Posted on July 19, 2009 by David Oxenford

The Potential for the Return of the Fariness Doctrine and the FCC's Assessment of the Quality of Broadcast News - What Would Walter Cronkite Think?

With much of the media world celebrating the life of Walter Cronkite this weekend, we have to wonder what he would have thought about press reports that the FCC is considering the commencement of a proceeding to investigate the status of broadcast journalism - assessing its quality, determining whether the Internet and other new sources are making up for any quality that is lost, and potentially deciding to mandate specific amounts of news coverage by broadcast stations. That surprising story about a planned FCC Notice of Inquiry on the state of broadcast journalism was reported in an an online report picked up by the broadcast trade press last week.  And even if that story is not true, concerns about the government's intrusion into a broadcaster's coverage of controversial issues arise from the recent Congressional committee action voting down a bill that would ban the FCC from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.  In what should have been a symbolic embrace of the First Amendment (symbolic as, in the last 6 weeks, four of the FCC Commissioners or Commissioners-to-be disavowed any interest in bringing back the Fairness Doctrine in their confirmation hearings ), the defeat of the bill raises questions as to whether someone has an agenda to resurrect the government's role in assessing broadcast media coverage of controversial issues.  In reading one of the many stories of the life of Cronkite (here, at page 3), we were stuck with the contrast between these actions, and the actions of Mr. Cronkite to address controversial issues - regardless of the FCC implications.  One anecdote related his questioning of John Kennedy about his religion when Kennedy thought that topic off limits, even in light of the potential president's veiled threat that, when he took office, he would be appointing the FCC who would be regulating CBS.  Do we really want the FCC to have that power to assess what journalism is good, or what opinions each station must air to ensure "fairness"?

In reviewing the many FCC Fairness Doctrine claims that CBS faced in the Cronkite era, we are struck with the amount of time and money that must have been spent in defending its coverage against critics from both the right and the left.  We also found one particularly relevant quote from Mr. Cronkite himself: 

That brings me to what I consider the greatest threat to freedom of information: the Government licensing of broadcasting. Broadcast news today is not free. Because it is operated by an industry that is beholden to the Government for its right to exist, its freedom has been curtailed by fiat, by assumption, and by intimidation and harassment. 

 

 In the last 20 years, since Mr. Cronkite's retirement as the CBS anchor, the FCC has steadily moved away from the role that he feared.  Yet with these recent actions, one wonders if there are some in government now trying to prove Mr. Cronkite's concerns correct.

We are somewhat dubious that the FCC has the resources to assess “quality” journalism.  But even if it was to apply resources to the task, how can it do so consistent with the First Amendment?  Such an investigation would be a retreat from the FCC's open-minded recognition in the last decade that the public receives information from many types of broadcast programming - not just the so-called "hard news."  In the political broadcasting arena, the FCC has recognized that the broadcast audience can obtain valuable information, information worth protecting as “bona fide news interviews” not subject to the equal time rule, from diverse sources – even from programs as diverse as Entertainment Tonight, The Tonight Show or Howard Stern (see our post here).  While these programs may not be the ones that some people think should exemplify sources of news and information for the public, others may well see these programs are providing commentary on issues about which they care. Should the government forbid that choice? 

The justification for any regulation mandating “good news” might include the claim that a mandate is not saying that programs such as ET or Howard Stern should not air, just that "quality news" should also be aired.  But any mandate to air any sort of program has its consequences in that there is simply a limited amount of broadcast time.  Mandating some types of programs will of necessity require that others not be aired. For the government to make the decisions as to what will air and what will not would seem to violate the First Amendment. Whenever I look at these sorts of issues, I always ask “what if that regulation was applied to a newspaper? Would it seem reasonable under the First Amendment?”  In this case, imagine if the Federal government was to tell the New York Times, or the New York Post (or, for that matter, the National Enquirer) that it didn’t like the quality of some of its stories, and it should only publish more stories that were “quality” stories. You could imagine the howls of protest that would follow. Shouldn’t those same howls follow here?

 

Any proposal to mandate news on every station looks back to a different time in broadcasting, the time in which Walter Cronkite could be the most trusted man in American.  It was a time when there were three commercial television stations in most markets, and a handful of radio stations, and all could afford to do news. Along with the local newspaper (or newspapers), these were the only real sources of breaking news in a community.  In today’s media world, that simply is not the case. The competition for the delivery of news and information is just too vast.  Thirty years ago, this blog or the thousands like it would not have existed.  Just as newspapers are having tremendous financial difficulties because of enormous amount of media competition (and accelerated by the slump in advertising sales tied to the state of the economy), broadcasters too are feeling the same pressures. On the same day that the story about the potential FCC investigation of broadcast news broke, another story ran in the Washington Post, reporting on the reorganization and potential downsizing of the newsroom at NBC’s Washington DC owned and operated station – one of the DC market's news leaders for many years.   When successful network owned stations are forced to change their operations to adapt to the new media marketplace, one recognizes that this is simply not the same media world that may have existed 30 years ago.

 

Media fragmentation leads to the fragmentation in the delivery of news and information.  The government cannot put the genie back in the bottle.  To mandate that each station cover the "news" in a community, when each station may be catering to just a niche audience in that community, is to miss the reality of today's media.  To force perceived "fairness" on every issue is to insure bland programming that stays away from controversial viewpoints (see some of our previous posts on this issue). 

 

We trust that we are reading far more into the press report of the FCC Notice of Inquiry, and into the action of the House Committee on the Fairness Doctrine.  At this time when we honor a giant of broadcast journalism, let's hope that the government honors his legacy, and ensures that the broadcast press remains free. 
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted on May 25, 2009 by David Oxenford

Localism Without Government Regulation

This past week, I attended the BIAfn Winning Media Strategies Conference in Washington, DC.  During the course of the conference, there was much talk about how broadcasters and publishers need to provide unique service to their communities in order to survive in the competitive media marketplace.  The point was made over and over again that, in each market there are unique attributes and personalities that a station should be covering in its programming, and should be exploiting even more broadly through their digital assets, to tie it to its community.  Only by doing so will the station be able to survive in the new media environment - and by doing so, the station may be able to thrive.  In fact, I was stuck by a statement by USC's Adam Clayton Powell III that domination of the local online and digital media marketplace was "the broadcasters to lose."  In other words, the broadcaster has such unque promotional abilities with its current audience that it can establish its brand in the online and in the mobile world far easier than other media players.  But there were also the repeated warning that there is more and more competition for this local digital market from new entrants and other media entities and that, if the broadcasters did not take advantage of their current advantage, the local service would come from someone else.  What most stuck me was that there was no question that the superservice to local needs would be coming from someone - broadcaster or not - as a result of marketplace developments, not because of any government mandate.  The broadcaster has to adapt to and compete in this new media marketplace or become culturally and economically irrelevant.  The broadcaster needs to serve the local market to meet these challenges, not because some Washington agency has ordered him to do so.  And the broadcaster needs to serve his community in a way that the public will find compelling, not in a way that the government thinks is best.

At BIAfn, the presentation that made the greatest impact was probably that of Greenspun Media from Las Vegas, which has reinvented a secondary newspaper and a Low Power TV station as an on-line powerhouse, uncovering the aspects of the community that would draw the largest audience and covering that information in great detail.  The Las Vegas Sun site not only covers hard news, but also the gaming industry, University of Las Vegas sports and even state government issues in a way that its audience seems to find interesting.  Even a history of Las Vegas, in great detail, is included.  And video plays a big part of the site, with the company in development of a hip news and events program, 702.tv, that will soon be a daily program on the television station and online (featuring local "celebrities" doing the weather, including strippers and Neil Diamond sound-alikes).  While some attendees at the conference thought that Las Vegas presented unique opportunities that might not be available in all communities, many were immediately speculating on the opportunities in their own communities to find unique personalities and events that could be developed on-air and on-line in ways to maximize their connection with their audience. 

After the conference on Friday, I found two emails waiting in my inbox from broadcast industry pundits, both echoing the same sentiment that was reflected at the conference - that broadcasters need to take advantage of their current connection with their markets to grow their digital platforms, or someone else will come along and preempt the opportunity.  See the comments from Hear 2.0 and Inside Music Media - both making the case that broadcasters must change to serve their communities to meet the new competitive threats.  The message seems clear - broadcasters need to serve their communities or someone else will (see this blog post by USC Professor David Westphal, cited by Powell in his remarks, about how these other new media entrants can micro-target audiences and survive economically) .

All of these commentators seem to agree that there will be more and more service to local communities - either provided by broadcasters or by someone else.  And this service will be provided without the need for any FCC mandates.  The service will come if there is a market for that service - a need that can't be artificially manufactured by government fiat.  The FCC in the mid-1980s recognized that a broadcaster would either provide local service or be replaced by someone else who would, justifying the abolition of detailed public interest requirements.  This was a full decade before the service that is now provided by the Internet was even a possibility.  To now talk about reviving those detailed localism mandates, when the competition is far greater than anything imagined in the 1980s, seems almost impossible to justify.  We'll see what happens as the FCC deals with its localism proceeding in the near future.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted on December 17, 2008 by David Oxenford

Detroit Newspapers Cut Back on Publishing and Home Delivery - What's the Impact on FCC Ownership Regulation?

Yesterday, the Detroit Free Press and the Detroit Morning News, which operate their publication and distribution operations through a joint operating agreement, announced that they will cut back on the physical publication of their papers - publishing full editions delivered to homes only three days a week.  On other days, the papers will publish an abbreviated version, available only on newsstands.  The papers will not abandon news coverage the remainder of the week, but will instead concentrate on their on-line presence, showing the power of the Internet to disrupt traditional media.  As we said years ago in one of our first posts on this blog - New Media Changes Everything, and it seems that this is just another indication of how true that is.  The broadcast media, particularly radio, has often looked at the advertisers served by the daily paper as a ripe source of new business, and may well see the Detroit change as a major business opportunity.  But does it also change the FCC's consideration of the multiple ownership rules applicable to radio and television cross-ownership with newspapers?

The FCC's multiple ownership rules prohibit the ownership of a broadcast station and a "daily" newspaper that serve the same area.  The rules define a daily paper as one that is "published" at least four days each week, and is circulated "generally in the community."  Here, the Detroit papers arguably will not meet that 4 day a week requirement - at least for a publication that is generally circulated throughout the community.  Of course, some may argue that the abbreviated newsstand copy constitutes a daily publication but one would assume that, sooner or later, even that will disappear.  Thus, while there has been so much controversy about the Commission's decision of one year ago (summarized here) deciding that combinations of broadcast properties and newspapers in Top 20 markets were presumed to be permissible, while those in smaller markets were not, one questions whether this still makes any sense in today's marketplace where seemingly few can profitably publish a daily paper in most markets, and no one seems to want to rescue the many papers that have fallen on hard times. 

The rules adopted last year allow newspaper-broadcast combinations in markets smaller than the Top 20, if it can be shown that the broadcaster will add substantial new news programming, or that one of the participants is "failed or failing," FCC speak for operating at a financial loss for a sustained period.  But any such showing takes months if not years to get through the FCC, and the recent economic news from both the broadcast and newspaper worlds makes one wonder if a failing property will be able to wait for such a review - or if the cost and delay are even necessary in today's media environment where on-line media seems to be taking a bigger and bigger chunk of the advertising and viewing pie.  I recently heard a reporter from one of the broadcast trade press outlets ask the rhetorical question - "will the FCC's cross-interest rules banning broadcast-newspaper cross ownership outlast the newspaper industry itself."  Unless the FCC changes course and adapts to today's media reality, that may well be the case. 
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,