Two weeks ago, the FCC released its long-awaited, 365-page report, “The Information Needs of Communities.” The report’s chief writer, Steve Waldman—co-founder of News Corp.’s Beliefnet and a former Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report staffer—has been doing the rounds this week, sounding alarms about the precipitous drop in local accountability reporting outlined in his tome, and selling and defending recommendations some have called “disappointing.” Among those recommendations: the creation of state SPANs in every state; doing away with the localism proceeding and enhanced disclosure; funneling federal government advertising, for things like military recruitment, to local media; and, requiring local TV stations to put disclosures, such as pay-as-you pay, online. Conspicuously absent: A hefty government-signed check.
Last Friday, CJR’s Joel Meares met with Waldman in midtown Manhattan to discuss the reaction to his report, the enormous task of putting it together, and specific criticisms of its recommendations. This is the second part of an edited transcript of that conversation. To read the first part, click here.
One of the earliest criticisms came from Commissioner Copps in a statement given immediately after the presentation of the report. It was essentially that while it was an admirable move to put the station disclosures online, and make that easily available to citizens, there were no recommendations of what happens next. What can citizens actually do once they find something unsettling in the online databases?
This is a real shift of emphasis for the FCC of some consequence. You have had this system that was based on license denials. In theory, it was supposed to work like this: If you didn’t do enough public interest programming, you would have your license denied. Our report concludes that this system has not really worked. At least, not for a long time: there has only been four license denials in seventy-five years and zero in the last thirty years. Copps looks at that and says it’s because we didn’t enforce it. We looked at it and said that’s part of it but not all of it. There are some really inherent difficulties to making a system like this work effectively.
We agree with Copps that there is a quid pro quo, that in exchange for the use of the airwaves, broadcasters are supposed to serve the community. We’re just saying the system for enforcing that bargain hasn’t worked, and rather than doing it “once more with feeling,” let’s try something new.
We ended up more optimistic about the efficacy of transparency because technology has made it possible for transparency to be a more effective policy tool than it has been in the past. I think that’s a really important point. I myself was kind of a transparency skeptic. I did a big article in Newsweek years ago that was called, “Do Warning Labels Work?” It was all about how transparency and warning labels were sort of the refuge of lazy policymakers—if you wanted to do something but didn’t want to do something all that big, you could do some transparency and it looked like you were doing something and it sounded good. A lot of the time it didn’t work because consumers don’t have time to process all this information, and they don’t have the power that the government has—some of the same arguments that Copps is making, that the FCC is the one in the position to be doing this.
I think the best example of why transparency works now though is the pay-for-play stuff. [The report homes in on pay-for-play deals between local stations and businesses/organizations such as hospitals.] There is a law already, the Sponsorship Identification Law, that says that stations need to disclose it. Obviously, that law hasn’t worked enough to be deterring what we found.