Some are hailing the outcome of the Don Imus fiasco as a triumph of media companies' self-regulation. But within days of CBS firing Imus, we saw the limits of relying on the marketplace to ensure the public interest.
In the hours immediately after the tragedy at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, news of the shootings spread quickly around the country and the world. But as people returned home at the end of the day could they find a place to watch that news on broadcast TV? In the Washington, DC area, surprisingly, the answer was 'no.'
On April 17, the Washington Post reported that on the night after the deadliest shooting spree in American history, the nation's most popular TV networks weren't covering the grim news during their prime-time hours. Instead, it was escapism as usual: ABC had "Dancing With the Stars" and "The Bachelor," Fox carried "24," CBS stuck with "Two and a Half Men," and NBC showed "Deal or No Deal."
The decisions of these networks and the owners of local TV stations raises serious questions for both policymakers and the public because, simply put, the airwaves used by these stations are an invaluable public resource. They make possible an incredibly lucrative commercial enterprise " broadcasting. We must not lose sight of the fact that the federal government, acting on behalf of us all, grants broadcasters access to a portion of our airwaves in exchange for a commitment to serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity. This has been the law since the 1930s.
So how well are broadcasters delivering on their commitments?
The Washington Post asked just how big does a story have to be these days to get the broadcast networks to pay attention during their most watched hours? More than a decade ago, faced with declining audiences and the choices of airing more profitable sitcoms and dramas, the networks began to cut back on coverage of the political conventions, presidential addresses and election-night results. More often than not, entertainment, not news, rules.
Trade magazine Ad Age concludes that if the whole Imus debacle tells us anything, it is that today the marketers are truly the reigning power in the media world. This seems entirely contrary to what US broadcasting law and regulation has stood for for the past 70 years. If there's anything that our daily headlines teaches us, it is that our communications resources, especially the public's airwaves, are too valuable to devote just to selling soap.
There's been a slow erosion of broadcaster public interest obligations that has left Americans to ask whether broadcasters are really serving their local communities, whether they are meeting the diverse needs of all Americans who own the airwaves, and whether they are contributing to a vibrant and well informed democracy. Before the Federal Communications Commission now are proposals for better defining the public interest obligations of digital radio and television broadcasters. Congress has mandated the transition from analog to digital television by February 17, 2009. The FCC recently adopted rules to speed the transition to digital radio, too. Now may well be the last chance we get to define the public interest standards by which the public can judge the performance of broadcasters.
If the FCC had real public interest standards that broadcasters must meet to win renewal of their licenses to use our airwaves, broadcasters would have focused on the national tragedy in Virginia instead of offering its typical escapist fare. If the stations airing the Imus show were owned by a minority, had a more diverse set of workers, still followed the ascertainment rules that required them to meet with the community it served, Don Imus would have been a better person, his show would have been more responsive, and the whole episode might have been avoided.
Broadcasters can offer more than escape and, according to the law, they should. Consumers deserve to know how broadcasters will serve their day-to-day television needs healthy programming for children, healthy programming for our democracy, healthy programming for our communities, and as much information about the TV programs that come into our living rooms as what's in the food that comes into our kitchens.
To achieve these goals, parents, voters, community leaders, activists, and concerned citizens need to pick up the television policy remote control. Change the tune coming from policymakers in Washington. Demand reality-based public interest obligations that can help make a difference in your life.
Charles Benton
Chairman and CEO
Benton Foundation
Mr. Benton has served on both the Presidential Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligations of Digital Television Broadcasters and the FCC's Consumer Advisory Committee..