The FCC on localism and OTA-TV

[Erika Engle]

Two actually important FCC documents are linked in today's Daily Digest.
Perhaps they will spark some discussion and quiet the critics of we "dinosaurs" who continue to harp on the obligation broadcasters have to operate in the interest of their community of license.

This one is about broadcast localism and how licensees are still expected to operate in the public interest.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-04-129A1.pdf

It's 26 pages long but worth a careful read.


This one pertains to over-the-air TV viewers and the impact digital conversion will have:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...-04-2002A1.pdf

I'm going to post the second one on the TV thread as well.

Erika

[pzarquon]

Re: The FCC on localism and OTA-TV

Wow. That's a lot of dense reading. Definitely bureaucrat speak. Essentially, it's a recap of the debate over a variety of issues and a longwinded invitation for public comment. If you don't want to dig for it, you can give the FCC your $0.02 here, or utilize their most peculiar e-mail format (haven't they heard of web forms?).

Specific to radio, I thought the section on Voice Tracking and National Playlists were most interesting, as it's definitely a big deal when judging how a radio station is serving the interests of its local communities -- how can it if its DJ is in Atlanta and the songs are chosen by a committee in Los Angeles?

We are concerned by affiliates’ claims that the networks are hindering the affiliates’ ability to preempt network shows for local programming. We also are concerned about allegations that affiliates are hindered in their ability to refuse to broadcast network programming that is indecent or otherwise not suitable for an affiliate’s local community.

One of the more interesting questions posed is, how different is radio from TV today, now that radio faces competition like broadcast television has for some time:

Is it appropriate to distinguish between radio and television stations in terms of policies or rules designed to promote localism? The development of cable and satellite television services, which largely provide national network programming, creates the incentive for television broadcast stations to distinguish themselves by providing local programming. Until the recent development of satellite radio services, such as those provided by XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio, which also air national programming, 46 radio stations did not necessarily have similar incentives. Radio stations also now compete for listeners with Internet-delivered audio, including distant radio stations. Thus, to what extent do differences between radio and television remain in terms of their incentive to air community responsive programming?

I liked how they provided an old checklist as to how you might measure just how well a broadcaster is satisfying its "community service" mandate:

The major elements usually necessary to meet the public interest, needs, and desires of the community in which the station is located, . . . have included: (1) opportunity for local self expression, (2) the development and use of local talent, (3) programs for children, (4) religious programs, (5) educational programs, (6) public affairs programs, (7) editorialization by licensees, (8) political broadcasts, (9) agricultural programs, (10) news programs, (11) weather and market reports, (12) sports programs, (13) service to minority groups, [and] (14) entertainment programs.

Finally, the section on disclosure of commercial material caught my eye, as it has always bothered me how KSSK, specifically, segues from casual, informal DJ chatter into a commercial without any disclaimers. Not that I don't think most people can't tell that when Larry Price starts waxing poetic about the new truck bed liner he got, he's reading an ad, but still... It seems a bit too misleading to me.