November 2023

Even with the holidays upon us, regulation never stops.  There are numerous regulatory dates in December to which broadcasters need to keep in mind.  Furthermore, as the 2024 presidential campaign is already underway, there are political advertising deadlines to watch out for.  Here are some of the upcoming deadlines:

December 1 is the filing deadline for Biennial Ownership Reports by all licensees of commercial and noncommercial full-power TV/AM/FM stations, Class A TV stations, and LPTV stations.  The reports must reflect station ownership as of October 1, 2023 (see our article here on the FCC’s recent reminder about these reports).  The FCC has been pushing for stations to fill these out completely and accurately by the deadline (see this reminder issued by the FCC last week), as the Commission uses these reports to get a snapshot of who owns and controls what broadcast stations, including information about the race and gender of station owners and their other broadcast interests (see our article from 2021 about the importance the FCC attaches to these filings). Continue Reading December Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – Biennial Ownership Reports, Annual EEO Public File Reports, LPFM Filing Window, LUC Political Windows for 2024 Election, and More

For the last few years at this time of the year, we’ve departed from our usual coverage of legal and policy issues to talk about something else – broadcasters giving back.  With Giving Tuesday upon us, we wanted to urge our readers to consider ways to give back to our industry.  I guess it is now a tradition, so we’ll do it again this year and suggest some of the many ways we can express our thanks to the industry in which we work.  Broadcasters have long been known for their service to their communities, service benefitting individuals and groups across the country.  While broadcasters are always giving back to their communities and should be celebrated for that, those of us who make our living in some aspect of the industry should recognize that there are plenty of ways for us to give back as well – both to those associated with the industry who have fallen on hard times, and to those who need assistance in obtaining education and training to enter the media industry we so appreciate.  We should all be thankful for jobs, friends, and good fortune. But we should also ourselves give back where possible.  In the broadcast industry itself, there are many groups doing good work.

One that bears mention is the Broadcasters Foundation of America, which provides relief to broadcasters and former broadcasters who have, for one reason or another, fallen on hard times – whether that be for health reasons or because of some other disaster that has affected their lives. The Foundation deserves your consideration. More about the Foundation and its service, and ways to contribute, can be found at their website, here.Continue Reading Giving Back to the Broadcast Industry on Giving Tuesday

Even after yesterday’s deadline for filing ETRS Form Three in connection with the nationwide test of the Emergency Alert System back in October, there are two more deadlines coming next week that broadcasters should bear in mind.  As you prepare to celebrate the Thanksgiving holiday, don’t forget these FCC deadlines.  Most broadcasters have received plenty of notice about the December 1 deadline for Biennial Ownership Reports.  The FCC has been pushing for stations to fill these out completely and accurately by the deadline (see this reminder issued by the FCC just yesterday), as the Commission uses these reports to get a snapshot of who owns and controls what broadcast stations.  The reports also provide information about ownership diversity as they request information about the gender, race, and ethnicity of attributable owners.  The reports are required for all full-power stations (both commercial and noncommercial stations are covered) and for LPTV stations.  For more about the biennial ownership report filing requirement and the importance that the FCC puts on these reports, see our 2021 article here.

A deadline that has not received as much publicity is the November 29 deadline for users of the “13 GHz” spectrum to certify to the FCC that their systems are being used where licensed, or to file applications to modify the systems to accurately reflect their current use.  The spectrum, which includes operations from 12.7 to 13.25 GHz, is used by some broadcasters for Electronic News Gathering and for Studio Transmitter Links.  There may be other broadcast auxiliary uses beyond ENG and STLs that are also conducted in this band, so check your operations to see if a filing is required.Continue Reading Reminder: Deadlines Next Week for Biennial Ownership Reports and Filings to Preserve and Protect Broadcast Auxiliary Operations in the 12.7-13.25 GHz (13 GHz) Band

  • The NAB and REC Networks, an LPFM advocacy organization, jointly requested an extension of the December 12, 2023 deadline for
…
  • The FCC has until December 27th to comply with a court order requiring the agency to conclude its still-pending
…

Facebook parent Meta announced this week that it will require labeling on ads using artificial intelligence or other digital tools regarding elections and political and social issues. Earlier this week, we wrote about the issues that AI in political ads pose for media companies and about some of the governmental regulations that are being considered (and the limited rules that have thus far been adopted).  These concerns are prompting all media companies to consider how AI will affect them in the coming election, and Meta’s announcement shows how these considerations are being translated into policy.

The Meta announcement sets out situations where labeling of digitally altered content will be required.  Such disclosure of the digital alteration will be required when digital tools have been used to:

  • Depict a real person as saying or doing something they did not say or do; or
  • Depict a realistic-looking person that does not exist or a realistic-looking event that did not happen, or alter footage of a real event that happened; or
  • Depict a realistic event that allegedly occurred, but that is not a true image, video, or audio recording of the event.

The Meta announcement makes clear that using AI or other digital tools to make inconsequential changes that don’t impact the message of the ad (they give examples of size adjusting, cropping an image, color correction, or image sharpening) will be permitted without disclosure.  But even these changes can trigger disclosure obligations if they are in fact consequential to the message.  In the past, we’ve seen allegations of attack ads using shading or other seemingly minor changes to depict candidates in ways that make them appear more sinister or which otherwise convey some other negative message – presumably the uses that Meta is seeking to prohibit. 

This change will be applicable not just to US elections, but worldwide.  Already, I have seen TV pundits, when asked about the effect that the new policy will have, suggesting that what is really important is what other platforms, including television and cable, do to match this commitment.  So we thought that we would look at the regulatory schemes that, in some ways, limit what traditional electronic media providers can do in censoring political ads.  As detailed below, broadcasters, local cable companies, and direct broadcast satellite television providers are subject to statutory limits under Section 315 of the Communications Act that forbid them from “censoring” the content of candidate advertising.  Section 315 essentially requires that candidate ads (whether from a federal, state, or local candidate) be run as they are delivered to the station – they cannot be rejected based on their content.  The only exception thus far recognized by the FCC has been for ads that have content that violates federal criminal law.  There is thus a real question as to whether a broadcaster or cable company could impose a labeling requirement on candidate ads given their inability to reject a candidate ad based on its content.  Note, however, that the no-censorship requirement only applies to candidate ads, not those purchased by PACs, political parties, and other non-candidate individuals or groups.  So, policies like that adopted by Meta could be considered for these non-candidate ads even by these traditional platforms. Continue Reading Meta to Require Labeling of Digitally Altered Political Ads (Including Those Generated By AI) – Looking at the Rules that Apply to Various Media Platforms Limiting Such Policies on Broadcast and Cable

In the Washington Post last weekend, an op-ed article suggested that political candidates should voluntarily renounce the use of artificial intelligence in their campaigns.  The article seemed to be looking for candidates to take the actions that governments have largely thus far declined to mandate.  As we wrote back in July, despite calls from some for federal regulation of the use of AI-generated content in political ads, little movement in that direction has occurred. 

As we noted in July, a bill was introduced in both the Senate and the House of Representatives to require that there be disclaimers on all political ads using images or video generated by artificial intelligence, in order to disclose that they were artificially generated (see press release here), but there has been little action on that legislation.  The Federal Election Commission released a “Notice of Availability” in August (see our article here) asking for public comment on whether it should start a rulemaking to determine if the use of deepfakes and other synthetic media imitating a candidate violate FEC rules that forbid a candidate or committee from fraudulently misrepresenting that they are “speaking or writing or otherwise acting for or on behalf of any other candidate or political party or employee or agent thereof on a matter which is damaging to such other candidate or political party or employee or agent thereof.”  Comments were filed last month (available here), and include several (including those of the Republican National Committee) that question the authority of the FEC to adopt any rules in this area, both as a matter of statutory authority and under the First Amendment.  Such comments do not portend well for voluntary limits by candidates, nor for actions from an FEC that by law has 3 Republican and 3 Democratic commissioners.Continue Reading Artificial Intelligence in Political Ads – Media Companies Beware

Monday was the 85th anniversary of the Mercury Players broadcast of the Orson Welles production of The War of the Worlds – a radio broadcast that seemingly scared many Americans into thinking that the country was under attack by Martians, that my home state of New Jersey had been overrun, and that the rest of the country would soon follow.  There has been much media coverage of that broadcast in the last week.  Ten years ago, on its 75th anniversary, we wrote an article that is worth revisiting now, with some edits to look at more recent activity that might bear on any repeat of The War of the Worlds controversy.

On the 75th anniversary of The War of the Worlds broadcast, PBS’s American Experience ran a great documentary about the production – talking about Orson Welles’ decision to delay an announcement that the program was a fictional production, not a real invasion, long after his network superiors ordered that announcement because the network phone lines were tied up with anxious callers.  Also tied up were the phone lines of emergency responders, and the broadcast supposedly caused people to leave their homes to flee the path of the oncoming invaders.  The PBS program talked about how the FCC opened an investigation into the program, and how Congress demanded that laws be passed to prevent such a broadcast from happening again.  Essentially, through some well-publicized apologies by Welles and others involved in the program, and a promise by the network to take steps to prevent it from happening again, the FCC closed its investigation, and no law was passed by Congress.  Even though the government did not act 75 years ago, it is interesting to look at how the FCC has changed since that time, and why such a broadcast would not fly under FCC rules today.Continue Reading Orson Welles’ War of the Worlds Turns 85 – Could the Panic It Caused Happen Today?