L - Regulating Broadcast
Rich Cameron
Issue date: 5/15/02 Section: 100x MM Online
Introduction
In the last section of this class we looked at free speech and free expression and learned that although the First Amendment to the Constitution suggests that there will be no laws restricting free speech/free expression/free press that there are indeed some laws that put limits on other areas. But even that should not prepare us for the regulation we place on the broadcast media in this country. The government, through the Federal Communications Commission, regulates who can become a broadcaster and what kinds of activity broadcasters can engage in. While there has been a lot of deregulation in recent years, broadcasters are held to standards we wouldn't even consider for print media.
In this lecture we'll look at a short history of those regulations and, more importantly, why we regulate broadcast media in these ways.
Govt. Control of Broadcasting
Government control of broadcasting goes back to the earlier days of radio when the industry had trouble regulating itself and setting standards for itself. The first effort by the government to regulate broadcasting came even before radio was considered a news or entertainment medium. Radio was still looked at as a communication medium, much like telephone.
When Congress passed the Federal Radio Act of 1912 it set some early technological standards, but the key purpose was issue licenses to those who wanted to use radio as a communication device. If you could prove you knew the rules you could pretty much get a license to use radio, much like applying for a driver's license.
But in the 1920s radio started making the transition from a communication medium to a news and entertainment medium. The radio industry, as we see in the Radio Overview lecture, still had trouble regulating itself and asked the government for intervention. The result was the Federal Radio Act of 1927, which was designed to last only seven years.
But the government, once it starts setting regulations and treating an entity as a common carrier, has a hard time cutting back. So in 1934 the Federal Communications Act was adopted and a seven-member Federal Communications Commission was established to issue broadcasting licenses --now more akin to business licenses than driver's licenses-- and make sure that those who received permission to operate radio stations (and later television stations) did so in "the best public interest, convenience and necessity."
That phrase, "best public interest, convenience and necessity," may seem a bit vague to you. It certainly has to broadcasters ever since. Congress did not just make it up for broadcast, but rather borrowed the wording from other public utility regulations, such as those that regulated electrical companies, gas companies, water companies, etc. It certainly made sense in those contexts. If you were going to introduce electricity to a community you wanted to make sure that there were standards in place to make sure that everyone got equal service and did not get electrocuted. But with radio, and later TV, you are dealing with ideas as the content of the utility and it is hard to determine whether a particular radio or television show is in the best interest, convenience, or necessity. Do we really need Big Brother?
The Federal Communications Commission has worked since 1934 in trying to decipher the meaning of the phrase.
In 1996 Congress updated the 1934 act to include the newest telecommunication technologies with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Today the FCC regulates some
There are a number of traditional arguments. We'll look at the four biggest and then look at some samples of how the regulations have been applied to the broadcast media.
Early in the development of radio Congress decided that the airwaves that broadcasters use belong to the public, much like certain lands have been set aside as public parks. They belong to the American public and the government looks out to make sure the public property is used properly --i.e., in the best public interest, convenience or necessity.
This concept is not applied universally across the globe. In some counties, including some democracies, the airwaves are deemed to belong to the government and there is no argument that the government has the right to control content. In some countries ownership may be sold or leased to private concerns.
The Scarcity concept
There is a finite limit on the electromagnetic spectrum that can be used for radio. The electromagnetic spectrum includes all frequencies that affect what we hear, as opposed to a dog's hearing, to the light we see, the colors we see, and the types of radio that exist around us. There is a small slice of this spectrum that affects radio waves. And if you carve that slice up into the size it takes to operate a radio station or a television station or a cell phone carrier signal there simply is a finite number of slots available in a given locality. Not everyone who wants to become a broadcaster can be accommodated.
With print media, in theory, anyone can own a printing press until we run out of the resources to make them. While that is probably a finite number, it is so vast that demand is not likely to outstrip supply like it will in broadcast frequencies.
One might argue today, that with improved use of the frequencies -- a radio or television station can use up about a sixth of what it used to and still be as good as ever -- that the scarcity concept is not all that important any more. And when you toss in cable television or cable radio opportunities (not to mention Internet radio) the supply of opportunities is almost endless. But while cable and Internet offer more opportunities, they still require a physical connection with wire or fiber not needed with over-the-air broadcast.
The Fiduciary or Proxy concept
If you understand and accept the Public Ownership and Scarcity concepts, understanding and accepting the Fiduciary or Proxy concept is easy. If the airwaves belong to the public and if there are a limited number available, then broadcasters act only as trustees of the airwaves and must operate them not in their own interests (though they are allowed to profit from them), but in the public's interest. A broadcaster does not own a frequency, he only is licensed to use the frequency. And that license can and should be revoked if the frequency is misused.
The reality is that few licensees have ever lost their license once it is granted.
The Media Differences concept
Perhaps the most compelling of the traditional arguments, however, is the last one we'll look at. It is the Media Differences concept.
You and I interact with print media differently than with broadcast media. With print media you must actively participate with the medium for it to have an impact. Simply putting a book up to the side of your head will not allow the material to spill over into your brain. You must pick up the book, open it and read it. Further you must continue to pay close attention to it to get the content. Ever read a textbook while trying to pay attention to something else? You read a paragraph, word for word, but don't process it. When you are through with the paragraph you have no clue what you just read and have to read it again.
With broadcast media, though, we can choose to have passive participation and it will still impact us. You certainly choose to pay close attention to your favorite soap opera, but it is not necessary. Ever turn on the radio or television and then go about your business cleaning house, eating, studying, etc.? Even if you are "not paying attention" you can hear the radio or TV and your brain processes it in the background. You may not realize it is impacting you, but it does. There are studies that show, for instance, that you can listen to a broadcast in your sleep and absorb some of the information. Remember the example from above about putting the book up against the side of your head?
So the difference is active participation vs. passive participation. With print media you MUST actively be involved in the process. But with broadcast you can be affected without active participation . . . kind of like being affected by secondhand smoke from someone else's cigarette. Because this can be powerful, the theory goes, we must look closer at the content of broadcast media.
If you've ever read the book, 1984, by George Orwell, you can see the concept at work. In that book television is everywhere and there is no way to turn it off. "Big Brother" is constantly feeding you the party line. After a while, you don't question the party line, even if it is completely opposite of what it was yesterday.
The perils of regulation
The Federal Communications Commission was created with the 1934 act. For many years the political appointees to this commission felt they were doing their jobs properly by fulfilling the Act's mandate of issuing licenses and write ever-more-complex rules to regulate the conduct of licensees. While the Act prohibited censorship, the commission had extraordinary control of content of broadcast by passing regulations that in essence said that broadcasters operating in the best public interest, convenience and necessity included, for instance, farm reports. Or a station was not acting in the best interest, convenience or necessity if it included R-rated movies that showed nudity. The sword that dangled above broadcasters is that once their license came up for renewal, it could be denied if the commission felt the broadcaster was not doing a good job.
Things changed a bit in the 1980s with Ronald Reagan as Presidential of the United States. Across government he pushed for massive deregulation The broadcast media were included. Finally in 1996 the Federal Communications Act needed massive updating.
Broadcasters still operate with fixed-term licenses and must operate in the best public interest, convenience and necessity, but the rules are much more lax now than they used to be.
In 1934, for instance, radio stations were licensed for three years at a time. When television came on to the scene they also received three-year licenses.
With deregulation in the 1980s those terms were changed to seven years for radio and five years for television. And in 1996 they were changed to eight years each. In 2003 that changed again as the FCC virtually did away with the numbers game and said media companies could own as many radio and TV stations as they wanted, as long as their combinaton did not reach more than about 30% of the national audience.
Further, the FCC abandoned a longtime rule that prohibited one owner owning both newspaper and tv/radio stations in the same market. The theory behind the rule was to insure a diversity of ownership in any given market. Now, in most big markets, one person could control major radio and tv stations AND control the newspaper.
Also, prior to 1996 a station seeking renewal had to prove it was operating in the best public interest, convenience or necessity. Now, it is presumed that the station is unless there are excessive complaints. Prior to 1996 stations had to file massive reports on their operation. Now they still have to keep such reports, but only have to show them if there is a challenge to their license.
And while renewal of the license was a big process in the past --even though few licensees ever lost their license-- today the renewal process requires stations to fill out only an oversized postcard.
Before deregulation there were some onerous rules that broadcasters had to follow. Some still exist, but many have fallen by the wayside. Let's look a few.
Equal Time Rule/Section 315
One of the provisions of the 1934 act that survived into the 1996 act was the Equal Time Rule, or Section 315. In summary, it says that broadcasters must provide equal time to all qualified candidates for public office. For instance, if a broadcaster sells or gives advertising time to one candidate for office, he must sell or give all other candidates equal time, or at least make the time available.
This might seem like a nice idea. But print media can choose to sell to whomever they wish. Also, it means that if Candidate A comes in and buys 100 ad spots for $100 each, then all other qualified candidates, including minor party candidates, can buy up to 100 ad spots for the same cost. In other words, the limited number of ad spots in a given time period might quickly fill up with political ads, even if it means turning away other advertisers. And if the broadcaster wants to give Candidate A a special deal, he must give all other candidates the same deal.
Still sound fair? Well, the FCC has ruled that you must also provide that commercial time at your lowest possible rate. You can't jack up rates in a way that might give an advantage to a major candidate who is likely to have more money to spend. So now not only must you give priority to those political spots, it must be at your lowest rate. You upset other advertisers who might be willing to pay more.
So, you say, don't give or sell ads to political candidates. That way you don't have to worry about using up all your ad slots with low-pay ads. Well, the FCC also ruled that broadcasters who don't make ad spots available to candidates probably are not operating in the best public interest, convenience or necessity. See where we're headed? The FCC cannot tell a broadcaster what to broadcast directly, but can do so indirectly.
There is SOME relief for broadcasters. Bonafide news casts and interviews and documentaries are exempt. But not movies. When Ronald Reagan ran for president television stations had to stop showing his old movies.
The rule does not mean broadcasters must give free time to candidates if they can't afford to pay . . . unless the original time was free.
And in 1991 the FCC ruled that the rules apply to candidates for federal office only. They do not apply to state and local elections.
Fairness Doctrine
One of the most controversial rule was the Fairness Doctrine, which was in place from 1949 to 1987. The doctrine was similar to the equal time rule, but more of a problem. Instead of dealing with those running for public office, the Fairness Doctrine was designed to insure discussion of public issues by broadcasters. First, it was suggested that those who did not deal with public issues, especially around election time, were not doing their job right. Then broadcasters were told that if they covered one side of an issue, they were obligated to seek out and provide alternative views . . . even if it meant giving free time to opposing groups. The time did not have to be equal, it could be equivalent.
Most onerous was the personal attack provisions of the Fairness Doctrine. If anyone were attacked, say on Rush Limbaugh type show, the broadcaster had to seek out and notify the person attacked and offer an equivalent time for rebuttal. If, as part of that rebuttal, the person attacked the original speaker, the original speaker had to be notified and given a chance for rebuttal.
Broadcasters hated the requirements of the Fairness Doctrine and were relieved when it was discontinued in 1987. It was discontinued for three main reasons:
(In)Decency on the airwaves
Still another example of the FCC indirectly controlling content has been its efforts to keep indecent material off the airwaves . . . a battle all but lost by the late 1990s. The FCC indicated that those broadcasters who allowed "obscene, profane or indecent" material on the air probably were not acting in the best public interest convenience or necessity. R-rated movies had to have scenes censored from them before they were aired. Comedian George Carlin once did a comedy routine called "Seven Dirty Words You Can't Say on Radio or TV." (Warning: You may find this routine offensive. Do not click on the link if foul language bothers you.) Later he came up with a follow-up routine of "Seven More Dirty Words You Can't Say on Radio or TV." Well, today, you are likely to hear some of those words in some primitive comedy or drama.
During the 1990s the rules were challenged by shock jocks such as Howard Stern, who kept getting his employers in trouble with the FCC for his language and subject matter.
And in 1996 Congress tried to curb smut on the Internet by including the Communications Decency Act as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. They made it illegal to post or cause to be posted to the Internet anything that was "indecent." Hey, it had worked for broadcasting for so many years, and you view the Internet on a computer screen that looks a lot like a TV set. So why not try? The courts immediately ruled that "indecent" was too vague and denied adults material that was otherwise legal in other formats.
Other attempts at regulation
Some other attempts at regulating content in the broadcast media have included:
Reading Assignment
You should be reading Chapters on radio and television in your textbook to get more information about broadcast regulation.
Exercise
Explain the four major rationales for regulating broadcast. Pay special attention to the media differences concept and give an example of how it applies in your life.
Note that when submitting the answer start the subject line with:
J100x-L -- YourLastName -- Regulations
Next lecture: Television Overview
In the last section of this class we looked at free speech and free expression and learned that although the First Amendment to the Constitution suggests that there will be no laws restricting free speech/free expression/free press that there are indeed some laws that put limits on other areas. But even that should not prepare us for the regulation we place on the broadcast media in this country. The government, through the Federal Communications Commission, regulates who can become a broadcaster and what kinds of activity broadcasters can engage in. While there has been a lot of deregulation in recent years, broadcasters are held to standards we wouldn't even consider for print media.
In this lecture we'll look at a short history of those regulations and, more importantly, why we regulate broadcast media in these ways.
Govt. Control of Broadcasting
Government control of broadcasting goes back to the earlier days of radio when the industry had trouble regulating itself and setting standards for itself. The first effort by the government to regulate broadcasting came even before radio was considered a news or entertainment medium. Radio was still looked at as a communication medium, much like telephone.
When Congress passed the Federal Radio Act of 1912 it set some early technological standards, but the key purpose was issue licenses to those who wanted to use radio as a communication device. If you could prove you knew the rules you could pretty much get a license to use radio, much like applying for a driver's license.
But in the 1920s radio started making the transition from a communication medium to a news and entertainment medium. The radio industry, as we see in the Radio Overview lecture, still had trouble regulating itself and asked the government for intervention. The result was the Federal Radio Act of 1927, which was designed to last only seven years.
But the government, once it starts setting regulations and treating an entity as a common carrier, has a hard time cutting back. So in 1934 the Federal Communications Act was adopted and a seven-member Federal Communications Commission was established to issue broadcasting licenses --now more akin to business licenses than driver's licenses-- and make sure that those who received permission to operate radio stations (and later television stations) did so in "the best public interest, convenience and necessity."
That phrase, "best public interest, convenience and necessity," may seem a bit vague to you. It certainly has to broadcasters ever since. Congress did not just make it up for broadcast, but rather borrowed the wording from other public utility regulations, such as those that regulated electrical companies, gas companies, water companies, etc. It certainly made sense in those contexts. If you were going to introduce electricity to a community you wanted to make sure that there were standards in place to make sure that everyone got equal service and did not get electrocuted. But with radio, and later TV, you are dealing with ideas as the content of the utility and it is hard to determine whether a particular radio or television show is in the best interest, convenience, or necessity. Do we really need Big Brother?
The Federal Communications Commission has worked since 1934 in trying to decipher the meaning of the phrase.
In 1996 Congress updated the 1934 act to include the newest telecommunication technologies with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Today the FCC regulates some
- 4500 AM and 2800 FM radio stations
- 800 noncommercial FM radio stations
- 515 VHF (very high frequency) and 210 UHF (ultra high frequency) commercial television stations
- 100 VHF and 160 UHF noncommercial television stations
- Numerous other common carriers, such as short wavered, CB radio, and cell phone carriers.
Learn more about how the radio specturm works at "How Stuff Works."
There are a number of traditional arguments. We'll look at the four biggest and then look at some samples of how the regulations have been applied to the broadcast media.
- The Public Ownership Concept
- The Scarcity Concept
- The Fiduciary or Proxy Concept
- The Media Differences Concept
Early in the development of radio Congress decided that the airwaves that broadcasters use belong to the public, much like certain lands have been set aside as public parks. They belong to the American public and the government looks out to make sure the public property is used properly --i.e., in the best public interest, convenience or necessity.
This concept is not applied universally across the globe. In some counties, including some democracies, the airwaves are deemed to belong to the government and there is no argument that the government has the right to control content. In some countries ownership may be sold or leased to private concerns.
The Scarcity concept
There is a finite limit on the electromagnetic spectrum that can be used for radio. The electromagnetic spectrum includes all frequencies that affect what we hear, as opposed to a dog's hearing, to the light we see, the colors we see, and the types of radio that exist around us. There is a small slice of this spectrum that affects radio waves. And if you carve that slice up into the size it takes to operate a radio station or a television station or a cell phone carrier signal there simply is a finite number of slots available in a given locality. Not everyone who wants to become a broadcaster can be accommodated.
With print media, in theory, anyone can own a printing press until we run out of the resources to make them. While that is probably a finite number, it is so vast that demand is not likely to outstrip supply like it will in broadcast frequencies.
One might argue today, that with improved use of the frequencies -- a radio or television station can use up about a sixth of what it used to and still be as good as ever -- that the scarcity concept is not all that important any more. And when you toss in cable television or cable radio opportunities (not to mention Internet radio) the supply of opportunities is almost endless. But while cable and Internet offer more opportunities, they still require a physical connection with wire or fiber not needed with over-the-air broadcast.
The Fiduciary or Proxy concept
If you understand and accept the Public Ownership and Scarcity concepts, understanding and accepting the Fiduciary or Proxy concept is easy. If the airwaves belong to the public and if there are a limited number available, then broadcasters act only as trustees of the airwaves and must operate them not in their own interests (though they are allowed to profit from them), but in the public's interest. A broadcaster does not own a frequency, he only is licensed to use the frequency. And that license can and should be revoked if the frequency is misused.
The reality is that few licensees have ever lost their license once it is granted.
The Media Differences concept
Perhaps the most compelling of the traditional arguments, however, is the last one we'll look at. It is the Media Differences concept.
You and I interact with print media differently than with broadcast media. With print media you must actively participate with the medium for it to have an impact. Simply putting a book up to the side of your head will not allow the material to spill over into your brain. You must pick up the book, open it and read it. Further you must continue to pay close attention to it to get the content. Ever read a textbook while trying to pay attention to something else? You read a paragraph, word for word, but don't process it. When you are through with the paragraph you have no clue what you just read and have to read it again.
With broadcast media, though, we can choose to have passive participation and it will still impact us. You certainly choose to pay close attention to your favorite soap opera, but it is not necessary. Ever turn on the radio or television and then go about your business cleaning house, eating, studying, etc.? Even if you are "not paying attention" you can hear the radio or TV and your brain processes it in the background. You may not realize it is impacting you, but it does. There are studies that show, for instance, that you can listen to a broadcast in your sleep and absorb some of the information. Remember the example from above about putting the book up against the side of your head?
So the difference is active participation vs. passive participation. With print media you MUST actively be involved in the process. But with broadcast you can be affected without active participation . . . kind of like being affected by secondhand smoke from someone else's cigarette. Because this can be powerful, the theory goes, we must look closer at the content of broadcast media.
If you've ever read the book, 1984, by George Orwell, you can see the concept at work. In that book television is everywhere and there is no way to turn it off. "Big Brother" is constantly feeding you the party line. After a while, you don't question the party line, even if it is completely opposite of what it was yesterday.
The perils of regulation
The Federal Communications Commission was created with the 1934 act. For many years the political appointees to this commission felt they were doing their jobs properly by fulfilling the Act's mandate of issuing licenses and write ever-more-complex rules to regulate the conduct of licensees. While the Act prohibited censorship, the commission had extraordinary control of content of broadcast by passing regulations that in essence said that broadcasters operating in the best public interest, convenience and necessity included, for instance, farm reports. Or a station was not acting in the best interest, convenience or necessity if it included R-rated movies that showed nudity. The sword that dangled above broadcasters is that once their license came up for renewal, it could be denied if the commission felt the broadcaster was not doing a good job.
Things changed a bit in the 1980s with Ronald Reagan as Presidential of the United States. Across government he pushed for massive deregulation The broadcast media were included. Finally in 1996 the Federal Communications Act needed massive updating.
Broadcasters still operate with fixed-term licenses and must operate in the best public interest, convenience and necessity, but the rules are much more lax now than they used to be.
In 1934, for instance, radio stations were licensed for three years at a time. When television came on to the scene they also received three-year licenses.
With deregulation in the 1980s those terms were changed to seven years for radio and five years for television. And in 1996 they were changed to eight years each. In 2003 that changed again as the FCC virtually did away with the numbers game and said media companies could own as many radio and TV stations as they wanted, as long as their combinaton did not reach more than about 30% of the national audience.
Further, the FCC abandoned a longtime rule that prohibited one owner owning both newspaper and tv/radio stations in the same market. The theory behind the rule was to insure a diversity of ownership in any given market. Now, in most big markets, one person could control major radio and tv stations AND control the newspaper.
Also, prior to 1996 a station seeking renewal had to prove it was operating in the best public interest, convenience or necessity. Now, it is presumed that the station is unless there are excessive complaints. Prior to 1996 stations had to file massive reports on their operation. Now they still have to keep such reports, but only have to show them if there is a challenge to their license.
And while renewal of the license was a big process in the past --even though few licensees ever lost their license-- today the renewal process requires stations to fill out only an oversized postcard.
Before deregulation there were some onerous rules that broadcasters had to follow. Some still exist, but many have fallen by the wayside. Let's look a few.
Equal Time Rule/Section 315
One of the provisions of the 1934 act that survived into the 1996 act was the Equal Time Rule, or Section 315. In summary, it says that broadcasters must provide equal time to all qualified candidates for public office. For instance, if a broadcaster sells or gives advertising time to one candidate for office, he must sell or give all other candidates equal time, or at least make the time available.
This might seem like a nice idea. But print media can choose to sell to whomever they wish. Also, it means that if Candidate A comes in and buys 100 ad spots for $100 each, then all other qualified candidates, including minor party candidates, can buy up to 100 ad spots for the same cost. In other words, the limited number of ad spots in a given time period might quickly fill up with political ads, even if it means turning away other advertisers. And if the broadcaster wants to give Candidate A a special deal, he must give all other candidates the same deal.
Still sound fair? Well, the FCC has ruled that you must also provide that commercial time at your lowest possible rate. You can't jack up rates in a way that might give an advantage to a major candidate who is likely to have more money to spend. So now not only must you give priority to those political spots, it must be at your lowest rate. You upset other advertisers who might be willing to pay more.
So, you say, don't give or sell ads to political candidates. That way you don't have to worry about using up all your ad slots with low-pay ads. Well, the FCC also ruled that broadcasters who don't make ad spots available to candidates probably are not operating in the best public interest, convenience or necessity. See where we're headed? The FCC cannot tell a broadcaster what to broadcast directly, but can do so indirectly.
There is SOME relief for broadcasters. Bonafide news casts and interviews and documentaries are exempt. But not movies. When Ronald Reagan ran for president television stations had to stop showing his old movies.
The rule does not mean broadcasters must give free time to candidates if they can't afford to pay . . . unless the original time was free.
And in 1991 the FCC ruled that the rules apply to candidates for federal office only. They do not apply to state and local elections.
Fairness Doctrine
One of the most controversial rule was the Fairness Doctrine, which was in place from 1949 to 1987. The doctrine was similar to the equal time rule, but more of a problem. Instead of dealing with those running for public office, the Fairness Doctrine was designed to insure discussion of public issues by broadcasters. First, it was suggested that those who did not deal with public issues, especially around election time, were not doing their job right. Then broadcasters were told that if they covered one side of an issue, they were obligated to seek out and provide alternative views . . . even if it meant giving free time to opposing groups. The time did not have to be equal, it could be equivalent.
Most onerous was the personal attack provisions of the Fairness Doctrine. If anyone were attacked, say on Rush Limbaugh type show, the broadcaster had to seek out and notify the person attacked and offer an equivalent time for rebuttal. If, as part of that rebuttal, the person attacked the original speaker, the original speaker had to be notified and given a chance for rebuttal.
Broadcasters hated the requirements of the Fairness Doctrine and were relieved when it was discontinued in 1987. It was discontinued for three main reasons:
- It gave government bureaucrats the right to second guess the news judgments of broadcast journalists.
- 2. Rather than encourage more coverage of issues it tended to scare broadcasters away from coverage.
- It was felt that the scarcity concept mentioned above was no longer relevant. A scarcity of broadcast outlets, of course, is a major reason for having something like the Fairness Doctrine.
(In)Decency on the airwaves
Still another example of the FCC indirectly controlling content has been its efforts to keep indecent material off the airwaves . . . a battle all but lost by the late 1990s. The FCC indicated that those broadcasters who allowed "obscene, profane or indecent" material on the air probably were not acting in the best public interest convenience or necessity. R-rated movies had to have scenes censored from them before they were aired. Comedian George Carlin once did a comedy routine called "Seven Dirty Words You Can't Say on Radio or TV." (Warning: You may find this routine offensive. Do not click on the link if foul language bothers you.) Later he came up with a follow-up routine of "Seven More Dirty Words You Can't Say on Radio or TV." Well, today, you are likely to hear some of those words in some primitive comedy or drama.
During the 1990s the rules were challenged by shock jocks such as Howard Stern, who kept getting his employers in trouble with the FCC for his language and subject matter.
And in 1996 Congress tried to curb smut on the Internet by including the Communications Decency Act as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. They made it illegal to post or cause to be posted to the Internet anything that was "indecent." Hey, it had worked for broadcasting for so many years, and you view the Internet on a computer screen that looks a lot like a TV set. So why not try? The courts immediately ruled that "indecent" was too vague and denied adults material that was otherwise legal in other formats.
Other attempts at regulation
Some other attempts at regulating content in the broadcast media have included:
- Children's Programming -- The FCC, acting at the behest of Action for Children's television, adopted rules restricting the types of advertising associated with children's programming. Today, some Saturday morning television programs are little more than thinly veiled half-hour commercials for toys (i.e, The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers).
- Violence and V-Chip -- In response to an increase in violent behavior in the country, often attributed to the increase of violence in the media (see the Violence in the Media lecture in the next section), it was decided that all future television sets will have a computer chip capable of detecting signals that upcoming programs contain violent content. Parents will be able to program the chip to lock out those programs. Left undecided was who was going to be in charge of determining how much violent content would trigger the lockout.
- Prime-Time Access Rule -- In an effort to promote local programming the FCC tried an end-around by setting up the Prime Time Access Rule. It essentially prevented local stations who were affiliates of national networks from receiving all of their prime time programming from the networks. Instead of local stations providing local programming, they sought out syndicated programs that were reruns of old game shows and situation comedies.
- Television program rating system -- Again, to counter the sexual and violent content of television shows, broadcasters were coerced into adopting a rating program for television similar to the "voluntary" system used by the movie industry. The ratings that were developed were confusing to many and completely rejected by at least one network who refused to rate its shows .
Reading Assignment
You should be reading Chapters on radio and television in your textbook to get more information about broadcast regulation.
Exercise
Explain the four major rationales for regulating broadcast. Pay special attention to the media differences concept and give an example of how it applies in your life.
Note that when submitting the answer start the subject line with:
Next lecture: Television Overview
