Skip to main content

Home/ Dr. Friedman's AP Government/ Group items tagged constitutional democracy

Rss Feed Group items tagged

paigedeleeuw

The Public Interest Standard in Television Broadcasting | Benton Foundation - 2 views

shared by paigedeleeuw on 29 Oct 14 - No Cached
  • Federal oversight of all broadcasting has had two general goals: to foster the commercial development of the industry and to ensure that broadcasting serves the educational and informational needs of the American people.
  • Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have sometimes concluded that the broadcast marketplace by itself is not adequately serving public needs. Accordingly, numerous efforts have been undertaken over the past 70 years to encourage or require programming or airtime to enhance the electoral process, governance, political discourse, local community affairs, and education. Some initiatives have sought to help underserved audience-constituencies such as children, minorities, and individuals with disabilities.
  • As competition in the telecommunications marketplace becomes more acute and as the competitive dynamics of TV broadcasting change, the capacities of the free marketplace to serve public ends are being tested as never before.
  • ...18 more annotations...
  • A recurring challenge for Congress and the FCC has been how to reconcile the competitive commercial pressures of broadcasting with the needs of a democracy when the two seem to be in conflict. This struggle was at the heart of the controversy that led to enactment of the Radio Act of 1927 and the Communications Act of 1934.(1)
  • Under the antiquated Radio Act of 1912, the Secretary of Commerce and Labor was authorized to issue radio licenses to citizens on request.(2) Because broadcast spectrum was so plentiful relative to demand, it was not considered necessary to empower the Secretary to deny radio licenses.
  • ongress expanded the deregulatory approach of the 1980s with its enactment of the Telecommunications Act.(38) Among other things, the Act extended the length of television broadcast licenses from 5 years to 8 years(39) and instituted new license renewal procedures that made it more difficult for competitors to compete for an existing broadcast license.(40) The Telecommunications Act also lifted limits on the number of stations that a single company could own, a rule that historically was intended to promote greater diversity in programming.(41)
  • From the beginning, broadcast regulation in the public interest has sought to meet certain basic needs of American politics and culture, over and above what the marketplace may or may not provide. It has sought to cultivate a more informed citizenry, greater democratic dialogue, diversity of expression, a more educated population, and more robust, culturally inclusive communities.
  • why public interest obligations have been seen as vital to broadcast television—and why a marketplace conception of free speech may meet many, but not all, needs of American democracy.
  • Opportunity for local self-expression. The development and use of local talent. Programs for children. Religious programs. Educational programs. Public affairs programs. Editorialization by licensees. Political broadcasts. Agricultural programs. News programs. Weather and market services. Sports programs. Service to minority groups. Entertainment programming.
  • The 1934 Act, which continues to be the charter for broadcast television, ratified a fundamental compromise by adopting two related provisions: a ban on "common carrier" regulation (sought by broadcasters) and a general requirement that broadcast licensees operate in the "public interest, convenience and necessity" (supported by Congress and various civic, educational, and religious groups).(3) The phrase was given no particular definition; some considered it necessary for the Federal Government's licensing powers to be considered constitutional.(4)
  • If a broadcast licensee airs an editorial that either endorses or opposes a legally qualified candidate, the licensee must notify all other candidates for that particular office within 24 hours, provide them with a script or tape, and offer them a "reasonable opportunity to respond through the use of the licensee's broadcast facilities.
  • the chief legal vehicle for citizens to gain direct access to the airwaves -- or hear diverse viewpoints on controversial public issues -- was the Fairness Doctrine. The principles behind the Fairness Doctrine were first expressed in 1929 in guidelines issued by the FRC, with regard to Great Lakes Broadcasting Co.(50) That Commission statement affirmed the need for broadcasters to serve a diverse public with well- rounded programming.
  • the FCC held in the Mayflower ruling in 1941 that a broadcast station could never editorialize because it would flout the public interest mandate that all sides of a controversial issue be fairly presented. Licensees, the FCC said, must present "all sides of important public questions fairly, objectively and without bias."(51)
  • For decades, the Fairness Doctrine was seen as a primary feature of the public interest standard.
  • In 1963, the FCC formally articulated the principle that the presentation of only one side of an issue during a sponsored program (such as an attack on the proposed Nuclear Test Ban Treaty) required free airtime for opposing views -- a rule known as the Cullman Doctrine.(59) Cigarette advertising, and later, controversial advertising in general, also became subject to the Fairness Doctrine.(60) In 1967 the Commission formalized its "personal attack rule" and political editorial policies in specific and specialized rules.(61)
  • Localism was one reason why Congress enacted the 1962 "all-channel" law -- a law that required that all television receivers be capable of receiving both VHF and UHF signals. The idea, according to a House committee report, was to "permit all communities of appreciable size to have at least one television station as an outlet for local self-expression."(77) With varying degrees of success, the FCC has also sought to promote locally originated programming through the Prime Time Access Rule (a rule that once limited networks to 3 hours of programming during primetime, but has since been repealed) and through policy statements that mention local news and public affairs programming as inherent to the public interest stan- dard.(78)
  • The bond between broadcasters and their local communities was given a new and stronger dimension in the 1960s as a result of United Church of Christ v. FCC.(79) In 1964, after the station owner of WLBT in Jackson, Mississippi, aired a program urging racial segregation but refused to air the views of civil rights activists or even to meet with them, the United Church of Christ and others petitioned for legal standing to challenge the renewal of WLBT's broadcast license. A Circuit Court ruling in 1966 held that citizens have the right to participate in the FCC license renewal process.
  • A primary objective and benefit of our Nation's system of regulation of television broadcasting is the local origination of programming. There is a substantial governmental interest in ensuring its continuation.
  • the Supreme Court in Turner Broadcasting v. FCC recognized Congress's rationale and upheld the must-carry rules as consistent with the First Amendment
  • The Telecommunications Act of 1996 encouraged the television industry to develop a voluntary ratings system that allows parents to assess the suitability of programming for their children.
  • Congress has recognized the public interest in expanding captioning access through two key legislative acts. The Television Decoder Circuitry Act (TDCA), passed in 1990, requires all television sets with screens 13 inches or larger manufactured or imported into the United States after July 1, 1993, to display closed captions through a "decoder chip" built into the sets.
  •  
    I think that if "broadcasters are meant to act as trustees for the public interest, then a corollary is that they must affirmatively present a wide diversity of perspectives." In my opinion, this is fantastic for all other means than politics. I think that both sides of an arguement should be presented publicly. I don't think that a Republican should just watch what the republican candidates are discussing but also look at the side of the Democrat to have a well-rounded political knowledge.
1 - 2 of 2
Showing 20 items per page