April 25, 2007
Kevin J. Martin
Chairman
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
Dear Chairman Martin,
Recent trade press reports suggest that the Commission is considering a proposal that would require online filing of broadcast television stations’ public files. I write today in strong support of such a requirement and ask, again, that the Commission move swiftly to define the public interest obligations of digital television broadcasters.
In December 1998, the Presidential Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligations of Digital television Broadcasters submitted a report and recommendations. The Advisory Committee, composed of both broadcasters and advocates, developed several key recommendations that would provide enhanced disclosures of broadcasters’ public interest programming and activities. In its final report, the Advisory Committee, on which I served, argued that “greater availability of relevant information will increase awareness and promote continuing dialogue between digital television broadcasters and their communities and provide an important self-audit to the broadcasters.â€
To date, the Commission has still not implemented the Advisory Committee’s recommendations, which would require TV stations to:
• file quarterly reports disclosing how they have met their obligation to air programming responsive to the community;
• use a standardized disclosure form that is clear and coherent, such as check-off forms that can reduce administrative burdens and be easily understood by the public (the Committee’s draft form is attached);
• report on how often they air newscasts, local and national public affairs programming, political/civic discourse, programming for underserved communities, other local programming, and public service announcements, as well as closed captioning for the hearing-impaired and video description for the vision-impaired; and
• report on such public interest programming via the Internet.
Out of concerns that the public could not determine the extent to which broadcasters were meeting obligations even in the analog world, on September 14, 2000 the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the matter of Standardized and Enhanced Disclosure Requirements for Television Broadcast Licensee Public Interest Obligations (MM 20 Docket No. 00–168). The NPRM sought comment on requiring television broadcasters (both digital and analog) to disclose on a quarterly standardized form how they are serving the public interest.
On November 18, 2005, citing a woeful lack of progress, the Commission’s Consumer Advisory Committee (CAC), on which I also served, adopted a recommendation that Commission should, within six months, issue Reports & Orders in the matters of 1) Public Interest Obligations of TV broadcast Licensees (MM Docket No. 99–360) and 2) Standardized and Enhanced Disclosure Requirements for Television Broadcast Licensee Public Interest Obligations (MM 20 Docket No. 00–168).
Television stations have an essential public interest obligation to provide the public with information about how they are serving the community’s interests. But too often the public does not have access to basic information that would let us know if broadcasters are making the grade. Holding broadcasters accountable for their current requirements is as important as food labeling.
Some valuable information is currently made available about broadcasters’ public interest performance. For example, all television broadcasters must prepare and place in their public file reports on their children’s programming and how they are serving their communities.
• Public files can be used to investigate if stations are living up to their obligations. For example, stations have listed programs like a Star Trek-like cartoon and a reality show modeled after “Survivor†as educational and informational.
• These reports can be used by community members and civic leaders to grade a television station’s performance when its broadcast license comes up for renewal.
Broadcasters argue for self-regulation as the solution. However, even effective self-regulation by the broadcast industry requires adequate information be made available to the public about what a local broadcaster is doing. Broadcasters are no longer required to perform public “ascertainments†to determine community needs. A public file is an essential way for a community to hold local broadcasters accountable. Public reporting can be improved:
• The requirement for listing programs that serve the community is so vague that many television stations list everything and anything as qualifying. For example, a 2000 review of the public file of a Washington, DC, TV station provided a lengthy list of seemingly irrelevant programming or program segments, e.g., “Great Britain honored Queen Mum’s 100th birthday†as addressing the DC-area’s needs. In the Matter of Standardized and Enhanced Disclosure Requirements for Television Broadcast Licensee Public Interest Obligations. (MM Docket 00-168) Comments filed by United Church of Christ et al. (Dec 18, 2000).
• Interested and concerned community members must visit the television station headquarters to view the information, a process that may be intimidating, inaccessible, or inconvenient for working families.
Television station owners say that reporting their public interest performance electronically is unduly burdensome. But disclosure can be an important opportunity for broadcasters to tell their viewers about the good things they are doing. Shouldn’t television station owners be thrilled to share this information? It’s a chance to advertise their own good work.
Disclosure would not impose new programming requirements nor would the standardized form alter broadcasters’ editorial discretion. New disclosure guidelines would serve to make reporting consistent with modern means of accessing information. And to ease the burden of making files available electronically, regulators might only require that stations post the files that are most helpful to the public and merely provide links to information available on a government web site. Any reasonable and moderate burden placed on broadcasters is far outweighed by the benefits to the public and the lessening of current burdens placed on the public in accessing this information today.
Of course, disclosure obligations should not be viewed as replacements for strong public interest obligations. Public interest obligations are about whether:
• Our children can turn on a television and find truly educational content
• We can be active and intelligent participants in our democracy with sufficient civic programming before elections
• The voices and views on our airwaves reflect the diversity of our country
• Our televisions can keep us alert and informed in national and local emergencies
• People who are sight- or hearing-impaired can access all of TV’s educational, informational, and entertainment programming
For over a decade, the Commission has been considering the appropriate public interest obligations of digital television broadcasters, but has yet to fully clarify these obligations. In less than two years, when analog TV is finally turned off, so too will broadcasters’ mandate to serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity be left behind unless the Commission acts to extend meaningful obligations to the digital TV world of multicasting.
In return for serving the public, broadcasters enjoy a variety of government-ensured benefits including:
• Free, exclusive use of a valuable but scarce public spectrum – including many billions of dollars worth of additional spectrum to convert to digital.
• Legal protection against anyone else who seeks to compete in their market or broadcast over their licensed frequencies.
• Federal preemption of local zoning and environmental regulations in order to make sure that stations’ transmission towers can be erected and send signals to viewers.
• Free carriage of programming on local cable systems for which other programmers pay millions.
Obviously, these special benefits should not be expanded for digital broadcasters unless they are fulfilling well-defined obligations to serve communities’ public interest needs. As long-time commercial broadcaster James “Jim†F. Goodmon, President and CEO of Capitol Broadcasting, puts it, “The broadcast company is fulfilling a contract between itself as the user of a public asset and the public body that owns the asset. As with all contracts, both parties to the agreement need to know exactly the responsibilities that they have to each other. With minimum standards spelled out, there is no question. As a broadcaster, I would like to know what is expected of me in serving the public interest. Required minimum standards and a voluntary code provide the benefit of certainty to broadcasters. I like to know what the rules are.â€
Sincerely,
Charles Benton
Chairman & CEO
Benton Foundation
Cc: Commissioners Michael J. Copps, Jonathan S. Adelstein, Deborah Taylor Tate, Robert M. McDowell
Enclosure: "Public Interest Programming and Community Service Certification Form"