Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Brian M. Rowland Florida Coastal School of Law Journal January 31, 2001
www.brianrowland.com
1. Introduction
Frequent complaints of those who observe or scrutinize the media are cries of bias,
unfairness, and agenda peddling. Such charges appear to be on the rise in recent
correlative reason for concern is the Commission’s recent changes in broadcast group
ownership rules. The combination of these have arguably reduced diversity of voices in
the electronic media content, and conclusively reduced diversity in its ownership,
raising fears that fairness has been endangered by monopolization and centralized
programming control.
Should the media be held to a higher standard and be regulated into behaving with
integrity? Stephen L. Carter, professor of law at Yale University, asks, “if integrity is
such a good thing – and if we truly have less of it than we ought – then why not
mandate it?”.2 Carter suggests that regulation of media, and especially its political
1
Inquiry Into Section 73.1910 of the Commission’s Rules and Regulations Concerning Alternatives to the General Fairness Doctrine
Obligations of Broadcast Licensees, 102 F.C.C.2d 143, 244 (1985).
2
Stephen L. Carter, Integrity 193 (1996).
content, is a problematic source of embarrassment as the two are “diabolically
volatile.”3
Why is fairness and diversity in media important? In our nation’s history the media
was an effective tool for Samuel Adams in rallying colonists against British troops
during the Revolutionary War.4 Press Now, an organization that supports free press in
Central and Eastern Europe further explains that, “[w]hat can generally be asserted for
most of the countries of Eastern Europe is that the media served the elites in power:
they did this by misinforming the people, by creating stereotypes of enemies and the
through ideology.5 The ideological hegemony and the monopoly on power perpetuated
by the media was based on two foundations: the suppression of individual interests and
the egalitarianism of poverty.”6 Cries for media fairness in the United States are
generally not the result of a desire to avoid or initiate revolution, but recent history
warns that the various electronic media have considerable power, and control should be
broadcasting has had on content fairness and diversity since the repeal of the fairness
doctrine and the liberalization of ownership rules, or whether all such regulation is
made passé by new media and its accompanying technologies.8 These issues are
2. What Bias?
Complaints of media bias come from various directions and concern more than just
the television news industry. Bias may stem from an individualized decision of an
mandate.9 Whatever the motivation for the bias, it often appears in recognizable forms10
such as the purposeful exposure of one side of a story, or the omission of seemingly
worthy news items altogether. Further, bias may occur when a disingenuous
association between one person or point of view and that of another is made, resulting
in a false light being cast upon the former, and an untrue relationship created between
the two. Finally, bias or unfairness may occur when news reporters air a story and
report, in bandwagon fashion, what others are reporting without conducting their own
owner. In the opposite, when broadcasters are limited as to the quantity of stations they may own, the result is a greater diversity of
owners that are less easily influenced or controlled. It is noteworthy that the Internet represents the utmost in decentralization both
in the diversity of its content providers and the nature of its architecture.
8
Fairness and diversity are interrelated as will be discovered.
9
See FCC v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U.S. 134, 137-138 (1940). The Court discusses Congressional intent in the
Communications Act of 1934 to be such that Congress feared that in the absence of certain governmental licensing control, the
public interest would be subordinated if monopolistic control in the broadcast industry occurred.
10
Such forms are recognizable to one who, like myself, has spent a significant time in broadcast management and programming.
independent investigation of facts. These examples are not exhaustive and are not
On an October morning before the 2000 presidential election, my wife and I were
going about our business preparing for the day. In the background NBC’s Today Show
was on the television. Katie Couric, NBC Today Show hostess, announced that Texas
Governor George W. Bush had begun a new series of “negative attack ads” against Vice
President Al Gore. This comment alone was not substantial but what followed was
incomprehensible. Without explaining the basis for Bush’s new ad or the content
therein, Couric proceeded to present Gore’s responsive counter-attack ad. The fact that
Gore had released a counter attack ad was not merely mentioned, the entire ad was
played on the air, uninterrupted. At any moment during candidate Gore’s ad, I
expected Couric or co-host Matt Lauer to interrupt with commentary. They didn’t. In
the scope of about a minute one candidate was stigmatized as having launched a
negative attack campaign while the other candidate was portrayed as a victim, and his
responding attack-ad was broadcast free of charge! The harm may not be readily
apparent to the casual observer, but when one realizes that NBC owns 13 television
stations and has over 220 network affiliates, multiplied by the stations’ commercial spot
rates for 30-second morning show ads, the dollar amount in free airtime is considerable
Television, and such pro-Democratic Party bias that may occur, is not on an island.
It is easily observed that radio is overrun by those who propagate one-sided stories,
generally propping up the ideology of the Republican Party. Only a few minutes
listening to network radio hosts Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Laura Schlessinger, G. Gordon
At first impression, one might think that only a radical revolutionary would publicly
declare approximately one-half of his countrymen “the real enemy.” One would
certainly think that such a statement from a leader already in office would make news.
It did not. The statement was in fact made by Vice President Gore in a debate with
Senator Bill Bradley as both men sought the Democratic Party presidential nomination.
While battling off Bradley’s personal attacks, Gore attempted to redirect the debate by
asserting that Bradley’s fault-finding (with Gore) was not solving any problems and that
the “real enemy” was the Republicans. 13 One has to wonder whether such a comment
11
For example, in Jacksonville, according to WTLV sales department estimates, the thirty-second morning show ad rate on the local
NBC affiliate is $250-$300. Using these figures as an average, multiplied by 233 stations, makes for nearly a $70,000 windfall for
the Gore campaign. If one adds the additional commentary which staged the ad, it is arguable that the impact of the message was
greater.
12
It is interesting, but diversionary, to note that apparent liberal bias has primarily risen to television at the top of the media “food
chain”, while conservative bias has been largely relegated to the AM radio band.
13
During the February 21, 2000, presidential primary debate in New York, a defensive Al Gore fended-off Senator Bradley’s personal
attacks by stating that “[the attacks] distract us from the real enemy … the republicans.” (visited Jan. 11, 2001)
<http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/02/21/apollo.debate/>.
was accidental, as it coincided with a radio commercial that was currently airing which
stated “[Bradley’s] unfair negative attacks divide us at the very moment we should
stand together against the real enemy --- the Republican candidates.”14 Presumably the
vice president did not intend to declare actual war upon half of his countrymen, but the
choice by the mainstream press15 to ignore such an inappropriate remark begs the
question: what if Bush or McCain had made the same comment of Democrats?
C. Disingenuous Associations
The practice of making illogical connections between persons or ideas that are
idea (the object) of the statement into the light of the other. Such false associations serve
to chip away at the public image of the object. The comments of NBC News Reporter
Lisa Myers illustrate clearly. Discussing the viewpoints of Senator John Ashcroft, the
Bush nominee for attorney general, Myers reported that “Ashcroft has the same view of
the Second Amendment as Timothy McVeigh.”16 What possible effect can associating
Ashcroft’s view of the Second Amendment with that of McVeigh have other than to
tarnish Ashcroft’s image by a false association which suggests that Ashcroft and
McVeigh are of the same ilk? 17 Was not Thomas Jefferson’s view of the Second
14
Ken Foskett, Bradley Scrambling for a Boost; But his tactics in Washington state are raising questions and McCain's bandwagon is
hogging the spotlight, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, February 25, 2000, at 20A. The article discusses a radio advertising
campaign paid for by Voters for Choice in which supported candidate Gore in the democratic primary against candidate Bradley.
15
See id. One mention of Gore’s statement was reported in an Internet article on CNN.com’s All Politics. The quote was not the
subject of the article and was merely placed in the final sentence of the last paragraph.
16
See Media Research Center, Campign 2000 Media Reality Check, (visited Jan.18, 2001) quoting Lisa Myers from the NBC Today
Show broadcast of January 10, 2001 <http://www.mediaresearch.org/news/reality/2001/Fax20010110.html>.
17
McVeigh was convicted of bombing the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in which 168 persons were killed on April 19, 1995, in
Oklahoma City.
Amendment similar to McVeigh’s? What’s next? Will a news reporter point out that a
certain politician likes wearing brown shirts just like the ones Hitler’s men wore?18
In similar fashion, public persons are frequently identified as “far left”, “liberal left”,
“Christian right”, and “radical right-wing”. When such labels are tossed about by those
attempting to discredit their opponents, is not the media complicit if it does not
challenge the speaker? This complicity debatably allows the speaker to brand the object
with a false association subtly, though possibly as effectively as the overt association
Centennial Olympic Park on July 27, 1996, wherein one person was killed and over 100
others injured.19 The very next day, security officer Richard Jewell was touted as one of
several security persons responsible for saving lives.20 Jewell’s status as post-bombing
hero declined quickly to nation-wide condemnation because of the print and broadcast
media’s haste to brand him as the guilty party. By July 30th, Jewell was described by the
Atlanta Journal-Constitution as “a former law enforcement officer, [who] fits the profile
18
United Stated Holocaust Memorial Museum (visited Jan. 10, 2001). As the environmentalist parties are called “greens” and
Communists are called “reds”, the German Nazional Socialist Democrat Party (nazis) were referred to as “the browns” or
“brownshirts” because of the color of their dress uniforms. (visited January 10, 2001) <http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/92118-
1.htm>.
19
Frank Cerabino, Centennial Park Bombing; Fans crowd city as investigators search for bomber, The Atlanta Journal-
Constitution, July 28, 1996, at 01S.
20
Alice Dembner and Peter S. Canellos, An Act of Terror; Games go on as bombing is probed, The Boston Globe, July 28, 1996, at
A1. It is often reported that two persons died in the bombing, but one person was actually killed by the bomb while another, a
Turkish television cameraman, suffered a heart attack rushing to get to the scene to videotape the aftermath.
of the lone bomber. This profile generally includes a frustrated white man who is a
former police officer, member of the military or police ‘wannabe’ who seeks to become a
hero.”21 After Jewell was cleared of suspicion by the United States Department of
Justice in October of 1996,22 a multitude of lawsuits ensued in which Jewell charged the
likes of NBC, ABC/CapCities, The New York Post, CNN, and Cox Enterprises with
The Jewell case is brought forth as an example of a sort of press bandwagon effect
where it is apparent that reporters were biased by the groundswell of the public opinion
It is not within the scope of this inquiry to delve into the actual legal issues and case
rulings of the lawsuits filed by Richard Jewell, however it is incredible to look back at
what was said by the media about this man before his exoneration by the Department of
Justice. Tom Brokaw, news anchor of NBC said, “[t]he speculation is that the FBI is
close to making the case. They probably have enough to arrest him right now, probably
enough to prosecute him, but you always want to have enough to convict him as well.
There are still some holes in this case.”24 In her July 31, 1996 New York Post column,
21
Kathy Scruggs and Ron Martz, FBI Suspects ‘Hero’ Guard May Have Planted Bomb, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution P.M.
Edition, July 30, 1996.
22
Roberto Suro, The FBI Questions Its Own Tactics With Jewell, Chicago Sun-Times, November 11, 1996 at 4. In this article
concerning primarily the FBI’s tactics in questioning Richard Jewell, the author cites that Jewell received a letter from the Justice
Department dated October 26, 1996, clearing him of suspicion.
23
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 916 (6th ed. 1990). Libel per se occurs when words are of such a character that an action may be
brought upon them without the necessity of showing any special damage, the imputation being that the law will presume that
anyone so slandered must have suffered damage.
24
Media Libel, Cases and Conflicts, Richard Jewell v. NBC, and other Richard Jewell cases (visited on Jan. 19, 2001)
<http://www.hfac.uh.edu/comm/media_libel/cases-conflicts/tv/jewell.html>.
Andrea Peyser wrote, “Who checked ‘Rambo’ crossing guard’s record? … Richard
Jewell, the Olympic security guard who’s reportedly turned into a prime suspect for
Saturday’s deadly bombing, had a reputation for being the village Rambo in Habersham
County … He was a fat, failed former sheriff’s deputy who spent most of his working
days as a school crossing guard, and yearned to go further. But he lost his job on the
county force, after six years when he wrecked a squad car.”25 Jewell settled out of court
with CNN for the broadcast of such statements as: “…a bizarre employment history
Such statements demonstrate that there are occasions where the print and broadcast
media tend to stoke their own momentum in a story and lose sight of the fact that their
words have the power to destroy lives. This effect, which I’ve labeled “bandwagoning”,
appears to cause reporters to lose sight of the truth in favor of expediency, sensation
3. Foundational Information
In a free society can there ever be a preventive cure for the types of unfairness and
bias the print and broadcast media occasionally exhibit? Should private citizens like
Richard Jewell be forced to rely on remedial cures to prevent the press from conducting
repeat performances?
25
See Richard Jewell v. New York Post, 23 F.Supp 2d 348, 380 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).
26
Leonard Pallats, Jewell Settles with CNN; Sues Atlanta Newspapers, former employer, The Danbury News-Times, Jan 29, 1997,
(visited January 19, 2001) <http://www.newstimes.com/archive97/jan2997/nad.htm>.
After developing a sense of the types of unfairness and bias which occur, it is
Communications law. The fairness doctrine, freedom of the press, the public interest
The doctrine is more deeply explored below, however for purposes of introduction,
media’s weakened constitutional status as compared to other media such as cable, print
and the Internet. “The doctrine gives the government the authority to oversee
enacted the doctrine was thought to expand broadcasters’ rights because prior to the
In its original form, the doctrine imposed dual responsibilities upon broadcast
public issues, and it was incumbent upon them to give air time for opposing points of
view.29
27
Henry L. Zuckman et al., Modern Communications Law, § 14.5, at 1234 (1999).
28
See id.
29
See Syracuse Peace Council, et al. v. FCC, 867 F.2d 654, 655 (U.S. App. D.C. 1989).
For purposes of this inquiry, the press’s right to access information is not
immediately relevant, rather its freedom from prior restraint is preeminent. A prior
free press guarantees of the First Amendment to prevent all prior restraints upon
belief was that restrictions on the press prior to publication should not be sustained,
instead he believed that statements contrary to the public welfare should be punished
after their publication.32 Subsequently, the Court expressed its opinion that prior
In the broadcast context, the rights of a free press have experienced a fundamental
shift over time from a right inhered in the public to “receive suitable access to social,
political, esthetic, moral and other ideas,”34 to a curious position Justice Brennan once
took where he referred to the public’s right to receive a balanced presentation of views
30
See generally Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931).
31
See Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462 (1907).
32
See id.
33
See Bantam Books Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70 (1963) (declaring unconstitutional the activities of commission created by the
Rhode Island legislature that warned book distributors of objectionable books in effort to thwart their distribution in the state).
34
See Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 390 (1969). The Court upheld the Fairness Doctrine’s personal attack rules
against Red Lion’s WGCB after it carried a 15 minute broadcast by the Reverend Billy James Hargis wherein Hargis attacked author
Fred J. Cook. Red Lion failed to meet its Fairness Doctrine obligation allowing Cook rebuttal time. The Court approved the
Doctrine’s right to reply provisions for persons who were personally attacked and for editorial response. In it’s ruling the Court
established a less than strict level of scrutiny for content-based broadcast regulation stating that such regulation was valid only if
narrowly tailored to further a substantial government interest.
in the past tense,35 to the present position where the Court openly recognizes
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the Commission’s
decision not to enforce the doctrine stating that “[i]n sum, the fairness doctrine in
operation disserves … the broadcaster’s interest in free expression.”37 Driving the point
home, Judge Starr in his concurrence in Syracuse Peace Council, pointed out that the
Commission interpreted the Court’s decision in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, as
rendering the doctrine unconstitutional if regulation “(1) chills speech and results in the
net reduction of the presentation of controversial issues of public importance and (2)
From these examples it is arguable that the focus of free press rights concerning
broadcast licensees has shifted over time from one which previously viewed such rights
as held by the public at large to receive fair and balanced information to one which now
35
See FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364, 380 (1984). In the final paragraph of section II, Justice Brennan curiously
referred to the public’s First Amendment interest in receiving a balanced presentation of views, as a restriction on the press whose
nature “has” been to secure such access by the public. It is not apparent whether this reference to the public’s interest was
intentionally placed in the past tense or merely interestingly placed therein.
36
See generally In Re Syracuse Peace Council, 2 F.C.C.R. 5043 (1987).
37
See Syracuse Peace Council v. FCC at 659.
38
See id at 682 (Starr, J. concurring).
C. Public Interest
Radio and television broadcasting licensees have been regarded as operating in the
public interest.39 The public interest standard was originally set forth in the Radio Act
authority for the FCC.41 “[T]he weighing of policies under the ‘public interest’ standard
is a task that Congress has delegated to the Commission in the first instance,”42 however
it should be noted that the Commission’s view of what is actually in the public interest
does change, as commission personnel changes, and their underlying philosophies and
experiences differ.43
The public interest standard is rooted in the limited capacity of the electromagnetic
spectrum, conveniently labeled - “scarcity”.44 Scarcity stems from the fact that more
individuals wish to hold broadcast licenses than can be permitted. This result is due to
39
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1229 (6th ed. 1990), generally defines a public interest as one that is granted by public permission,
making use of public property requiring the permitted to bear an affirmative obligation to deal with the public on reasonable terms.
40
Radio Act of 1927, Pub. L. No. 632, §11 (1927).
41
See FCC v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U.S. 134, 137-138 (1940) (holding that it was outside the scope of the court's power to
dictate procedures or priorities of applications to petitioner under the Communications Act, and stating that judicial review of
agency actions was limited to correction of legal errors).
42
See FCC v. Nat'l Citizens Comm. for Brdcst., 436 U.S. 775, 810 (1978).
43
See Pinellas Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 230 F.2d 204, 206 (U.S. App. D.C. 1956), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 1007 (1956).
44
See Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 375-376 (1969). The Court discusses the fact that prior to the Radio Act of
1927, the private sector chaotically attempted to allocate frequencies to broadcasters. Footnote 5 containing the comments of
Congressman White are especially predictive of the necessity for regulation based upon a public interest standard.
45
See id. at 383.
46
See id. at 388.
The FCC’s desire for diverse voices on the air also drives the public interest
position was amplified by the FCC’s declaration that the fundamental purpose of the
by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought
to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the
only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.”48 Holmes
the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is
the public to different viewpoints is the best way to discover truth. The
47
See Amendment of Multiple Ownership Rules (Docket No. 8967), 18 FCC 288 (1953).
48
See Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J. dissenting).
49
See id.
marketplace metaphor has dominated the Supreme Court’s interpretation of
Certain questions come to mind before approaching the legal detail-work of the
fairness doctrine, diversity, the Commission’s relaxation of ownership rules, and the
Armed with the fact that for decades the FCC considered the broadcast media a
scarce commodity and utilized that principle to underlie strict ownership policies and
certain content regulation, how or why was such a scheme undone? Did scarcity truly
disappear? Does broadcasting no longer embody unique qualities, such that the vast
quantity of “voices” brought on by the Internet now evens the “diversity of voices”
playing field? How do the years of focus on diversity square with the Commission’s
Much of FCC policy seems diametrically opposed. Perhaps it has been driven by the
private interests of the National Association of Broadcasters, the shift in the Court’s
of the broadcast spectrum, the onslaught of new media and technology, or some
Donald E. Lively et al., Constitutional Law: Cases, History, and Dialogues 940 (2d ed. 2000).
50
Forthcoming questions are issues derived from personal observations after 17 years in the radio broadcast industry in positions of
51
The fairness doctrine spawned several corresponding doctrines which also affected
broadcasters.53 Those included the Cullman doctrine which provided that when only
one side of a controversial issue was presented during a sponsored program, the other
side must be presented even if no one was willing to pay for the presentation.54 The
Zapple doctrine dictated that stations that sold time to political supporters of one
opposed candidates, they were required to notify the subject and offer equal time to
respond.56 Under the personal attack rule, a broadcaster was obliged to notify and offer
equal time to the victim of an on-air attack wherein that person’s honesty, character,
integrity of similar personal qualities were attacked during the broadcast of a program
52
FCC Fairness Report, 48 FCC 2d 1 (1974).
53
See ZUCKMAN, supra at 1235.
54
Id. Citing to Cullman Broadcasting Co., 40 FCC 576 (1963).
55
Id. Citing to Letter to Nicholas Zapple, 23 FCC 2d 707 (1970).
56
47 C.F.R. § 73.1930 (1997).
57
Id. § 73.1920.
After nearly forty years in force,58 in 1985 the FCC began to dismantle portions of the
fairness doctrine. Preceding partial repeal, the commonly held notion of spectrum
scarcity as the rationale for retaining fairness regulation began to erode as the FCC
started to interpret the public interest standard under the “marketplace of ideas”
concept. FCC Chairman Mark Fowler took the position that regulation was necessary
In the Commission’s Inquiry Into General Fairness Doctrine Obligations (1985 Fairness
Report), the Commission concluded that the doctrine “operated to chill broadcaster
undercut the need for the doctrine.”60 This decision was not based on Constitutional
grounds, rather it was policy made by congressionally delegated power and FCC
Federal District Court in Syracuse Peace Council stated that “the fairness doctrine in
operation disserves both the public’s right to diverse sources of information and the
broadcaster’s interest in free expression. Its chilling effect thwarts its intended purpose,
and it results in excessive and unnecessary government intervention into the editorial
58
The Fairness Doctrine was initiated by an FCC report dated 1946, entitled Public Service Responsibilities of Broadcast Licensees.
59
See Mark S. Fowler & Daniel L. Brenner, A Marketplace Approach to Broadcast Regulation, 60 Tex. L. Rev. 207 (1982). Critical of
the use of the public interest standard to impose programming restrictions, they concluded that in light of advances in electronic
radio technology, the scarcity rationale was no longer viable and that the marketplace, the listeners and viewers should define the
public interest. In their view, the public interest standard abridged broadcasters' First Amendment rights.
60
See Syracuse Peace Council at 660.
61
Id. at 559.
that its reasoning to support the FCC’s decision to partially repeal the doctrine was
outlets and programming, [gave adequate grounds for] removal of the first prong [of
By 1999, the last effective remnants of the fairness doctrine were the personal attack
and political editorial rules.63 The Commission came under increasing pressure from
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to “explain why the public
interest would benefit from rules that raise [certain] policy and constitutional doubts.”64
In response, in early October 2000, the Commission suspended its political editorial and
personal attack rules for 60 days.65 One week later, the District Court issued a writ of
6. Diversity of Ownership
With or without the fairness doctrine in force, the FCC has also sought to satisfy the
public interest standard and ensure a diverse mix of voices in the marketplace with
62
See Syracuse Peace Council at 669. This notion, recognized by the court in which the FCC justifies its actions based on diversity,
sets the stage for one of the primary curiosities in FCC regulative history. It is notable at this point that such diversity was
underpinned by strict ownership limitation rules sharply limiting the quantity of outlets and overlap of signals in which one entity
could be licensed.
63
See Radio-Television News Dir. Ass’n v. FCC, 229 F.3d 269 (U.S. App. D.C. 2000).
64
See Radio-Television News Dir. Ass’n v. FCC, 184 F.3d 872, 882 (D.C. Cir. 1999). In August of 1999, the District Court held that it
was incumbent upon the Commission to explain why the public interest would continue to benefit from fairness regulations. The
Court was concerned with government entanglement in day to day media operations and interference with the editorial judgment of
professional journalists.
65
FCC News Release, FCC Suspends Political Editorial and Personal Attack Rules for 60 Days, (Oct. 4, 2000). The Commission
ordered a 60 day suspension of the personal attack and political editorial rules, rejecting discussion in Syracuse Peace Council v.
FCC which kept the attack and editorializing prongs of the doctrine in effect. Interestingly, the Commission’s decision paved the way
for unchecked editorial content to be broadcast a mere month before the 2000 presidential election.
66
See Radio-Television News Dir. Ass’n v. FCC, 229 F.3d 269, 272 (U.S. App. D.C. 2000). The Appellate Court, frustrated that the
FCC had not appropriately responded to its request in the District Court, pointed out that the petitioner’s request for the rules to be
vacated had been pending since 1980! After declaring the FCC’s action “unreasonably delayed”, the Court issued the writ.
rules that limited the number of broadcast stations an entity may operate and by
broadcast stations.
The Commission, in 1953, set forth strict regulations limiting to seven the number of
FM, AM, and TV stations one entity could own.67 Later, in 1986, the Court upheld the
use of minority preferences in the broadcast licensing process. These preferences lasted
The need for diverse voices in media to protect the public interest is well
documented. The First Amendment, said Judge Learned Hand, “presupposes that right
conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues, than through
any kind of authoritative selection.”69 “[The] Amendment rests on the assumption that
the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources
is essential to the welfare of the public, that a free press is a condition of a free society …
Freedom to publish means freedom for all and not for some. Freedom to publish is
guaranteed by the Constitution, but freedom to combine to keep others from publishing
67
See ZUCKMAN, supra at 1199-1201. Describes the beginnings of ownership limitation rules and their subsequent evolution. An
operator could own seven FM, seven AM, and seven TV stations, with a limit to the ability to combine stations in one market to one
AM and FM, but not an AM, FM, and TV. Some operators were grandfathered in with 3-way combinations, and some waivers were
permitted.
68
See Adarand Constructors, Inc., v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 231 (1995) (calling for strict scrutiny for federal as well as state and local
governmental acts which seek to employ race-conscious criteria to achieve remedial action favoring minorities).
69
See New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964) citing to United Stated v. Associated Press et al., 52 F.Supp 362, 372
(S.D.N.Y. 1943).
is not. Freedom of the press from governmental interference under the First
media,71 in 1985 the Commission raised the number of TV, AM and FM stations one
entity could own to twelve apiece. The number of FM and AM stations was increased
to eighteen in 1992, and to twenty in 1994.72 Later, the Telecommunications Act of 1996
eliminated all numerical limits for the ownership of radio stations. After 1985, the
Commission took a different track with TV ownership rules and prohibited an owner
from holding multiple television stations which had an audience reach of greater than
Jacksonville, Florida is near the median of the top 100 radio markets in America.73 In
Jacksonville, there are currently three ownership groups that own seventeen of the local
commercial radio stations, and the remaining stations that reach the market are situated
either outside of the market, broadcast during daytime hours only, or are local stations
of inferior signal strength.74 In second largest radio market, Los Angeles, Infinity
Broadcasting and Clear Channel Communications each own eight commercial radio
70
See Associated Press et al. v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 20 (1945).
71
See Pottsville supra note 2.
72
See ZUCKMAN supra at 1200.
73
Jacksonville is the 52nd largest radio market in the United States as determined by The Arbitron Company. (visited Jan. 21, 2001)
<http://www.arbitron.com/radiosurvey/mm051075.htm>.
74
The Radio Locator (visited January 20, 2001) < http://www.radio-locator.com>. By entering the city and state into the search
engine, one can determine what stations are in a given market, who owns them, what their signal strength is, and what their licensed
operating hours are.
stations while the two next largest stakeholders in the market merely own three
apiece.75 At the other end of the market-size spectrum, in Brunswick, Georgia, the 282nd
largest radio market76, one local owner holds six stations, while the two other local
Standing alone, such numbers may not impress. However if one considers that prior
to the unraveling of the FCC’s broadcast ownership rules, the most any one person or
entity could hold in a market was a single AM and FM license, and at most a total of
seven apiece nationwide, diversity in ownership clearly has become a relic of the past as
licensees nationwide.78
As for television ownership, the Commission did relax rules enough to allow
ownership of more than one station per market by a single owner in special
circumstances. “The new FCC standards will allow dual ownership in cities where
there are a sufficient number of media voices, which include all radio and TV stations,
large daily newspapers and cable systems. Specifically, a city must have at least eight
independently owned television stations for one company to own two. And a company
cannot own more than one of the four top-rated stations in any market.”79
75
See id.
76
The Arbitron Company (visited Jan. 21, 2001), <http://www.arbitron.com/radiosurvey/mm251276.htm>.
77
See id.
78
See note 89 infra.
79
Bill Carter, The Media Business; FCC Will Permit Owning 2 Stations In Big TV Markets, N.Y. Times, August 6, 1999, A1.
The FCC’s recent relaxation of its ownership rules has been designed to provide
clear, “commonsense rules that recognize the dramatic changes [in] . . . the media
and compete in this increasingly dynamic media marketplace . . . [and] help preserve
free local broadcast service.”80 The Commission has attempted to counteract any
allowing a “new entrant bidding credit” as part of their broadcast license auction
procedures.81
1978 Policy Statement. The statement enunciated the use of comparative hearing
preferences favoring minority applicants, the distress sale policy, and the award of tax
certificates to the owners of broadcast or cable systems that sold their properties to
minority-controlled businesses.82 The policies set forth by the 1978 Policy Statement to
“Black, Hispanic Surnamed, American Eskimo, Aleut, American Indian, and Asian
American extraction.”83
80
In the Matter of Review of the Commission's Regulations Governing Television Broadcasting, Report and Order, 14 FCCR. 12903,
(1999) (Comm’r Kennard concurring).
81
Id. at para 13 (1999).
82
Statement of Policy on Minority Ownership of Broadcast Facilities, Public Notice, 68 FCC2d 979 (1978).
83
See Metro Broadcasting Inc., v. FCC, 497 U.S. 547, n1 (1990) (upholding the FCC’s minority preference - comparative hearings and
distress sale policies).
First, the comparative hearing minority preference policy worked by adding
minority ownership to the criteria set forth in the Commission’s 1965 Policy Statement.84
This “‘plus’ [was] awarded only to the extent the minority owner actively participate[d]
Second, the distress sale was a plan which eliminated the existing policy that “a
licensee whose qualifications to hold a broadcast license [that had] come into question
[could] not assign or transfer that license until the FCC ha[d] resolved its doubts in a
non-comparative hearing.” Instead, “[t]he distress sale policy [was] an exception to that
practice, [which allowed] a broadcaster whose license ha[d] been designated for a
revocation hearing, or whose renewal application ha[d] been designated for hearing, to
Finally, tax certificates were offered to broadcasters that sold their properties to
or the adoption of a new policy by, the Commission with respect to the ownership and
84
Policy Statement on Comparative Broadcast Hearings, Public Notice, 1 FCC2d 393 (1965). The Commission set forth various
factors to be examined when awarding a broadcast license. Such factors included; diversification of control, full-time participation
in station operation by owners, proposed program service, past broadcast record, and efficient use of frequency.
85
See Metro Broadcasting at 557.
86
See id.
87
See id. at n19.
The 1990s were ushered in by the Supreme Court’s confirmation of the legitimacy of
the FCC’s comparative hearing and distress sale policies in Metro Broadcasting, Inc., v.
FCC. An important aspect of Metro Broadcasting was the Court’s adoption of the
intermediate standard of review for determining the validity of the racial classification
policies mandated by Congress. In declaring the standard, Justice Brennan stated that
“[w]e hold that benign raceconscious [sic] measures mandated by Congress -- even if
those measures are not ‘remedial’ in the sense of being designed to compensate victims
extent that they serve important governmental objectives within the power of Congress
majority opinion overruling Metro Broadcasting, stating that strict scrutiny must be
D. Questioning Change
Curiously, after creating sizable monopolies for a handful of broadcasters91 with the
elimination radio ownership limits, relaxing the television ownership rules, and the loss
that “[o]ne of the most important purposes of our multiple ownership rules is to
How does a commitment to diversity square with regulations which, in the case of
radio, have radically reduced the number of individual licensees? Does such a scheme
benefit any but the well-heeled who’ve been effectively given a green light to buy out
decreased, the FCC requested further studies on the effects of minority ownership of the
enhance diversity of ownership and content with the notions of spectrum scarcity.94
someone must make choices about allocation.” 95 However, the notion that the
electromagnetic spectrum is scarce has come into question, and because of this, doubt in
the continued validity of the scarcity rationale resounds, and the foundation of related
If the electromagnetic spectrum is in fact on the verge of no longer being scarce, this
should spell fewer limitations to access and ultimately translate to increased diversity.
the broadcast and print media, and proclaimed that scarcity is “a distinction without a
strained reasoning and artificial results.”97 “All economic goods are scarce, not least the
newsprint, ink, delivery trucks, computers, and other resources that go into the
94
Donald E. Lively et al., Communication Law: Media, Entertainment, and Regulation 297 (1997).
95
Lawrence Lessig, Code And Other Laws Of Cyberspace 183 (1999).
96
See Telecommunications Research and Action Center v. FCC, 801 F.2d 501, 508 (D.C. Cir. 1986), cert denied, 482 U.S. 919 (1987).
97
Id.
production and dissemination of print journalism. Not everyone who wishes to publish
a newspaper, or even a pamphlet, may do so. Since scarcity is a universal fact, it can
hardly explain regulation in one context and not another. The attempt to use a
Bork’s logic carries him to the conclusion that the scarcity argument for governmental
regulation.99
“[W]hile scarcity characterizes both print and broadcast media, [some suggest
that] the latter must be operating under conditions of greater “scarcity” than the
“Neither is content regulation explained by the fact that broadcasters face the
98
Id.
99
Id. at 509.
100
Id. at 508.
newspapers only because government provides streets and regulates traffic on
the streets by allocating rights of way. Yet no one would contend that the
necessity for these governmental functions, which are certainly analogous to the
regulation of the content of a newspaper to ensure that it serves the needs of the
citizens.”101
Given the technology of 1986, Bork’s logic seems baffling. Beyond efforts to increase the
possible way the government could continue to allocate more and more frequencies for
broadcast use. To put it in layman’s terms, a publisher is free to toss his newspaper on
the lawn of one who already receives the newspaper of his competitor, but one who
wishes to broadcast cannot legally hijack the frequency licensed to another and start his
own radio or television service. The fact that the fundamental tools and supplies to
related to publishing, however the physical impossibility of transmitting more than one
message on the same broadcast frequency is a law of nature that Bork brushed aside.
101
Id. at 509.
102
See generally In the Matter of Modification of FM Broadcast Station Rules to Increase the Availability of Commercial FM
Broadcast Assignments. BC Docket No. 80-90, 78 F.C.C.2d 1235, para 7 (1980).
The Internet is a communications revolution. 103 With minimal barriers to entry the
technology of the Internet holds keys to the possible shattering of barriers to entry into
the electronic broadcast media. As a result, the effect of the Internet on notions of
It’s unlikely one may ascertain accurate numbers as to how many persons log-on,
how many websites are designed and uploaded, or how the volume of electronic mail
travels upon the Internet on a daily basis. The Google search engine has now counted
1.3 billion web pages.104 Content diversity is steadily increasing. How this type of global
diversity affects the Commission’s regulation of the allocation of broadcast licenses and
Meanwhile, certain technologies used by the Internet are being proposed for use in
the propagation of radio and television signals. One such proposal would undercut
much of the logic and foundational principles from the FCC’s regulatory scheme.
Typically, broadcast interference occurs when two or more signals are propagated on
the same or adjacent frequencies in the same geographic area. When this occurs, signals
103
It is critical for the reader to understand the basic architecture of the Internet at this time. Put in its simplest form, when a file
(email, web page, etc) is sent over the Internet, it does not travel on one wire as a single file. Instead, it is broken into packets. Each
packet “knows” the address of the destination computer, and each packet finds its own way to that destination. When all the packets
reach the destination they are reassembled into the single file. This creates an architecture which represents the opposite of the
“choke-point” theory which has been mentioned above. If one path is “down”, the data simply finds another route.
104
Thomas E. Weber, E-World; Net’s Explosive Growth Spurs Entrepreneurs To Build Better Links, The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 4,
2000 at B1.
are cancelled out and are not listenable.105 Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig106
claims that the problem of interference is actually caused by dumb receivers, not
conflicting signals. He states that if broadcast receivers were designed so that they
knew which message to focus on, interference would cease and spectrum scarcity
would be nonexistent.107
Lessig’s idea works because it would transform the nature of the architecture of the
broadcast paradigm into a packeted data distribution model not unlike TCP/IP,108 the
data routing method utilized by the Internet. Lessig says, “a smart receiver could
distinguish the transmissions. It could tell which it was to receive and ignore all others,
that broadcasting could operate similarly whereby the technology of receivers would
design wherein no sender would have to have a particular portion of the spectrum
105
See generally Doug Vernier, Interference on the FM Band (visited Jan.21, 2001)
<http://www.v-soft.com/MWBCSBEPaper/interference_paper.htm>.
106
Lawrence Lessig is a Professor of Law at the Stanford Law School. He was the Berkman Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.
From 1991 to 1997, he was a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. He graduated from Yale Law School in 1989, and
then clerked for Judge Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, and Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. Lessig
teaches and writes in the areas of constitutional law, contracts, comparative constitutional law, and the law of cyberspace. In 1999-
2000, he was a fellow at the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin. (visited Jan. 25, 2001) <
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/bio/index.html>.
107
See LESSIG at 184.
108
See id. at 32. TCP/IP stands for Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol, the scheme by which data is broken into small
information packets for transmission and reception via the public Internet. Lessig explains that these data packets should be
thought of as small packages of information wrapped in an envelope with the address stamped on the outside.
109
See id. at 184.
110
Id.
This alternative architecture for broadcasting that eliminates much of the need for
government regulation. It facilitates a vastly more efficient use of the finite spectrum
and creates greater competition among current packet transmission methods such as
copper wire or fiber-optic cable. Lessig challenges the reader to consider whether
would result in a model that is “more consistent with First Amendment designs.”111
Apple Computers has already begun marketing the AirPort which is a wireless Internet
delivery system designed to be used within a home or small office. 112 Such an item
serves as a model of what, with greater transmission power, could deliver digital
Setting aside speculation on the future mode of broadcasting, what exists today
All are contrary to past policy with no legitimate remedies realistically in sight.
Questions of media fairness are all too often met with “avert the eyes” or “change
the channel” responses. Is it acceptable for those in the broadcast media to hold licenses
Id.
111
The AirPort is a device that allows wireless Internet access within a given radius of the device. One can set up the AirPort system
112
and connect to the Internet with any properly configured computer without being “wired” to a network. Apple Computers
Incorporated (visited Jan. 23, 2001) <http://www.apple.com/airport/>.
granted by our government of the people, while simultaneously enjoying the liberty to
pour out half-truths and falsehoods upon us? If market forces truly allow truth to rise
to the top, it appears a generation (at least) has been lost awaiting its ascension!
Certainly what is “truth” is in the eyes (or ears) of the beholder, but the longer the
debate over truth lasts, the more numbed society becomes by the mire. Many people
are not turning the channel. Many people are not keen to the dulling of their senses and
take the messenger and the message at face value. I contend that the media’s “they can
just tune out” defense while technically true, is disingenuous and intentionally ignores
Diversity has been dramatically cut because of the ownership rules changes.
Recently the Commission has made efforts to facilitate diversity by allowing the
licensing of Low Power FM (LPFM) licenses. LPFM will likely create more signal
allocable frequency range. The LPFM operator may get his voice on the air, but the
signal strength of such LPFM licenses will be so minimal as to render the license
valueless, and it’s a good thing, because they must be used for non-profit purposes and
are also non-transferable.113 It is clear that with LPFM the Commission is attempting to
right the wrong created by the deregulation of ownership rules which created the
113
See generally FCC Mass Media Bureau LPFM Fact Sheet, (visited Jan. 25, 2001) <http://www.fcc.gov/mmb/prd/lpfm/>.
LPFM will prove to be an inadequate remedy. It is not just the opportunity to be
heard which has been lost by the minority or “mom and pop” broadcaster to
which in earnest delivered the news, reflected the views, and catered to the listeners of
the local community has been blighted by the Commission that originally enabled it.
The trend towards monopoly ownership in radio and television serve to create more
discernible control centers for mass communication, but concerns over media
broadly forced upon the public by both subtle and overt methods with little recourse.
Often this fear is allayed by the response previously mentioned which suggests that
Second, the current choke-point design of America’s media ownership scheme could
actually serve a darker purpose. If the public will not allow the government to control
all broadcast media, what is the next best thing? Logic dictates that the next best thing
is the consolidation of ownership into large centralized ownership groups. Fifty large
broadcaster companies are easier to monitor, regulate and influence than 500! If a
politician can get one monopolistic broadcast manager in his back pocket he now has
influence over hundreds of broadcast stations, whereas prior to deregulation the most
this is what the FCC was striving for up until fifteen years ago. Diversity lets the
government get away with nothing, while complete centralization can facilitate limitless
control as was experienced in Eastern Europe during the Cold War or in China today,
Lessig’s vision of an Internet-like architecture being utilized for broadcasting. One must
wonder whether such a free-wheeling use of the airwaves would be wise. Would the
truth continue to rise to the top, or would such a system merely create noise? Perhaps
after reviewing the conflicted path the FCC has taken in bringing the broadcast industry
to today’s state of existence, those who consider fairness and diversity, and revere
balance and integrity will begin to rethink the architectural structure of the broadcast
media as Lessig has done, and ponder whether control and fair play might best be
not consider. The First Amendment rights of broadcasters have evolved to a level of
would pose predictable difficulties. What the FCC should discern from its policy and
regulatory history is that it must make all efforts to act in concurrence with
Commission has worked in patchwork fashion to craft diversity and fairness regulatory
schemes that have largely failed. In 1985 the fairness doctrine ceased to ensure that the
public at large received even a modicum of balance in news and information, while
ownership restrictions have never resulted in much more than the prevention of
monopolistic control by the few. Those regulatory schemes are now part of a bygone
era. The current regulatory scheme has made fairness the burden of the listener by
submitting to the notion that listeners and viewers should merely tune-out, while the
Commission has made a “last gasp” effort to foster diversity by doling out relatively
The Commission’s failures with fairness and diversity will perhaps no longer be
their worry. The resolution to these issues could lie in the architectural model of the
Internet if it becomes the model for the broadcast media. The ability to transmit
would more nearly reflect First Amendment notions of free speech and unbridled
words, “A faithful reading [of the Constitution] would reject an architecture that so
strongly concentrates power. The model for speech that the framers embraced was the
115
See ZUCKMAN, supra at 124. Quoting from International Society for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672, 679 (1992)
describing a public forum as public property that has the traditional purpose of the free exchange of ideas as shown by a long-
standing historical practice of permitting free speech.
116
LESSIG at 185.