Regular readers may recall that a few months ago, CJR published a pair of columns by Steven Waldman—the lead author of the Federal Communications Commission report “Information Needs of Communities”—that took local TV stations to task. At issue was a proposed FCC rule that would require stations to post their “public inspection files”—including information on political ad buys, now kept largely in filing cabinets at station offices—on the Internet.
The files contain a range of information that the government requires stations to track in exchange for access to the public airwaves. But Waldman focused on one data set:
One of the most interesting components of the file: broadcasters are required to keep a log of the political advertising that airs on their channel. This is a potential gold mine of information about who is spending what. The requirement applies to all races—national, state, and local—and issue ads, and must be posted rapidly (usually within forty-eight hours). Stations also must maintain a list of the executives or members of the board of directors of the groups buying the ads.
There are other ways to get much of this information—campaigns and super PACs are often eager to talk about their ad buys, and private companies will happily collect the data and sell it to you. The Federal Election Commission also publishes online the expenditures reported by campaigns, PACs, and associated committees, after the organizations report the data, which is often monthly or quarterly.
But the private data isn’t cheap, and the campaigns’ public comments aren’t comprehensive. And the FEC’s rules on reporting are convoluted and online search is tricky. Further, information about ad buys at specific media outlets is not required; often, only advertising agencies are listed as recipients of campaign money. And while in some cases the FEC publishes data online swiftly, the TV stations themselves are the only entity with a legal obligation to routinely make this information available to the public quickly.
Interestingly, in their ongoing efforts to oppose the new rule, representatives from the major networks have also focused on the political ad file. Making it truly accessible, they argued in a formal comment filed (PDF) with the FCC, would give political ad buyers and rival stations too much information about the ad market, thus putting stations at a competitive disadvantage. And so, from their perspective, making it hard for the public to get public records is actually a feature, not a bug:
Of course, stations’ public files are just that—public—and all of this information could be obtained by determined commercial clients and competitors by making a visit to a station’s studio. But it is one thing to travel to a station’s office across town during a hectic business day—a trip that would have to be frequently repeated to keep current with rapidly changing market conditions—and quite another to have the desired information instantly available without leaving one’s desk.
Of course, it’s not only “commercial clients and competitors” who might have interest in information about political ad expenditures; journalists, watchdog groups, and engaged citizens do as well. So we asked five of the correspondents from our Swing States Project—specifically, those based in Charlotte, Denver, Detroit, Las Vegas, and West Palm Beach, Fla.—to make that hectic mid-day trip, ask for access to the records at a couple of their local stations, and tell us about the experience and what they found.
(ProPublica has just undertaken a similar effort. And the New America Foundation has a running project that encompasses other parts of the public files, which you can read about here.)
Here’s what we learned:
The records are accessible. A low bar, obviously, but it’s worth pointing out. All of our correspondents were able to see the files, and none had to wait more than about 10 minutes or speak to more than two people in the process of finding someone who could help them.

In answer to the question "why do you want the records?" - do we assume that the answer was " because they are public information and I am a member of the public?"
#1 Posted by Gordon Barnes, CJR on Wed 21 Mar 2012 at 12:35 PM
Gordon,
Yes. that response would be legitimate to write on the form requesting the records or to say to anyone who asked.
The file of those who have requested to see the files is in itself public record. Locals might recognize other names on the list, or a database cross referenced could determine who people are. I had to show ID to gain access to one station, but not to fill out the public record request.
Journalism ethics would incline most journalists to announce their organization, if affiliated. Campaign employees, competitive station employees or individuals, maybe not.
But our ordinary human response is to fill in the blanks. The internet's relentless hunger to collect data in similar ways might change that behavior over time.
#2 Posted by Andria Krewson, CJR on Wed 21 Mar 2012 at 02:51 PM