But consider how difficult it was to pull together this information:
Each election cycle I drive thousands of miles and spend scores of hours in data collection. To cite the extreme, I have spent 14 hours behind the windshield to engage in a 15-minute data collection exercise at a station in Marquette in the Upper Peninsula. In 21st Century America, that is ridiculous. Broadcasters can easily web- publish the contents of their political files, and they should do so.
An online disclosure system would allow that group, or any other, to perform this kind of watchdog function far more easily.
It’s also worth nothing that broadcasters’ public-interest obligations have shrunk over the years to almost nothing. Their opposition to even this modest rule indicates that they only support disclosure—the “public-inspection file”—as long as the public isn’t actually using the material in any significant way.
Tellingly, a group of broadcasters in San Diego, Texas, New Mexico, and Illinois objected to a proposal that the public be notified on air about the existence of the public-inspection file. “Such announcements may arouse the public’s interest in examining a PIF, but the Licensees do not believe that the Commission should attempt to stimulate such examinations,” they wrote. Right. We wouldn’t want the public actually paying attention because that would, in their words, result in them playing “Sherlock Holmes” rather than engaging station managers in “productive dialogue.”
Now, it’s quite possible the rules can be improved; indeed, the FCC is practically begging for ideas from the field on how to implement the rules in the most effective, sensible way. And broadcasters are absolutely right when they say that for such a system to work the FCC itself will have to up its game in terms of technology. Journalists and other citizens interested in political transparency should weigh in on the right and wrong ways to proceed.
We have a rare situation in which local TV news operations can directly help the functioning of the political system by providing more information to the public. Is it really possible that the broadcasters will take the position that they should be paid large sums of campaign money, do a poor job of covering elections, and block efforts to allow for more sunlight in the political system?
January 17 is the newly extended deadline to respond to the rule and the first wave of comments that have already been submitted. Whether you agree with my take or not, I urge you to weigh in. To read the comments offered so far, go here and enter proceeding number 00-168. To post your own comment, click on the “submit a filing” link on the side or click here. To read the FCC’s proposal in full, go here.
This is one of two articles about new FCC rules on media transparency; here’s the other.
The linked PDF provides some insight on another reason why broadcasters are fighting the proposals: competitive concerns.
If campaign spending over the airwaves must be disclosed in an online trackable way, it sounds as if the NAB is concerned that requirement will push more customers into using new tools that aren't tracked: spending on Youtube and other online and social media.
It's a fair point, from a competitive business perspective. And it shows a hole in keeping things transparent: If regulations encourage political ad spends to move away from tracked, disclosed media, how will transparency be maintained?
Unacknowledged by the NAB folks: Younger audiences are moving away from media over airways anyway. Smart political ad spends will migrate too. The reasons for the audience migration are often economic and about content, and favorable or unfavorable FCC regulations won't change that migration, as long as we have cheap electricity and increasing broadband availability (and Viagra ads, local car dealer ads and political ads dominating local TV.)
#1 Posted by Andria Krewson, CJR on Fri 30 Dec 2011 at 08:44 AM
It is beyond absurd that broadcasters, who are given (at no cost) exclusive access to segments of the electromagnetic spectrum (a public resource of incalcuable value) are complaining about minimal disclosure of the obscene amount of money they are making from our system of elections. No viewers are interested in watching the attack ads that the moneyed interests use to eviscerate their political opponents. They are barraged by them--the price one pays for televised entertainment.
The networks ought to be enjoined from taking any political ad money. The FCC should force them to allocate times for the candidates to debate in return for their exclusive use of bandwidth. That is how to conduct a political campaign. Nothing would minimize the influence of money on politics more than forcing broadcasters to actually perform the public service of providing a platform for candidates to debate during elections.
When I attended Columbia University, Fred Friendly was still working at the School of Journalism. There was still a Fourth Estate in America, capable of bringing down demagogues like Joe McCarthy and questioning ill-conceived wars and legislation. What does television contribute to democracy now other than its torturous demise via pseudo-journalism?
#2 Posted by Carl Gettleman, CJR on Mon 9 Jan 2012 at 12:54 AM
How about this: The FCC prohibit any use of campaign funds for commercial media. Encourage us of local public access channels ( for free ), Use the money to allow staff to facilitate use of free social media only and for Personal Appearances and travel ONLY. Money for media only seems to encourage candidates to become indebted to someone. Some real reform could go a long way.
#3 Posted by Mauro DePasquale, CJR on Mon 9 Jan 2012 at 03:17 PM
It has often been observed that those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it. For more than forty years the public interest community has been trying to get the broadcast industry to have greater transparency regarding its media archives. For some of the early history, see my May 2000 article published in the Harvard International Journal of Press-Politics: "Local TV News Archives as a Public Good." Unfortunately, it is simply not in the self-interest of broadcasters to face this type of accountability. And given that the public interest community is politically weak, politically naive, generally blissfully ignorant of history, and often more interested in do-good headlines than actual results, the broadcasters win time and again regardless of how poor are their public policy excuses. It's a sad story. Hopefully, it won't be repeated yet again. But I wouldn't bet on it.
--J.H. Snider
#4 Posted by J.H. Snider, CJR on Wed 8 Feb 2012 at 01:48 PM