On Line Media

Subscribe to On Line Media via RSS

The unusual story of the sale of TEGNA Inc. has seemingly (more on that below) come to an end after a four-year FCC review process, encompassing two attempted purchases, two administrative actions involving multiple rule waivers and novel questions of law, but no rulings by the Commissioners themselves. On Thursday, the FCC’s Media Bureau issued an order approving the transfer of control of the company to Nexstar Media and the deal was closed by the parties that same day.  Today, we look back at the unusual actions leading to the sale of TEGNA and at what last week’s approval may preview as to major changes ahead for the broadcast industry .

The unusual nature of the sale of TEGNA did not start with last week’s decision but instead began in 2022 when TEGNA first announced its plan to be acquired by Standard General.  After an application seeking approval for that sale was filed, objections were submitted from labor organizations, public interest groups, and representatives from the multichannel video provider community.  Despite divestiture plans to bring Standard General into compliance with the FCC’s television ownership rules, in 2023, the FCC’s Media Bureau, after a full year of consideration, decided that it could not reach a decision on the case, but that the case had to be reviewed by an FCC Administrative Law Judge to hold a hearing to decide two issues – neither of which had ever been the source for the rejection of a broadcast sale in the past. Continue Reading FCC Media Bureau Approves Nexstar’s Acquisition of TEGNA – What Does It Mean for Consideration of the Broadcast Ownership Rules? 

…

This past weekend, we saw an ad posted on YouTube attacking Democratic Senatorial candidate James Talarico – using words that were apparently from his own tweets, commenting on a number of social issues.  What made the ad notable was that the words from the tweets were not just displayed on the screen or read by some anonymous announcer, but instead they were stitched together and read in what was seemingly Talarico’s own voice accompanied by a very convincing AI image of Talarico himself, and interjections were included where his AI image said approvingly things about the tweets like “I remember this one” and “so true.”   It is only apparent that the ad was not an actual recording of Talarico delivering the message by a small disclaimer in one corner of the ad labeling it “AI Generated.”  The ad is a very convincing portrayal of Talarico, and we expect similar ads will show up during the course of the current election cycle.  Broadcasters and all other media companies need to be ready to deal with ads like these and comply with all legal obligations that apply to such advertising.

We have written before about the efforts during the last administration by the FCC, the Federal Election Commission (see our note here and our article here), and by Congress to regulate the use of AI in political ads on a national level.  Those efforts did not lead to national rules on such uses.  However, the majority of states have adopted some rules for the use of AI in political ads.  For media companies, the biggest issue is that these rules are not uniform but instead impose different obligations to avoid legal liability.

We last wrote extensively about the state laws affecting the use of artificial intelligence in political ads about two years ago, when only 11 states had adopted such rules.  Since then, more than 20 other states have adopted rules – and the obligations they impose are all over the board.  Some states (like Minnesota) make it illegal to use AI in political ads to portray a candidate doing something that they did not actually do unless the candidate consents.  Most do not go that far but instead require some form of disclosure (like that in the anti-Tallarico ad, except that in many states, the required text for the disclosures is far more extensive, though those disclosure obligations are not uniform and, in a few states, the  disclosure requirements are inconsistent in the state’s own criminal and civil statutes). Continue Reading AI in Political Attack Ads – Watch State Laws on Deep Fakes and Synthetic Media in Political Content

  • Linking to a post from the President complaining about the accuracy of media coverage of the Iran conflict, FCC Chairman
…
  • The FCC’s Media Bureau issued a Public Notice seeking comment on how changes in the sports programming marketplace have impacted
…
  • FCC Chairman Carr announced that the FCC will be considering two orders concerning foreign ownership requirements, including those for broadcasters,
…

Today, we would normally publish our look back at the prior week’s regulatory activity of importance to broadcasters but, as we noted last week, we are taking this week off and will publish a summary of the regulatory activity during the two week holiday period next Sunday.  But, as the start of a new month is upon us, we instead offer our regular look ahead at regulatory dates and deadlines for January.   

With each New Year, there are a host of new regulatory deadlines to keep broadcasters busy.  In January, this includes some recurring FCC deadlines like Quarterly Issues/Programs lists for all full power broadcasters, and a host of other quarterly obligations that are not as widely applicable.  For TV broadcasters, the month brings obligations including the annual children’s television reports on educational and informational programming and a public file certification on commercial limits, as well as the extension to stations in 10 additional markets of the audio description requirements. 

In addition to comments in rulemaking proceedings described below, January brings some new obligations.  For commercial broadcasters streaming audio programming on the Internet, there are new SoundExchange royalties that cover performances made on and after January 1, and a requirement for a higher minimum fee due at the end of the month.  There is also a freeze that will be imposed on applications for major changes by existing LPTV stations and TV translators related to a window that will open in March, the first window in well over a decade for the filing of applications for new LPTV stations. 

Let’s look at some of the specific dates and deadlines for broadcasters in January, starting with the routine deadlines that come up every January, and then moving to some of new obligations for 2026.  After that we provide January deadlines for comments in rulemaking proceedings (including reply comments on proposed changes to the FCC’s ownership rules and initial comments on proposals to speed the ATSC 3.0 conversion), a look at lowest unit rate windows that open in January for 2026 elections, and finally a few deadlines in early February.Continue Reading January 2026 Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – Quarterly Issues/Programs Lists, Children’s Television Programming Reporting, New Webcasting Royalties, Expansion of Audio Description Requirements, Comment Deadlines, Political Windows, and More

Wasting no time following the reopening of the government, the FCC has published its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the 2022 Quadrennial Review in the Federal Register, setting December 17 as the deadline for initial comments on the questions asked by the FCC.  We summarized the issues raised by the FCC in our article here.  While the FCC will review the local radio ownership limits for television, following the prohibitions on owning two of the top 4 TV stations in a market being thrown out by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in July (see our article here), that FCC review will focus principally on whether the ownership limit of two TV stations in a market should be continued, or if one party should be able to own more. The 39% cap on national ownership of TV stations is being considered in a separate proceeding (see our discussion here).  The FCC will also look at the dual network rule, which currently forbids the common ownership of two of the top 4 TV networks.  With control issues seemingly settled for now at the networks, pressure to move on reform of that rule may have lessened.  Probably the biggest impact of the Quadrennial Review will be on radio, where the local ownership rules have remained unchanged since 1996, limiting one owner from owning more than 8 stations (only 5 of which can be FM stations) in even the biggest markets with more than 45 total stations. 

Radio’s role in the media marketplace has become more and more challenging over the last decade, as its traditional place in the car has been challenged by new audio entertainment options.  As those options proliferate, sounding and functioning  more and more like radio, they are becoming more accessible to the public and more and more popular with listeners.  Over-the-air radio now competes with streaming services, podcasts, satellite radio, and other audio media.  These changes in listening habits are coupled with a change in the advertising marketplace, as the digital media giants now take over two-thirds of the local advertising market that was once the province of radio, television and newspapers.Continue Reading December 17 Comment Date Set in 2022 Quadrennial Review Looking at Local Ownership Rules – What is at Stake, Particularly for Radio?

Every four years, the FCC is supposed to conduct a review of its local broadcast ownership rules – the rules that govern the number of radio or television stations in a market in which one person or entity may have an “attributable” interest (some form of control rights defined under very complicated FCC attribution rules). The FCC is supposed to do this regular assessment of these local ownership rules to determine if they continue to be necessary in the public interest as a result of changes in competition.  The last quadrennial review, which commenced in 2018, was not completed by the FCC until December 2023 when it released an order that, for all practical purposes, concluded that there had been no changes in the competition faced by broadcast stations.  In the 2023 order (which we summarized here), the Commission actually tightened the rules for television stations, and it left the rules for radio unchanged despite the significant competition from digital media that had exploded since the last review was completed (see for instance our article here on the explosion of digital competition and its effect on over-the-air radio).  Appeals of the 2023 decision were only resolved in July (see our article here).  With the decision on the appeal complete, the FCC Chair this week announced that the next Quadrennial Review would now begin in earnest. 

The next review, the 2022 Quadrennial Review, was actually started in late 2022 (even before the 2018 review was completed) with the release of a Public Notice (see our article here).  But that Public Notice only asked very general questions about the state of competition in the broadcast industry, and the previous administration took no further action after releasing the Public Notice.  This week, FCC Chairman Carr, in his blog post setting out the issues to be considered at the FCC’s September 30th regular monthly meeting, stated that a 2022 Quadrennial Review Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would be on the agenda.  That announcement was followed with a public draft of the NPRM that will be considered at the September 30 meeting.  While it is possible that some changes may be made in the draft, in practice these drafts are generally adopted with few significant modifications.  Thus, we now have an idea of the issues to be considered in the 2022 Review.Continue Reading FCC Begins Quadrennial Review of its Local Ownership Rules for Radio and TV – Should the FCC Relax Broadcast Ownership Rules Based on Competitive Factors?

  • The FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau announced that October 3 is the deadline for EAS Participants, including broadcasters,
…