The Public's Right to Know

In the media reform world, we often say we’re fighting for “better” media. Of course, “better” is the sort of word that begs comparison: better than what? If we’re to demand more of our local broadcasters, we need to know what’s wrong with the status quo.

Broadcasters use the public airwaves free of charge, and in return are supposed to provide programming that fulfills the news and information needs of communities. The Federal Communications Commission requires broadcasters to keep public files detailing exactly how they serve local needs. But these records are generally kept in file cabinets at local TV stations and are not easily accessible. So the pressure is on for broadcasters to put these files online in a publicly searchable database.

The FCC is currently taking public comments on just such a proposal; the deadline for comments is this Thursday, and already thousands of people have urged the agency to adopt the rules. Earlier this month, the Public Interest Public Airwaves coalition, which includes Free Press, submitted four petitions totaling 68,000 signatures to the FCC in support of the rule change.

While the proposal may seem like a small tweak, it’s actually a major proceeding that will have lasting implications on the kind of news and information we receive. Enhanced-disclosure rules would do the following:

• force broadcasters to reveal how much money political campaigns spend on advertising at local stations
• require broadcasters to document who is paying for political ads
• require broadcasters to disclose sponsored “news” segments produced by advertisers
• reveal whether stations are engaged in “covert consolidation,” an increasingly common practice in which stations merge operations and air the same newscast on multiple stations

And finally, the rules would make broadcasters disclose how much of their programming actually serves the public interest.

Dozens of organizations and academic institutions have already submitted comments to the FCC in support of the new disclosure rules. In its comments, the Association of Health Care Journalists (AHCJ), which represents more than 1,200 journalists, expressed concern about “pay-for-play” arrangements in which advertisers sponsor specific content. Broadcasters are increasingly presenting advertisements — also known as “fake news” — as news segments, and divulge that they are ads only during a program’s rolling credits. The new rules would allow the public to learn online whether a particular segment was an advertisement, or actual news.

The “pay-for-play” scenario is particularly disturbing in regard to health-related advertisements, the AHCJ wrote in its comment to the FCC:

Such practices are especially pernicious when applied to matters of health and health care — as they often are — because people make decisions affecting their well-being based on such reports. The result is harm to individuals who make the wrong choice based on biased information and increased costs in the health care system that we all pay for. Such deceptiveness also threatens the credibility of all journalism. A bright line must be drawn between those who say what they’re paid to say and those who make an independent effort to find out what’s true.

The need for better disclosure is particularly pressing in this election year. The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which lifted restrictions on corporate political spending, has resulted in broadcasters raking in millions from political campaign ads. Spending is expected to exceed $3 billion in the 2012 election cycle. And thanks to the emergence of Super PACs that often hide behind deceptive front names, it can be hard to know who is behind the spending.

Glenn Frankel, director of the school of journalism at the University of Texas at Austin, said this type of cloaked spending could affect decision making during elections. In a comment to the FCC, Frankel wrote, “The public needs to know in a timely fashion the identity of the corporations funding these ad campaigns in order to make informed decisions about whom to vote for.”

Take Saturday’s GOP presidential primary in South Carolina, for example. The average TV viewer in South Carolina’s capital saw 182 political ads before Saturday’s primary. Broadcasters pocketed more than $11 million in political-ad money. But how much election coverage did local stations provide? Broadcasters don’t want to say, and it’s certainly hard to find out.

Major broadcasters, including those in the National Association of Broadcasters, oppose the FCC’s rule changes, and have complained that having to continually update an online database would pose significant challenges. As the nonprofit Common Frequency suggested in its comment to the FCC, broadcasters seem to be the only industry in the modern world that prefers filing cabinets to an electronic filing system.

People are fed up with fake news on TV. People are angry about countless political ads whose backers are shrouded in secrecy. People want to know how much local news their TV stations actually produce. Having easy access to broadcasters’ public files is the first step toward holding our broadcasters accountable. Register your comment to the FCC here.

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.