Page 1: Monopoly in the public interest
Page 2: Microradio and community voices
"What do we want? Low-power radio! When do we want it? Now!!"
To support the need for diversity and local representation, the majority of FCC Commissioners have recently relaxed regulations to allow new, low-power (short range) radio licenses. This is a victory micro-radio advocates have been seeking for years, and now broadcasters are fighting with very sharp tooth and nail to have congress negate it. The message was hammered out throughout the convention: broadcasters must fight low-power radio because it will interfere with existing stations. The NAB's resounding alarm has been echoed by the non-commercial National Public Radio (well represented at the convention). According to an NPR board member, low-power radio "is the most important issue facing public broadcasting in the last two decades." This means fighting low-power radio is more important to public broadcasters than funding, programming and audience.
As for accusations of musical homogeneity in radio, so be it, says a "news analysis" in a trade paper: "What is society supposed to gain from having new stations which will play unpopular music? Why are we expected to give a spot on the dial to every disenchanted 22-year-old male (let's face it, there aren't many female pirates) who wants to play the
bands which he and his two friends think are great but everyone else thinks sound like sick cats running over hot coals?"
But FCC Chairman William Kennard has held strong. "[W]e cannot deny opportunities to those who want to use the airwaves to speak to their communities simply because it might be inconvenient for those who already have these opportunities."
Micro-radio advocates ride high under the banner of "free speech," and broadcasters also wave that flag. Though the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is free-speech gospel, the courts have said that government can impose regulations to counteract monopolies on the limited spectrum of the airwaves. While the FCC can't actively monitor and judge broadcast content, it can respond to complaints and set forth rules.
The FCC's Fairness Doctrine set time requirements for public-affairs coverage and obligated broadcasters to present contrasting points of view from the community. A Supreme Court decision led to the policy of "ascertainment," whereby stations had to prove to the FCC that they actively sought, received and responded to community input on
programming.
Then the market values of the Reagan years led to the dissolution of almost all of these public-interest obligation and ascertainment rules. Broadcasters and their supporters, like Commissioner Furchgott-Roth, declare the premise of limited spectrum obsolete in this digital age and warn that if commercial radio and television have to compete against technologies with no public-interest obligations they "cannot survive." The NAB's 20-year challenge to the Fairness Doctrine remnants (requiring broadcasters to offer response time to personal attacks or political editorials) had been deadlocked until last week when Chairman Kennard announced he will now cast his vote.
The spectrum did open up with the advent of digital broadcasting, but the new frequencies were simply given over to existing broadcasters in what was called by many appalled advocates and legislators the $70 billion "giveaway." As NAB lobbyists are now warning their members to shore up for a possible fight against new regulations, a movement is pushing the FCC to establish public-interest obligations for the new digital stations. In 1998, Vice President Al Gore led a government investigation of what those obligations might be. The consensus between the broadcasters and advocates on the panel produced 10 recommendations, including the proposal that stations volunteer five minutes nightly for candidate coverage in an election month. After two years, as documented by www.greedytv.org, broadcasters are still refusing any quotas as they reap in the bucks for political ads. The NAB publishes the "Free Air Times" newsletter, which celebrates stations offering free time and "public service" in such forms as Democratic and Republican convention coverage.
Broadcasters are no longer required to seek out community opinion on programming, but tracking the audience is big business. Automated phone polls, ratings meters and increasingly sophisticated techniques help stations attract a broad, demographically targeted audience to sell to their advertisers. Unfortunately, the FCC doesn't have such high-tech means to survey the public in determining their interest. When the FCC is considering a regulation it issues a Notice of Proposed Rule Making and invites public comment. Some groups are making efforts to rally responses to these queries — but when was the last time you were aware of a policy decision in the works?
A public uninformed about its rights is a public without authority. The People for Better TV coalition has been educating communities about the files that every broadcaster must maintain and make public. Demand to see the public files, they urge; just showing interest may get the ear of the local broadcaster back on the community. (Inside the NAB convention, the head of the FCC's enforcement bureau warned broadcasters that the worst FCC penalties come from deception or evasion in filings, so challenging public files might offer one way for citizens to challenge egregious
broadcasters.)
Bragged NAB President and CEO Eddie Fritts to a full ballroom at the opening of the NAB radio show: "Broadcasters are re-defining ways in which we entertain, inform and serve our local communities."
The media democracy movement wants to give the public a say in how it is served. Though the corporate media may not report it, on the streets, in the courts and on the Web, there is a clamor for limitations on broadcasters' power, for access to the airwaves and for accountability from those who control them.
For some specific reform proposals, visit the San Francisco Independent Media Center, which mobilized last week to support, cover and share information on the NAB and protests.
Previous Page
— Aliza Dichter (liza@mediachannel.org) is Senior Editor of MediaChannel.
HOME
