Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Serving the public interest, convenience and necessity

An interesting Op-Ed piece in The Hill, a "newspaper for and about the U.S. Congress" reminds us about something that most broadcasters would rather forget about: their supposed public interest obligations under the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996. These obligations - which are supposed to be enforced by the FCC - demand that broadcasters continue to serve the “public interest, convenience and necessity."

Gloria Tristani, who served on the FCC from 1997 to 2001; and Meredith McGehee, director of the Media Policy Program at a nonpartisan government watchdog group, outline what these obligations are supposed to include: they should be about whether:
  • "Our televisions can keep us alert and informed in national and local emergencies.
  • "Our children can turn on a television and find truly educational content.
  • "The voices and views on our airwaves reflect the diversity of our country.
  • "People who are sight- or hearing-impaired can access all of TV’s educational, informational and entertainment programming.
  • "We can be active and intelligent participants in our democracy with sufficient civic programming before elections."

However, they argue, in the current shift toward digital television - supposed to be completed by 2009 - broadcasters might be allowed to finally slip out from under these obligations, unless srong action is taken by Congress and the FCC, who "need to address how the transition to digital television will benefit citizens’ local, civic and electoral needs." Then, basing their position on the recommendations of a 7-year-old presidential commission on the matter, Tristiani and McGehee list a set of criteria that, they argue, "should define meaningful public-interest obligations that ensure broadcasters:
  • "Air a minimum of three hours per week of local, civic or electoral-affairs programming on the most-watched channel they operate and a comparable minimum number of hours across other streams of programming they may provide.
  • "Promote the FCC’s often-stated goal of diverse viewpoints and voices on television by ensuring that independent producers provide a minimum of 25 percent of broadcasters’ most-watched channel’s prime-time schedule.
  • "Tell the public how they are serving the interests of their audiences by making this information available in a standardized, searchable format, not only at the station, but posted on the station’s own web site."

9 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

One criterion I strongly feel networks fail to fulfill (and try to fulfill) is whether children can turn on a television and find truly educational content. For one, the educational programs may be out there, but kids are definitely not looking for them. They want to watch what their older siblings watch, and their older siblings want to watch what we watch. It seems that even cartoons, a child's savior, are becoming less educational and more pointless. What values are instilled from watching "Bill and Mandy" on Cartoon Network? Thats not to say that shows adults watch are "filled with learning" but we have passed our early stages of development where what we see is exactly what we do (modeling behaviors exhibited by children). Until the networks are actually influencing kids to watch these educational programs (by actually changing the times and channels they are on as well as making the content, "cool" and "fun" even for 11 year olds - the most difficult, but important audience to convince), kids will not want to watch anything associated with learning.
- Kelly Nichol

10/19/2005 8:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I believe this new definition of public-interest media is a very good thing. The FCC's regulation that demanded broadcasters serve the “public interest, convenience and necessity," is a bit unrealistic. Sometimes tv is just pure entertainment, lacking any values for the public. Because this regulation is so hard for broadcasters to constantly attain, I believe many chose to consider it a guideline rather than a rule. Now that Tristiani and McGehee redefined the public interest obligations, I think the rules are much clearer and easier to achieve. By just devoting a certain amount of time per broadcast to promote diverse opinions and local affairs, audiences will learn more. Television can become a vital educational experienceno matter what channel you watch. I think this is a great compromise. It is less strict and more realistic.

10/19/2005 10:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with alexandra miller. The FCC rules regulating television are too vague and really cannot be enforced as they are. I find it surprising that Meredith McGehee was able to outline obligations that should be followed, conclusions she draws from very vague (and dated) guidelines. How did she come to these conclusions? Where does it say in the telecommunications act that there needs to be an educational program on at all hours of the day? I feel like if we truly want to invoke some sort of positive change to television content, we should be trying to change or ammend the telecommunications act to include clearer rules for programming.

10/21/2005 9:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Most children who watch television, are not watching the channels with educational information. I agree that the broadcasting of events that occuring around the world is an effective of way of passing on news, but that depends on how many people watch it. If the government wants the television to be a form of education about whats going on around the world for children, they are going to have to incorporate the news into more fun programs for children to watch. Also, I feel that the media doesnt always portray the correct facts about the evetns that occuring, and that should be the number one aspect of educational television, the truth.
--Jessica Spagnoli

10/24/2005 8:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with most of the ideas above. Kids are not looking for the education television programs that are out there. They are looking for TV for entertainment, not as a learning source. Many people overall also see TV as a way to unwind. The original goal of incorporating "public interest, convenience and necessity," is very difficult and not viable. A new approach was needed and the new way the FCC is moving towards a more public need-based system.

Alison Maher

10/30/2005 5:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I couldn't disagree with most of the opinions above any more than I do. The FCC was created to delegate "bandwidth" and I think the fact it attempts to influence programming is a wonderful way to stomp on the first amendment.

Particularly disturbing to me is the proposed requirement that "Independent producers provide a minimum of 25 percent of broadcasters' most watched channel's prime time schedule." Why should the FCC get to determine who produces a program and when it airs? Isn't that just a little too-1984 for anyone else? Once you give the FCC that much control, what's to keep them from taking more and eventually setting the schedule (or essentialy doing so with mandates such as "any program rated TV-14 or above can not be shown in prime time," etc.)?

If networks choose to move completely from over-the-air broadcasts, and create privately developed programs in privately-owned studio traveling on privately-owned cables, then what role does the government have to play? I argue none, and that public outcry will prevent inappropriate programs from being shown at inappropriate times.

Government regulation of TV should be decreasing, especially as the business model is increasingly HBO-like, in that you pay for cable channels that aren't broadcast over the air at all.

As for "educational" programming. This goes to a wonderful phenomenon in America. It's very easy to blame politicians, but it is not publicly acceptable to say there are millions of bad parents in this country. The fact of the matter is that there is educational programming on television, but if parents aren't going to take an active role in their children's viewing habits and only allow them to watch programs they think are appropriate (and be able to determine themselves what programs are appropriate for their children), then we have no business letting government reform stations. Maybe our focus should be on educating parents on what programs are out there and how to monitor their children's viewing habits.

10/31/2005 3:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think that the shift toward digital television will indeed change the rules of regulation on what is appropraite/inappropriate. My whole personal view on this goes back to when I was a child. When we were young there were no visuals on the coreners of the t.v. screen to allow us to recognize whether we could watch the program. My parent's supervised us and they decided based on their values and morals what was appropriate for our eyes. Mnay problems with today's world is allowing media to be our babysitters. It's time for parents to retake their role as supervisors and stop blaming everyone else.
Casey L. Hanna

11/01/2005 11:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think it is good that the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications act of 1996 are being revisited as digital television is quickly taking over the industry. Historically, with technological advances it is the natural process for laws controlling them to be updated as well. The new outline of obligations seems less specific as they were in the past, leaving the responsibility more on the hands of the broadcasters. They have eliminated the specific obligation that notes the quality of programs geared towards America's children which i find suprising. I find the third obligation to be too vague, possibly allowing the broadcasters to find loopholes in the system which creating less protection within the viewing population.

11/14/2005 3:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i just left the last comment but i forgot to leave my name. so here it is
Kate Kistner

11/14/2005 3:41 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home