sponsorship Identification and Embedded Advertising Proceeding, about which we wrote here.  In both of these proceedings, the FCC has warned broadcasters that they need to assess whether anyone who is supplying programming material to the station is receiving consideration for the views expressed on that programming, particularly where that programming involves something that could be considered a controversial issue of public importance.  Thus, stations should be asking networks, program syndicators, and others appearing on a program whether they are receiving any consideration for the views that they are about to express - particularly where that is not clear from the context of the program.  While the FCC has not explicitly so stated, it would seem like an interview of an author about his new book or an actor about his new movie would clearly imply that the author or actor received consideration.  But where someone is expressing an opinion on some matter where it is unclear that there is any commercial or financial interest, and such an interest does indeed exist, the station should be aware  of that interest and disclose that connection on-air.  See our discussion here for another case where the FCC imposed fines on a cable system for not disclosing such interests.  One more thing to worry about!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

In a recent article in Silicon Valley Insider, TargetSpot's CEO, Doug Perlson, suggests that the financial savior of Internet Radio might be payola - taking money from record companies or artists to play their songs.  Putting aside any issues of the financial benefits of such a plan, and the creative and aesthetic issues that pay for play may raise, and since this is a blog written by lawyers, we'll deal with the legal implications.  And as lawyers, we're forced to play the spoilsport.  As set forth below, such a scheme can be done legally (just as it could be on terrestrial radio with the proper disclosures).  But, while there has been no legal enforcement of such activities, careful Internet radio operators would best be advised to be careful about just taking the money and playing songs, but instead should make some disclosure of the nature of the service that they are providing.

The payola statute, 47 USC Section 508, applies to radio stations and their employees, so by its terms it does not apply to Internet radio (at least to the extent that Internet Radio is not transmitted by radio waves - we'll ignore questions of whether Internet radio transmitted by wi-fi, WiMax or cellular technology might be considered a "radio" service for purposes of this statute).  But that does not end the inquiry.  Note that neither the prosecutions brought by Eliot Spitzer in New York state a few years ago nor the prosecution of legendary disc jockey Alan Fried in the 1950s were brought under the payola statute.  Instead, both were based on state law commercial bribery statutes on the theory that improper payments were being received for a commercial advantage.  Such statutes are in no way limited to radio, but can apply to any business.  Thus, Internet radio stations would need to be concerned.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Share Link

The FCC's Notice of Inquiry and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Sponsorship Identification issues (which we summarized in our firm's advisory and about which we wrote here), which deals with a host of issues including embedded advertising and product placement, was published in the Federal Register late last week, starting the clock on the filing of comments.  Comments on this wide-ranging proceeding are due on September 22, and replies on October 22.  With the broad range of issues that are discussed in this proceeding, from proposed rules on the size and length of textual sponsorship identifications in television advertising to sponsorship identification requirements for live-read radio commercials, there is something on which almost every broadcaster will want to comment.

A recent New York Times article helped bring the proceeding to the attention of the general public.  The article writes about television stations which are paid to have morning show hosts place coffee cups with identifiable logos (in this case cups of McDonalds coffee) on the desk of the news anchors of a morning news program.  Under some of the proposals identified in the Notice of Inquiry in this proceeding, some sort of identification (perhaps a crawl or superimposed message) of the sponsor for the placement of those cups would be required concurrently with the visual images of the cups on the screen.  The same would be true of the appearance of a product in any scripted comedy or drama, and perhaps even when feature films are run on TV in which the filmmaker was paid to include specific products in the movie.   Adoption of any of these suggestions could certainly change to face of broadcast television, particularly as it adapts its advertising practices to deal with Digital Video Recorders and other technological advances.  For broadcasters to retain their flexibility in such matters, they should file comments on or before the September 22 filing deadline. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Last week, the FCC commenced its long anticipated proceeding to reexamine its sponsorship identification rules. This proceeding has been rumored for over six months, having appeared on an agenda for a Commission open meeting in December, only to be pulled from the agenda days before it was to have been voted on. The Commission has initiated this proceeding, to a great degree, at the urging of Commissioner Adelstein who has been vocal in his concerns that the broadcast and advertising industries, in adopting advertising techniques to respond to technological and marketplace changes, has been exposing the public to commercial messages without their knowledge.  One of the principal practices of concern to the Commission, though not the only one, is embedded advertising (as the Commission refers to product placement and product integration into the dialog and/or plot of a program). While many of the trade press reports have focused on embedded advertising, this proceeding is wide-ranging and important to the broadcast, cable and advertising industries. Comments on the proceeding will be due 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register, with replies 30 days later.   We have prepared an Advisory, summarizing the issues raised by the Commission in this proceeding, which can be found here.

According to trade press reports, this proceeding was initially planned as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which would have proposed rules which, after public comment, could have been immediately adopted. After significant lobbying from the advertising community, the Notice was released in two parts. First, there is a Notice of Inquiry (NOI), asking a series of questions about the current state of advertising on broadcast and cable outlets, and asking how the Commission should amend its rules to deal with new advertising techniques. Second, the Commission’s announcement contains an NPRM with respect to certain specific items, including proposing to clarify the type of sponsorship identification necessary in television advertising, the extension of the sponsorship identification rules beyond local origination cablecasting to cable network programming, and clarification of the rules with respect to live-read radio commercials. The specifics of the NOI and the NPRM are set forth in our Advisory. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The FCC today adopted a Report on its Localism proceeding, accessing the evidence that it gathered in its three year long investigation of whether broadcasters were adequately serving the interests of their local communities.  We wrote long ago about some of the specific issues that the FCC was reviewing in this proceeding - everything from the public interest programming of broadcasters to their music selection process to their response to local emergencies.  Among the report's conclusions were findings that not all broadcasters were adequately assessing the needs of their communities or serving the public interest through coverage of local news and other local events.  Because of these perceived weaknesses in broadcaster performance, the FCC adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, much as we expected in our post here, tentatively concluding that re-regulation of the broadcast industry was necessary, bringing back some form of ascertainment and some specific quantifiable requirements for public interest programming. 

As in the case of the Multiple Ownership order adopted today (summarized here), the full text of the FCC Report and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has not been released.  Instead, only a short Public Notice, and the statements of the Commissioners at the meeting, are available to determine what was done.  From these notices, it appears that three tentative conclusions were reached.  They are, as follows:

• More Low Power TV stations should be able to get Class A status, meaning that they are no longer a secondary service that can be "bumped" by a new full power television station or by changes to the facilities of a full-power station
• Each licensee should be required to establish a community advisory board made up of specific groups of community leaders, with whom the station would meet on a regular basis to assess the needs of the community
• The FCC's license renewal standards should contain specific quantitative requirements for public service programming

While these may sound like noble decisions, there are many details and much history that the Commission needs to address before these proposals become final FCC rules.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The FCC has released its agenda for its December 18 meeting - and it promises to be one of the most important,and potentially most contentious, in recent memory.  On the agenda is the Commission's long awaited decision on the Chairman's broadcast multiple ownership plan relaxing broadcast-newspaper cross-ownership rules (see our summary here).  Also, the FCC will consider a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Localism issues (pending issues summarized here) following the conclusion of its nationwide hearings on the topic, as well as an Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on initiatives to encourage broadcast ownership by minorities and other new entrants (summary here).  For cable companies, the Commission has scheduled a proposed order on national ownership limits.  And, in addition to all these issues on ownership matters, the FCC will also consider revising its sponsorship identification rules to determine if new rules need to be adopted to cover "embedded advertising", i.e. product placement in broadcast programs.  All told, these rules could result in fundamental changes in the media landscape.

The broadcast ownership items, dealing with broadcast-newspaper cross-ownership, localism and diversity initiatives, all grow out of the Commission's attempts to change the broadcast ownership rules in 2003.  That attempt was largely rejected by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which remanded most of the rules back to the FCC for further consideration, including considerations about their impact on minority ownership.  The localism proceeding was also an outgrowth of that proceeding, started as an attempt by the Commission to deal with consolidation critics who felt that the public had been shut out of the process of determining the rules in 2003, and claiming that big media was neglecting the needs and interests of local audiences.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The FCC has taken the unusual step of issuing a Notice of Apparent Liability, i.e. an announcement that it has fined a broadcaster, against two TV station owners for failing to provide a sponsorship identification for political material sponsored by another Federal agency--the Department of Education ("DOE").  The proposed fines for these two broadcasters totaled over $70,000.  In connection with the same broadcasts, the Commission also issued a citation against the producer of the programs for failing to include a disclosure of the sponsor of the programs, warning that company that it would be fined if it were to engage in such activity in the future, even though the entity was not an FCC licensee.  These actions demonstrate the concern of the Commission over programs that attempt to influence the public, particularly those dealing with controversial issues of public importance, where those who have paid to do the convincing are not evident to the public.

These cases all stem from programs associated with conservative political commentator Armstrong Williams, who was paid by DOE to promote the controversial No Child Left Behind Act ("NCLBA") supported by the current administration.  He did so on two television programs:  his own show, titled "The Right Side with Armstrong Williams" and on "America's Black Forum," where he appeared as a guest.  These shows were aired by various television stations without any sponsorship identification to indicate that Williams was paid by DOE to promote NCLBA on the air.

In one case, the television broadcaster received $100 per broadcast for airing Right Side, but failed to reveal that it had received any consideration.  The broadcaster claimed that the consideration received was "nominal," which is generally an exception to the sponsorship ID requirement.  However, the FCC noted that the exception for "nominal" consideration applies only to "service or property" and not to "money," holding that receipt of any money, even if only a small sum, triggers the requirement for sponsorship identification.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

On Monday, the FCC issued a $4,000 fine to a cable operator for the use of a so-called Video News Release, or VNR, in a news segment focusing on consumer issues.   The facts in this case are very similar to the facts in dozens of other inquiries involving broadcast television stations that remain pending before the Commission, and this decision could very well signal the beginning of a number of forfeitures aimed at cracking down on the (until recently) common practice of using video material provided for free by third-parties without providing attribution or a sponsorship identification.  The decision was issued by the Enforcement Bureau and not the full Commission, and goes to lengths to explain that the sponsorship rules apply to cablecasting material aired by cable operators, and that the use of even a free video (i.e. with no consideration promised or paid to the cable operator or broadcaster) can require a sponsorship ID, even if no political or controversial issue is involved. 

In this case, a cable network aired potions of video from a VNR produced on behalf of a product called "Nelson's Rescue Sleep."  No consideration was given or promised to the cable operator, but the VNR was provided to the cable operator for free.  The sponsorship ID rules typically come into play when money, services, or other valuable consideration is given in exchange for airing the particular material.  Normally, the phrase "services or other valuable consideration" does not typically include services or property furnished without charge or at a nominal fee, such as the VNR.  In this case, however, the FCC concluded that the video was furnished in consideration for the product being identified to a degree greater than what was reasonably related to the use of the product or service in the broadcast. The VNR was included in a news segment about non-prescription sleep aids, but the segment did not contain any other sleep-aid products.  And (because it was a VNR for the product itself) the segment dwelled on and discussed at length the underlying product "Nelson's Rescue Sleep." Citing to a 44-year old FCC Public Notice that provided guidance to broadcasters in the early 1960s about the sponsorship ID rules, the FCC found that the use of the VNR in this situation obviated the exception for free material and that a sponsorship identification should have been included.   A copy of the FCC's decision is available here. 

The FCC's forfeiture order was adopted exactly one year to the day that the material was aired by the cable operator, and thus, seems to have been issued now so as to avoid the possibility that the statute of limitations prevent the Commission from issuing a fine.  Although this is the first such VNR fine against either a cable operator or television broadcaster, it seems likely that more such decisions will be forthcoming.  Indeed, Commissioner Adelstein, who has championed this novel interpretation of the sponsorship identification rules, was quick to issue a statement applauding the Enforcement Bureau for its decision.  Given that the decision seems to cross into the territory of a cable operator's or broadcaster's editorial and journalistic discretion protected by the First Amendment, one can imagine that the cable operator (and any broadcasters fined in the future) will attack vigorously the FCC's interpretation of its sponsorship ID rules with respect to VNRs.

UPDATE:  On Thursday (September 27, 2007), the Commission issued a further decision involving the same cable operator, fining the operator an additional $16,000 for four more VNR incidents similar to the one discussed above.  In each instance, the cable operator included video that was received for free in a program aired on the system without attribution or a sponsorship identification.  The Commission concluded that the free video clips contained extensive images, discussion, and mention of the particular product, which triggered the sponsorship ID rules.  A copy of that decision is available here. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

As reported in Digital Music News and other publications on Friday, Clear Channel Communications dropped its waiver of music royalties from its on-line agreement signed by musicians submitting songs to the Company in hopes that their music would be played on the Company's radio stations.  In writing about this decision, most publications attribute the decision to the petition filed with the FCC by the Future of Music Coalition and other public interest groups arguing that the waiver requests constituted a form of payola - the giving of something of value (the waiver of the right to receive a royalty) in exchange for the playing of music.  However, on close inspection, that would appear to be a misunderstanding of the royalty, as there would seem to be no royalty that would be affected by the waiver in connection with the playing of this music by radio stations, and therefore there would be no payola over which the FCC has any jurisdiction.

According to the Future of Music petition, Clear Channel's promise to play new music was made in connection with the payola settlement that it and other companies entered into with the FCC, and was apparently contained in a side letter filed with the FCC, as it was not spelled out in the settlement agreements themselves. See our analysis of the settlement agreements, here.  The side letter promised that the Company would dedicate a certain amount of radio airplay on the Company's radio stations to new local music.  However, such play would not implicate any music royalties - so a waiver of royalties would not confer any benefit on the Company.  Broadcast stations pay no royalty for the use of a sound recording - thus the waiver that Clear Channel requested was without any value as there was no royalty to waive.  While broadcast stations do pay a royalty for the composition (the underlying words and music of a song), stations play flat fees to ASCAP and BMI that are a function of the station's market size and power - not a function of how many songs are played.  Thus, as there is no sound recording royalty and a flat fee for the composition royalty unaffected by any waivers, the waiver did not confer any benefit to the Company in connection with its broadcast operations.  Thus, there where would appear to be no payola issue over which the FCC would have any jurisdiction.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

In April, the FCC agreed to Consent Decrees calling for fines totaling $12.5 million from four of the country's largest radio broadcasters in order to settle allegations that these companies had engaged in violations of the FCC's payola rules. Recently, another public radio company stated in one of its SEC filings that it had received an inquiry from the FCC about practices at its stations, and rumors have been heard in Washington that there have been letters of inquiry on the subject sent out to other broadcast companies.  With this atmosphere, we thought that an analysis of the terms of the Consent Decrees, which imposed very specific operating conditions on these broadcast companies, was in order.  Thus, we have just published a detailed analysis, A $12.5 Million Teaching Tool - The Payola Consent Decrees, here.  This memo details provisions of those Consent Decrees which impose conditions on these companies requiring, among other things: limits on gifts that their employees can take from representatives of record companies, reporting requirements about their dealings with music companies, and requirements for the education of these companies employees about the requirements of the payola rules.  As set out in the memo, these Consent Decrees can serve as a set of best practices for all broadcasters in complying with the payola rules.

With the FCC restarting its Localism proceeding, about which we wrote yesterday, which asked for public comment on payola practices of broadcasters, the FCC's focus on payola has not abated with the $12.5 million fines imposed by the Consent Decrees.  So broadcasters should be assessing their policies to make sure that, if they get an inquiry letter from the FCC, they are able to provide responses that would lead to trouble.  We hope that this memo helps with that assessment.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The FCC today issued the long-awaited text of its decision on Digital Audio radio - the so-called IBOC system.  As we have written, while adopted at its March meeting, the text of the decision has been missing in action.  With the release of the decision, which is available here, the effective date of the new rules can be set in the near future - 30 days after its publication in the Federal Register.  With the Order, the Commission also released its Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, addressing a host of new issues - some not confined to digital radio, but instead affecting the obligations of all radio operations.

The text provides the details for many of the actions that were announced at the March meeting, including authorizing the operation of AM stations in a digital mode at night, and the elimination of the requirements that stations ask permission for experimental operations before commencing multicast operations.  The Order also permits the use of dual antennas - one to be used solely for digital use - upon notification to the FCC.  In addition, the order addresses several other matters not discussed at the meeting, as set forth below. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Share Link

The FCC today issued a Public Notice announcing that it has approved four consent decrees settling its investigation into possible payola violations by several large radio broadcasters.  A copy of the public notice summarizing the action is available here, and copies of the full consent decrees can be found on www.fcc.gov.   

CBS Radio, Citadel Broadcasting Corporation, Clear Channel Communications, Inc. and Entercom Communications Corp. each entered into a consent decree with the Commission to end the FCC's investigation into possible violations of the payola rules for failing to provide the required sponsorship identification related to material broadcast on the stations.  In addition to making a combined contribution of $12.5 million to the U.S. Treasury, the broadcasters agreed to implement certain business reforms and compliance measures, such as:

• Prohibiting stations and employees from exchanging airtime for cash or items of value except under certain circumstances;
• Placing limits on gifts, concert tickets, and other valuable items from record labels to company stations or employees;
• Appointing compliance officers who will be responsible for monitoring and reporting company performance under the consent decrees; and
• Providing regular training to programming personnel on payola restrictions.

The consent decrees contain a fair amount of detail regarding the documentation and monitoring that will be required by these stations under these agreements, as well as new details regarding the interaction between radio stations and record promoters.  We are preparing a full summary of the consent decrees, along with an analysis of the impact these orders may have on broadcast radio, so check back early next week. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Share Link

In the agenda for next week's FCC meeting, one of the items to be discussed is the proposed acquisition by Citadel Communications of the radio stations currently owned by ABC Radio, a subsidiary of the Disney Company.  As Citadel is one of the broadcasters against which payola issues have reportedly been raised, certain parties objected to this transaction based on these and other issues.  As we have reported, there have been rumors of a large payola settlement between the FCC and broadcast companies including Citadel involving millions of dollars in fines.  As the agenda item for next week's meeting indicates that the Commission will consider not only the proposed acquisition of the stations, but also a Notice of Apparent Liability, will this be the first case to actually impose the rumored fines for payola?  Watch the FCC meeting next week to see if payola issues are in fact resolved.  We'll also see if the FCC provides any guidance on payola issues, and what kinds of conduct it sees as being prohibited by the payola rules.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

For weeks, there have been rumors that the FCC would soon settle allegations of payola against four of the nation's largest radio operators.  According to an article in the New York Times, a settlement has in fact been reached - resulting in a $12.5 million fine.  Coming on the heels of the rumored $24 million settlement with Univision for violations of the children's television rules, this may evidence a new "get tough" policy with rule violators by the FCC.

According to the Times article, the payola settlement agreement was reached at the same time as an agreement between these companies and the Association of Independent Music agreeing to devote substantial broadcast time to independent music.  The consent decree with the FCC also reportedly places a number of conditions on the broadcasters similar to those agreed to in consent decrees with then NY State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.   We suggested a number of ways for broadcasters to avoid problems with the FCC rules dealing with payola issues in an advisory, here.  While payola has always been a serious issue - in fact one that could result in criminal time - the reported fines should make this a top-of-mind issue for all broadcasters.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

About this time every year, predictions are offered as to what will happen in the coming year.  Since everyone else does it, we've offered our own predictions as to what Washington has in store for the broadcast industry in 2007.  Find a copy of our predictions in the memo on our firm website, here.  The advisory offers our thoughts on many of the regulatory issues affecting broadcasters that may well come out of Washington this year.  Our observations are offered on the status of considerations including multiple ownership, the digital television transition, payola, indecency, Internet radio and even the political broadcasting rules. 

Let us know if you think our crystal ball is a little cloudy.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

This article is no longer available. For more information on this topic, see $12.5 Million Fine For Payola Violations

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Today, press reports stated that the FCC has sent letters of inquiry to 77 television stations inquiring about their use of Video News Releases (VNRs) without properly notifying their audience about the source of such releases.  VNRs are essentially pre-produced segments provided to television stations for inclusion in their programming.  The Washington Post carried a story, here, describing some of the stories which triggered the FCC investigation.  These reportedly included a report from an electronics show used by several TV stations in their news reports.  The producer of the report had been paid by the electronics manufacturers featured in the story for including their products in the story.

The FCC released a Public Notice in April, 2005 detailing its policies on VNRs.  The Public Notice makes clear that a station must disclose who paid for material broadcast on a station, whether or not the station received the consideration.  Clearly, if an advertiser paid a station for airing a news report, the station would be required to disclose the payment.  But the Public Notice makes clear that the station also owes its audience a disclosure even if it received no consideration, if the party that produced the material broadcast on the station received some consideration, and the station could discover that consideration by asking the producer if he or she was paid or through other means of reasonable investigation. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link