FCC Takes on the Future of Journalism
Today the Federal Communications Commission announced a new national initiative to examine the “future of media and the information needs of communities in a digital age.”
Word of this new project leaked last fall when the FCC hired Steve Waldman, the co-founder, president and editor-in-chief of Beliefnet.com, the largest multi-faith Web site for religion and inspiration. However, it was unclear at the time what shape the FCC-backed project would take.
Today, the FCC launched a new website and welcome video from Waldman himself (see below), as well as an eleven-page memo outlining questions this new initiative seeks to explore. The FCC is looking for feedback on a range of issues, including:
- Information Needs of Communities & Citizens;
- Business Models and Financial Trends;
- Commercial Broadcast TV and Radio, Cable and Satellite;
- Noncommercial and Public Media;
- Internet and Mobile; and,
- Newspapers and Magazines
FCC Commissioner Michael Copps hailed the new initiative, arguing that the FCC is precisely the right agency to undertake such an inquiry: “It’s our job to do this--the public interest requires no less.” He describes the initiative’s focus as, but not limited to, broadcast journalism. It will be “a comprehensive examination of the state of broadcast media today and, more generally, the availability to Americans of hard-hitting news and information of civic importance from broadcasters as well as other media sources, both traditional and new.”
Like the Federal Trade Commission, which launched a similar initiative last fall, the FCC is putting public input at the center of it’s process: Copps insisted that, “As the FCC convenes hearings, workshops and virtual debates, we need to ensure that the voices we hear are not just the media stakeholders, but more importantly the citizen stakeholders, who are the greatest beneficiaries of a functioning media and a functioning democracy.”
On their Web site, the FCC is currently asking the public to join in two overarching discussions on the state of media in their community and how to improve it.
Jon Leibowitz, chairman of the FTC, has promised more workshops on the future of journalism this spring, and pledged to work hand-in-hand with the FCC on their inquiry. With these two federal agencies investing so much time and energy into studying the future of journalism, there is growing momentum behind the idea that smart government policies are one part of a larger effort to improving our nation’s media system.
Video Introduction from Steve Waldman
Free Press is a national, nonpartisan organization working to reform the media. Free Press does not support or oppose any candidate for public office. Through education, organizing and advocacy, we promote diverse and independent media ownership, strong public media and universal access to communications.
Comments:
End the Big Broadcast Swindle
The FCC is reviewing its media ownership rules and needs to hear from you. Tell the FCC we need rules that serve the public, not big broadcasters.
Change the Channels
Check out the interactive map to see consolidating newsrooms near you.
Fairness Doctrine
Those of us that lived and worked through part of the Fairness Doctrine era of radio and television news used to consider the "equal time" rule and ascertainment interviews a bit of a PITA. We're admittedly a little long in the tooth now, but for the most part very concerned for democracy with a small "d" in this country. Most of us remember that in newsrooms prior to the end of the Reagan administration (read de-regulation) if we didn't have three separate sources for a story, it didn't get on the air. In most newsrooms things like domestic squabbles, shootings, fires, accidents were all judged by the number of people in the community affected by them and got coverage accordingly. We had city hall and state government folks to keep politicans on their toes and honest. Fair and balanced wasn't a meaningless slogan, it was a dictated reality, and journalism was an honest respected profession. Folks in every community could count on us to keep them informed with little bias. Talking points from either side were ALWAYS questioned. I was saddened this week to read of the demise of Air America the "left" counter to the 90% advantage of the "right" on the airwaves. Unless journalism returns to a better way to insure what the public hears, sees and reads is trustworthy, hate, distortion, and lies will be competing for the minds and hearts of Americans.
political talk radio
Mr. Copps,
Are there any plans to break up or deal with the imbalance/ monopoly on Poltical talk radio? 90 percent of radio stations have hosts that propagate one ideology on our airwaves. I know these people panic at the idea of the Fairness Doctrine because their methods would be exposed, but as a concerned citizen I believe they are a danger to our Democracy. For ten yrs I have listened, studied the effects of and interacted with "conservative' talk radio. After the nationally syndicated programs like Rush, Beck, Hannity, Savage etc are done then the majority of stations play a local parroting host that repeats and repeats the same talking points. What is upsetting is that we deserve the whole truth, not just the right's truth.
Earlier this year the talk radio monopoly purposely instigated hate and distrust towards President Obama and Janet Napolitano. There was a report done by Homeland security on right wing extremists. Talk radio implied that this was done to target and intimidate regular republican voters. It was Government intruding and dangerous to our society etc etc . Millions of people were furious. On WBT in Charlotte NC after Rush finished the local host Tara Servatius continued with this fallacy. Callers were more than upset and angry at the President. There are people that even wear t shirts that say I am a right wing extremist because of this.
What talk radio did not tell their audiences of millions and millions was that this report was initiated several months prior by the Bush Administration and there had also been a report done to evaluate left wing extremists by Homeland security as SOP.
In my opinion this was extremely wrong and dangerous. If there was some sort of Fairness law this kind of lie would be exposed. Free speech is one thing to protect, but this is something else. There is no accountability, no other voices and Americans stay, not only, misinformed, but have hate and distrust towards the President for nothing.
There are many examples like this that I have tried to call the station and expose the omitted facts over the years, but I think the FCC should also be aware and act on such a powerful monopolistic media format that reaches over 20,000,000 each week and either hold them accountable or enforce them to give time to another position.
Good Journalism
When the guidelines for reporting was set they were not arbitrary, or meant to last for a season or two. Good journalism still need to follow the guidelines of "Who", "What", "When", "Where", "Why", and "How". But recently reporting is giving opinions of facts. I, meaning the public, do not need to be told what to think, we need to know (Who, What, When, and Where, Why (if you know it), and How if you know it - the rest is unnecessary information.
Future of journalism
We must train writers and reporters to stay clear of big money and emotional manipulation in order to restore and improve the democratic atmosphere of this country. Objective analysis is critical not only for us, but for viewing by other countries who have come to see our reporting as biased, co-opted by religious sects, and full of political and economic bias. Thanks for putting this forward as a priority with the FCC.