PART TWO the policy and regulatory landscape 274 Since the beginning of the Republic, government policies have affected—sometimes profoundly— the evolution of the news media. What follows is a description and evaluation of FCC and other governmental policies that have shaped—and that continue to shape—the news media landscape and the provision of civically important information to citizens on a community level and nationwide. We focus on those policies that relate to the concerns raised in Part One, especially regarding the health of local information, news, and journalism. We have tried to critically evaluate the FCC’s own role. While some FCC policies have helped, some have not—and crafting sound policy going forward requires the Commission to understand why. Sociologist Paul Starr has argued that we are currently in a rare “constitutive moment,” when today’s decisions will shape media industry evolution for decades to come. Given the seismic nature of today’s changes, it is imperative that we be conscious of what our policies are and what they are attempting to achieve. In general, our review indicates that: 1. some current FCC policy is not in synch with the nature of modern media markets; and 2. many of the FCC’s current policies are not likely to help communities and citizens get the information they need. 275 26 Broadcast Radio and Television There is no doubT ThaT FCC poliCies have played a profound role in the development and growth of the modern broadcasting industry from its earliest days. Historically, some of the most significant Congressional and FCC poli- cies were: Promoting the creation of national radio networks: In 1928, the Federal Radio Commission, the FCC’s prede- cessor, set aside national “clear channels” to allow for the creation of national radio networks. This allowed business models to develop more quickly since radio stations could attract national, not just local, advertising. These radio networks—the National Broadcasting Company and the Columbia Broadcasting System—later became the TV net- works that set the course for the future of TV. Licensing stations locally, creating a nationwide system: While allowing for the creation of national radio net- works, Congress and the FCC decided to award TV licenses locally, not nationally (as has been done in many other countries). To do this, and ensure nationwide availability, FCC engineers worked for years to define the contours of lo- cal stations and resolve interference issues. Licensing stations locally was intended to promote the availability of locally oriented content, even though broadcasting was competition, and control. born with government help— Setting aside spectrum for noncommercial use: In 1952, the FCC set aside 242 television channels for educational use,1 and historically based on a grant of airwaves the Commission has sought to reserve approximately 25 percent of from the public—once it took television channels for noncommercial educational use.2 Had it not, its first breath, it in some the public broadcasting systems might never have developed. Ownership rules: While some argue that FCC ownership ways became “the press.” rules have led to massive consolidation with baneful results and oth- hence, government regulation ers insist that they have facilitated greater market efficiencies with of broadcasting is sometimes beneficial results for the public, few disagree that they have had a significant impact. appropriate, yet circumscribed. Must-carry rules: In general, Congress required major cable pro- viders to set aside up to one-third of their channel capacity for local broadcast stations. This dramatically increased the leverage of broadcasters in the cable industry’s early days, and probably protected the primacy of local TV news shows. Digital and high-definition television: Between 1987 and 1997, the FCC adopted a series of decisions that began a transition from analog to digital television, paving the way for reallocation of 108 MHz of spectrum from television to other valuable uses.3 In addition to these decisions that shaped the structure of the broadcasting industry, a parallel track of regula- tions, in some form or another, has affected how content is developed and distributed. The government has played a greater role in shaping content in the broadcast industry than it has in the print industry for a simple reason: While the printing press belongs to private owners, the airwaves belong to the public. Because there is a finite amount of spectrum, and a much greater demand for licenses than can be accommodated, policymakers beginning in the 1920s had to decide who would get the spectrum and for what use. After all, if one broadcaster received a license it meant another could not have it, so it made sense to oblige those authorized “speakers” to meet broad community needs. Policymakers adopted a “trustee” model, in which, in exchange for public spectrum, broadcasters were required to serve public service goals. Companies that subsequently bought these stations did pay for them but that did not ab- solve them from having to fulfill the attendant public interest obligations. Yet, even though broadcasting was born with government help—based on a grant of airwaves from the public—once it took its first breath, it in some ways became “the press.” As such, broadcasters have, and should have, 276 special protections under the First Amendment, although these protections are less rigorous than those afforded other media such as newspapers. Hence, government regulation of broadcasting is sometimes appropriate, yet always circumscribed. Courts and Congress have, at various points, reaffirmed the FCC’s authority to consider program con- tent in the exercise of its licensing function but to what extent and in what manner has been open to near constant debate. Over time, the combination of new court rulings and changing market forces have made policymakers less and less comfortable with highly prescriptive requirements. One court described the balancing act: “[T]he Commission walks a tightrope between saying too much and saying too little. In most cases it has resolved this dilemma by imposing only general affirmative duties—e.g., to strike a balance between various interests of the community, or to provide a reasonable amount of time for the presentation of programs devoted to the discussion of public issues. The licensee has broad discretion in giving specific content to these duties, and on application for renewal it is understood the Commission will focus on his overall performance and good faith rather than on specific errors it may find him to have made.”4 Questions abound. Among them: When, if ever, is it permissible or wise to regulate content? What are the limits? What governmental actions indirectly affect content? These questions have challenged media policymakers for decades. In some cases, governmental involvement is not appropriate; in others it may be unnecessary and unwise; and in yet other instances, it depends on the circumstances. We discuss three sets of rules that illustrate this point: We look at sponsorship identification and disclosure rules as an example of regulation that potentially promotes a vigorous and informative press by requiring transparency. We consider the Fairness Doctrine as an example of gov- ernmental action that would likely harm the development of a robust media. Finally, we delve even more thoroughly into the issue of the public interest obligations of broadcasters. The Fairness Doctrine The roots of the Fairness Doctrine go back to the Federal Radio Commission’s 1929 Great Lakes Broadcasting decision, which denied licenses to a labor union-controlled radio station, on the grounds that “the public interest requires am- ple play for the free and fair competition of opposing views.”5 In 1940, the FCC went further and decided that, because the public interest required stations to present “all sides of important public questions fairly, objectively and without bias,” stations must agree not to editorialize. The FCC stated that, “radio can serve as an instrument of democracy only when devoted to the communication of information and exchange of ideas fairly and objectively presented.”6 As a commenter has noted, “[l]icensees were thus put on notice that advocacy broadcasting would not be tolerated.”7 This speech-restrictive approach lasted eight years. In order to ensure that broadcasters covered important issues in their programming, and did so in a bal- anced manner, in 1949 the Commission introduced what has become known as the Fairness Doctrine. In its Report on Editorializing By Broadcast Licensees, the Commission stated, “the public interest requires ample play for the free and fair competition of opposing views, and the commission believes that the principle applies to all discussion of importance to the public.”8 It established a two-part obligation for broadcasters: > provide coverage of vitally important controversial issues of interest in the community served by the station; and > afford a reasonable opportunity for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints. Stations were given wide latitude in deciding how they would present contrasting views; for instance, they might air segments during news or public affairs programs or broadcast distinct editorials. No particular party had a right to reply to an issue covered by the station. Rather, the station simply had to ensure that contrasting views on the issue were aired. But, a party that believed that a station had failed to honor this obligation could file a complaint with the Commission, which would be decided on a case-by-case basis. In time, two related rules were adopted: the “personal attack rule,” which required that when an attack was made on someone’s integrity during a program on a controversial issue of public importance, the station had to inform the subject of the attack and provide the oppor- 277 tunity to respond on the air; and the “political editorial rule,” which required a station that had endorsed a particular candidate for political office to notify the other candidates for that office and offer them the opportunity to respond on the air.9 These rules applied to broadcast TV and radio, but not to cable or satellite.