Recently, we wrote about reports that the FCC would be creating an Obesity Task Force.  On September 27, Senator Brownback, FCC Chairman Martin, and FCC Commissioner Tate announced the formation of that task force.  The task force will examine the impact of the media and advertising on children’s health.  The press release stated:

“Given the saturation of media in our children’s lives, we need to understand how media impacts their health and behavior,” said Brownback. “I’m pleased that representatives from the public and private sector are coming together to address the rising rate of childhood obesity and its relationship to media and advertising. I hope this task force helps government, parents, and the business community define how to address childhood obesity.”

The full press release can be found here.  This will be a process that broadcasters should carefully monitor

From watching television in almost any state with a contested election, it’s clear that it’s political season again.  As the ads multiply, one of the most common tactics to disrupt an ad campaign is to write a letter to a  station saying that the ad is untrue and should be pulled.  However, when an ad is purchased by the candidate or his authorized campaign committee in connection with the campaign, and contains the voice or picture of the candidate, the circumstances in which an ad can be pulled are quite limited.  Nevertheless, the questions are rolling in. 

In one race in the Midwest, stations received complaints about a Federal candidate ad that did not contain the full disclaimer required by BCRA (the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which requires the now familiar statement from Federal candidates that “I’m John Smith, and I approved this ad”). A competing candidate urged stations to pull the ad that did not contain that disclaimer. In fact, stations cannot pull the ad that does not contain the disclaimer (as long as it has the FCC mandated “paid for” or “sponsored by” language at the end of the spot). While the candidate may get into trouble with the Federal Election Commission for not having the BCRA language, and the station may deny lowest unit rate if the required language is not on a spot that mentions an opposing candidate, the spot cannot be pulled from the airwaves.

In another race in a Western state, the question was raised about the use of one of the words that the FCC has ruled to be "indecent" in almost any circumstance.  At the NAB Radio Show, the FCC’s Bobby Baker was asked if such  an ad could be channeled to the "safe harbor" periods after 10 PM.  Bobby answered that it was possible that such channeling would be permitted, but that the FCC has never addressed that question.  So, for now, the issue is unsettled until someone asks for a declaratory ruling or the issue is otherwise put before the FCC.

Continue Reading The Censorship Issue – Dealing with Objections to Candidate Ads

The NAB Radio Show held the week before last, in conjunction with the Radio and Records Convention, was notable in its attention to new media. It’s been years since the NAB has devoted so much time to new media issues (remember the Streaming at NAB sessions that were held at the radio show early in the decade?).  And the new media sessions have perhaps never been as central to the Convention. Sessions on streaming, podcasting, downloads, blogging and just generally dealing with the media competition abounded at the convention.

The emphasis on the new media was perhaps most evident and presented most starkly in a pre-convention Summit put on by Jacobs Media. There, one presenter, Gordon Borrell of Borrell Associates, Inc., talked about the reach of media and information on the Internet, and just how prevalent it has become – even in reaching fighting for local advertising dollars – perhaps the one place that over-the-air broadcasters thought was most securely their own. Mr. Borrell pointed to websites such as those run by the Cape May Herald and the Lawrence County Kansas Journal-World as ones which show the power of the Internet to contribute to or eclipse their traditional sponsoring media (he said that the Lawrence site did over a million dollars a year in on-line revenue),. Even sites with no traditional media  partner, like Hartford.com, were said to be generating hundreds of thousands of dollars in local advertising revenue. What was perhaps most surprising was his assertion that in 40% of markets, there is an on-line site that has greater advertising revenue that the most successful radio station in the market.

Another presenter, Jason Calacanis, CEO of Weblogs,  went so far as to suggest that the principal purpose of today’s radio station should be using the station to drive traffic to the station’s website before the station itself became obsolete. Videos of the Jacobs Media Summit are available on-line, here.  While many others found this view to be extreme (Jack Isquith of AOL Music, in a session on streaming held several days later, talked at one point of the “elegance” of radio’s ability to reach local mass audiences more efficiently than on-line media), the whole convention seemed to be in agreement that radio needs to concentrate on the new media and develop their web presence. 

Continue Reading Radio Show Focus on New Media

The FCC today announced its agenda for its October meeting, to be held next Thursday, October 12.  Three of the items to be considered relate to television and video issues.  The FCC will be seeking comments for its annual report to Congress on the status of competition in the video industry.  At the same time, it will be seeking comments on the competitive practices in the broadband industry – perhaps looking at issues often discussed in the network neutrality debate.  These two proceedings are both Notices of Inquiry – in other words, comments are filed and considered by the FCC, but won’t necessarily result in any new rules.  In fact, before adopting rules, the Commission would have to release a separate Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, seeking further public comment before any action is taken.

However, the third proceeding is a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking – and one that has already been controversial.  The Commission will issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the television "white spaces" proposal.  This proceeding will consider whether to allow wireless companies to operate in the spectrum currently reserved for exclusively for television operations.  In theory, as proposed by wireless and computer companies, devices can be made to transmit broadband wireless communications on television channels that are not in use in a particular location.  The television industry, on the other hand, has expressed great concerns with whether such devices can really operate without interference to present and future television stations.  The concern is especially acute given the on-going digital transition, when any interference to the broadcast signal may further confuse the consumer’s adoption of the new technology.

This has already been a very contentious proceeding that television broadcasters will want to closely monitor.  Watch for the specifics of the Commission’s proposal next week.

Within 10 days of the end of each calender quarter, broadcasters (both commercial and noncommercial) need to place into their public inspection files their quarterly issues programs lists.  We recently published an advisory with details of this quarterly obligation, and a suggested form for the public file report.  Remember that these reports need to be in your file by October 10.

While most broadcasters have recently had their licenses renewed, stations shouldn’t think that they don’t have to worry about these reports so early in their next renewal cycle.  In fact, in the renewal cycle that is just reaching its end, a number of stations were fined as much as $10,000 for quarterly issues programs list violations that had occurred early in the last renewal cycle.  So what you do now will save you money down the road.

In a decision released this week, the FCC fined a station group in Alaska for violations of its EEO Rules.  The station group had failed to do any outreach for about a quarter of its job openings.  However, what was notable about the decision was that the Commission also faulted the licensee for using only one website for recruiting for another quarter of its job openings.  The FCC decision stated that reliance on the Internet as the sole recruitment source for job openings was insufficient to achieve the required wide dissemination of notice of the job opening, as the FCC did not believe that the Internet was sufficiently universal to provide notice of that opening to all groups within a entire community.

While in this day and age, it is certainly questionable as to whether Internet access is less ubiquitous than newspaper readership, this is the Commission’s position at this point.  Thus, stations are advised that, to be in compliance with the Commission’s rules, they must rely on sources in addition to the Internet when publicizing job openings. 

For more information about achieving compliance with the FCC’s EEO rules, see our advisory outlining the rules and providing model forms necessary to document that compliance.

On August 18, we reported on meetings held between Senator Brownback of Kansas and representatives of the advertising community dealing with the subject of the advertising of "unhealthy foods."  It looks like those meetings have led to action as, according to a Hollywood Reporter story today, the FCC will be forming an obesity task force to look at such advertising.

FCC task forces often do nothing more than study an issue, but sometimes they develop  recommendations that lead to regulatory actions.  No matter where this task force ends up, broadcasters need to stay involved in the process to make sure that it does not lead to ill-defined rules that are difficult or impossible to comply with.  Can you imagine having to weigh the fat content or caloric impact of all foods that are being advertised on your station?  Might you have to channel McDonald’s chicken McNuggets ads to some late-night safe harbor, while the ads for salads would be permissible at any time of day?  The permutations that are possible are both innumerable and a little frightening.  This is a proceeding that bears careful monitoring by the broadcaster.

At a continuing legal education seminar held by the Federal Communications Bar Association a week ago, Bobby Baker, the FCC’s chief of the Office of Political Programming, confirmed an issue that has been confounding broadcasters for many months. In recent years, several organizations, including Google’s dMarc service, have begun to take remnant advertising inventory from broadcasters, and to market that inventory on-line. For this left-over spot time, prices that are charged for such time are often less than a local advertiser would pay for similar time on the same radio station.

Given that we are now in a political window, the issue has been raised as to the impact that the sale of a station’s advertising time through one of these on-line services has on the services lowest unit rate for political candidates. The simple answer given last week was that, if a commercial advertiser can buy a particular spot on a particular station using an on-line service, and that spot carries with it the same rights that a spot purchased directly from the station has (e.g. it runs in the same time period, has the same protections against pre-emption, it carries similar make-good rights), then the spot must be considered in the station’s lowest unit rate analysis for spots of the same class. While not specifically addressed by Bobby at the seminar, it would seem that  even if the spot has unique properties from spots sold locally (e.g. high level of preemptibility, no make good or preemption protection, a different rotation), it would form a different class of time that must be offered to the candidate who requests information about all classes and rotations, even if the candidate buys direct without using one of these electronic services. Spots sold through these on-line services would be like spots sold by a station’s rep firm, which similarly must be considered in a lowest unit rate analysis.

However, if the spot is sold as part of a package with other stations, where the advertiser buys on a cost-per-thousand basis or based on some other form of audience delivery, and where the advertiser does not have the ability to buy spots on any single station, then the spot does not impact on the station’s lowest unit rate. This would be an application of the FCC’s policy with respect to unwired networks and other sales of multiple stations, which has held that such sales do not affect lowest unit rates.  As other advertising issues arise during this political season, look for advice here.