Don't renew licenses for broadcasters implicated in the Edwards media blackout

[StefanX]

The Federal Communications Act of 1934 as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996:

Upon application therefor, a renewal of such license may be granted from time to time ... if the Commission finds that public interest, convenience, and necessity would be served thereby.

The question I want to raise here is:

In something as important as a Presidential primary, does a TV station have a legal obligation or duty to to report on all the leading candidates?

If it's a three-way race and there's a media blackout being perpetrated against candidate #2, can we take legal action against any broadcaster(s) taking part in this blackout? A class-action lawsuit maybe?



Now look at that graph above, and then look at actual Iowa caucus results below. Do they look at all remotely alike? You've clearly got a three-way Dem race here, but the media is only talking about two out of these three candidates.

Obama 37.58%
Edwards 29.75%
Clinton 29.47%

How about not renewing broadcast licenses for stations that pull this kind of nonsense? The Federal Communications Act of 1934 as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 implies that the airwaves belong to The People and states that spectrum "may" be be licensed to broadcasters "if" they "serve" "the public interest". The Act mentions the phrase "public interest" 103 times, including here:

Upon application therefor, a renewal of such license may be granted from time to time ... if the Commission finds that public interest, convenience, and necessity would be served thereby.

Any broadcaster(s) not reporting on all "leading" Presidential candidates in an election year would not serving "the public interest, convenience and necessity." Of course "leading" is open to various interpretations, but if a broadcaster only reports on candidates two out of three of the front runners (technically on the gold and bronze winner and not the silver -- although the silver and bronze were neck-and-neck), you've got an open-and-close case.


{Edited body for length and headline for impact - StefanX}

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Works for me.

Obviously a corporate media, absent an enforceable fairness doctrine, is gonna serve corporate interests. Those interests are rarely anything at all like the public interest.

[bbgrunt]

2. great idea. k n r

[BlueJazz]

3. Let's get the Bastards !! K&R

[nancyharris]

4. To point out the painfully obvious

What the hell does the FCC have to do with newspaper/internet headlines???

[StefanX]

5. OK, you're right -- can I say the graph is merely "illustrative"?

You're right - the graph shows statistics from Google News, which reflects print media, not broadcast media.

I don't have a graph for broadcast media, because I don't know of a handy index like Google News for broadcast media.

All I can say is that due to the cross-ownership between print and broadcast, I think it's a safe bet that a graph for the broadcast media would look similar, showing a broadcast media blackout against Edwards -- as many DU posts have been commenting on.

I remember reading posts recently that even PBS and NPR were hardly mentioning Edwards. Surely public networks have a duty to report all the leading candidates?

But your point is well-taken -- the graph is not applicable, and a better one is needed!

[nancyharris]

6. Every candidate

except the front-runner, complains that the media does not give them enough coverage. Every front-runner is accused of having their candidacy supported by the MSM. This is true for Democrats, Republicans and Independents. If Senator Edwards wins the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries he will be the front-runner and get all of the attention. You will then hear Obama and Clinton supporters complain about the lack of coverage for their candidates.

The "public interest" that is noted in the FCC authorization does not mean broadcast stations are required to run positive stories about every candidate. In fact, broadcast stations need not broadcast any "news" at all. The "public interest" refers to public service announcements and emergency broadcasting.

[StefanX]

7. There are various ways of defining "public interest"

Your definition of public interest as "public service announcements and emergency broadcasting" reflects an important aspect -- but just one aspect -- of the broader definition.

For example, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 talks about:

...the obligation imposed upon them {broadcasters} under this Act to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.

and also says:

The Commission shall seek to promote the policies and purposes of this Act favoring diversity of media voices, vigorous economic competition, technological advancement, and promotion of the public interest, convenience, and necessity.

So the Act says that the public interest has to do with "afford{ing} a reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance". And it furthermore says that the public interest has to do with things favoring "diversity" and "competition." So the Act itself contains examples which show that "the public interest" has a much broader definition than the overly narrow one you give.

I understand that the front-runner usually gets the lion's share of the coverage. But you must agree that it's curious how in this case, the front runner is getting the lion's share (Obama), and only ONE of the two runners-up (Hillary) is also getting a lot of coverage as well -- while the other the other runner-up (Edwards) is getting none at all. The media is reporting who won the gold and who won the bronze -- but not mentioning who won the silver.

More language from the Act below also seems to indicate a broad interpretation of "public interest":

(k) BROADCAST STATION RENEWAL PROCEDURES.

- (1) STANDARDS FOR RENEWAL. If the licensee of a broadcast station submits an application to the Commission for renewal of such license, the Commission shall grant the application if it finds, with respect to that station, during the preceding term of its license --

--- (A) the station has served the public interest, convenience, and necessity;

--- (B) there have been no serious violations by the licensee of this Act or the rules and regulations of the Commission; and

--- (C) there have been no other violations by the licensee of this Act or the rules and regulations of the Commission which, taken together, would constitute a pattern of abuse.

- (2) CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE TO MEET STANDARD.--If any licensee of a broadcast station fails to meet the requirements of this subsection, the Commission may deny the application for renewal...

I would be curious anyone else can provide further examples of how "the public interest" is defined for the purposes of the Act.

Again, I would argue that at least MENTIONING the names of all three front runners in a three-way race for the Presidency would be part of any realistic definition. I would say that a systematic pattern of suppressing mention of the second-place winner in a Presidential primary, while always mentioning the third-place winner, constitutes prima facie evidence of NOT serving "the public interest."