The FCC today released a Public Notice announcing that it had sent EEO audit letters to approximately 150 radio and television stations around the country. The Public Notice contains a list of the stations being audited. In its Order adopting the current EEO rules, the FCC promised to audit about 5% of all stations each
Fun With Low Power FM
Two recent FCC cases set confusing and perhaps dangerous precedents for the use of Low Power FM stations. In one case, the FCC allowed a pirate operator that they had shut down for an illegal operation to then resume operations under Special Temporary Authority (apparently following Congressional intervention). In another case, where protests were lodged about the sale and probable format change of a noncommercial station, the FCC directed the opening of a special filing window for an LPFM in that community to provide a replacement service. While the motivation of the FCC in each case may have been laudable, do these cases establish expectations on the part of other similarly situated parties that cannot be met in future cases?
According to a news article, the FCC, at the urging of Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, authorized a pirate radio station to continue operations under Special Temporary Authority until the next low power FM application window opens. After first shutting the station down for operating without a license, the FCC then permitted the station to resume operations to provide a local service to a small Nevada community. According to the article, the expectation is that the operator would file for a permanent license once the FCC opens a window for filing applications for new Low Power FM stations. While service to the Nevada community may be laudable, doesn’t this decision encourage others to start pirate stations in unserved communities, and then ask that their service be permitted to continue under temporary authority if the FCC finds them and shuts them down? And even if the FCC would allow such operations, these process puts the parties operating at risk, as they may continue to operate stations, and then they may face a competing applicant during the next LPFM window. Under the FCC’s policies for picking between mutually exclusive applicants, the established party could still end up not being the preferred applicant, and would have to shut the station down – taking away a service that the STA has allowed to become even more established in the community. Continue Reading Fun With Low Power FM
The RAB Convention – Not Your Father’s Radio Sales Convention
I’ve just returned from this year’s Radio Advertising Bureau convention in Dallas. In reflecting on the convention, and in discussing it with many who were in attendance, the consensus was that this was not your Father’s RAB convention. I was surprised by how little discussion there was of traditional radio at the conference. The sessions weren’t the typical
Editorials Oppose Return of the Fairness Doctrine
Last week, we wrote about the potential return of the Fairness Doctrine, reminding broadcasters what the doctrine had really meant – free commercials to groups that wanted to respond to purchased ads addressing controversial issues of public importance, and few if any editorials or controversial programming that took a position on issues, as that would also
The Year of the Contest Gone Wrong
When was there ever a year where there was more controversy about contests and promotions? This week, the stories were everywhere about how Boston was shut down by the promotion for a program on the Cartoon Network. While all the facts are not in on that case, had this been conducted by a broadcaster, the FCC might well be investigating to determine if the promotion violates the Commission’s hoax policies, which prohibit the airing of hoaxes that endanger the public by tying up emergency responders.
The FCC already seems to be investigating the contest gone wrong in Sacramento. According to trade press reports, FCC Chairman Martin asked the Enforcement Branch of the FCC to review the contest that resulted in the death of a participant. While the FCC may investigate any matter, what is it that they are looking for in connection with the Sacramento contest? Certainly, the contest was a tragic event. And there is the possibility of civil liability from the lawsuit that was filed last week. But not every action by a broadcaster can or should be the subject of FCC action. The FCC has never become involved in libel or slander cases, leaving them to the jurisdiction of the civil courts. Nor has the FCC become involved in cases of personal or property damage from accidents or injuries caused by broadcast vehicles or other equipment. Again – those matters are left to the Courts.
The Fairness Doctrine – Prescription for Bland Broadcasting
The new Congress has started its oversight of the FCC, and one of the first topics to be brought up is the reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine. Presidential candidate and head of the House of Representatives Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Government Reform Committee, Dennis Kucinich, was the first to call for hearings about the reintroduction of the doctrine. Others have joined in that cry, including it in a bill introduced in the House and Senate to reform the media ownership rules. But do these perhaps well-intentioned Congressmen really remember what the Fairness Doctrine meant? Basically, bland broadcasting.
The Fairness Doctrine was, for the most part, declared unconstitutional by the FCC in the late 1980s (though some limited aspects of the policy have persisted until very recently). The Commission decision finding the Doctrine to be unconstitutional made sense, as its application clearly abridged the free speech rights of broadcasters. Basically, the Fairness Doctrine required fair and balanced coverage of all controversial issues of public importance. While that may sound like a good goal (one good enough to be adopted by Fox News), in fact it resulted in bland programming. Continue Reading The Fairness Doctrine – Prescription for Bland Broadcasting
Regulation of Violent Programming on Congress’ Agenda?
Yesterday, we wrote about a government task force, in which the FCC is playing a starring role, to study the media’s impact on obesity. Now, press reports indicate that violent programming on TV may be the subject of Congressional scrutiny this year. An LA Times report cites a number of influential lawmakers as wanting to initiate a
FCC Approves Initiation of Mobile Multimedia Service on Television Channels
The FCC yesterday adopted two orders approving the initiation of operations by Qualcomm of its MediaFLO wireless multimedia system on television channel 55 in the Richmond/Norfolk area of Virginia, and in St. Louis Missouri. Qualcomm purchased the nationwide rights to use Channel 55 in an FCC spectrum auction several years ago. At the end of the
Task Force on Media and Childhood Obesity Formed
In a Public Notice issued today, the FCC announced the membership of a Task Force to study how the Media affects childhood obesity. We reported on the formation of the task force in October, but its membership is just being announced, and its first meeting will be taking place on Valentines Day (probably without red
Supreme Court to Decide on More Political Advertising
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ("BCRA") adopted in 2002 prohibits the purchase of broadcast commercials by labor unions and corporations using their general funds during the 30 days before a Federal primary and the 60 days prior to a Federal general election. The Act prohibited these "electioneering communications," and essentially defined an electioneering communication as any mention of a Federal candidate. The Supreme Court this past week decided to hear the appeal of a US District Court decision which found the prohibition unconstitutional as applied to a Wisconsin Right to Life group, organized as a corporation, which had purchased ads mentioning a candidate in the 60 days prior to an election. If the Supreme Court upholds this decision, we may see more corporate and union money spent on advertising prior to the 2008 elections.
The District Court decision is not so broad so as to allow unlimited political advertising by these groups. Instead, the Court only held that advertising that was directed at specific issues (in this case Senate filibusters of judicial nominees) was not prohibited if the message was not directed at the election. In this case, the ads asked that residents call their Senators and tell them to stop delaying the judicial nominations, naming Senator Feingold, who was up for reelection. Perhaps not so coincidentally, Senator Feingold was one of the principal authors of BCRA (also known as the McCain-Feingold Act). The ads did not specifically tie this issue to the election, or mention Senator Feingold’s candidacy at all. More on the case can be found in an article in Saturday’s Washington Post. Continue Reading Supreme Court to Decide on More Political Advertising