Media PolicyThe Legal Center's Media Policy Program shapes policies at the nexus between media and politics by promoting the awareness and enforcement of campaign and communication laws through FCC rulemaking proceedings, congressional action, and public education. Our honorary co-chairs are former presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, and legendary anchorman Walter Cronkite. Public Interest Obligations and the 2008 Elections The current presidential race has struck a chord with the American public and driven exceptional turnout at the polls. Given clear choices and competitive elections, the American voter will enthusiastically engage in our democratic process. An engaged broadcaster community meeting its obligations to the public interest can drive this trend, but history has shown this will not happen on a voluntarily basis, at least not on a broad scale. Broadcasters Should Accept "Wise Use" Option Yes, broadcasters have First Amendment rights, and the Congress and the FCC must respect those rights. But federal law makes clear that broadcasters must “pay back” the public for their use of the public spectrum by fulfilling specific statutory public interest obligations. What Viewers Can Do There are a number of things that citizens can do to start changing the way television covers campaigns. None are quick and nothing will really change without stronger action from the FCC and Congress. But it is important to remember that broadcasters are LOCAL licensees and local viewers can have a voice in the process. The Media Got it Wrong The media got it wrong in New Hampshire. They and the pollsters predicted the wrong winner in the Democratic primary. As we move to ”Tsunami Tuesday,” it is worth taking a few minutes to look at what the New Hampshire debacle says about the way the television covers politics and elections and what is wrong with it. DTV, FCC, NAB and FEC: An Unhealthy Recipe for Alphabet Soup? The transition to digital television (DTV) has been going on for more than a decade and the FCC still hasn’t defined the public interest obligations for broadcasters in the digital age. Today the Campaign Legal Center joined 27 other organizations in an FCC filing urging the Commission to rectify this problem. Oddly enough the National Association of Broadcasters filed FEC reports yesterday revealing the trade association spent more than $4.2 million on lobbying in the first six months of 2007. Election Costs Ad Up In the 2006 elections, the nation’s television stations took in an estimated $2.25 billion for the seemingly endless television ads that besieged our households. That’s obviously good news for television stations and the corporations who own them. But is the current political advertising system good news for America? In a word, no. It’s a rotten system that needs to change. And Now a Word From Our Candidates and Their Detractors Just in case you didn’t see enough negative political advertising in your own viewing area, the Campaign Legal Center has pulled together an assortment of ads from across the country to give you some idea of what voters have been subjected to in the weeks leading up to the midterm elections. Fooled by the Fines? The Federal Communications Commission, at the prodding of the U.S. Congress, has slapped selected broadcasters with steep fines for indecency. But that has not changed the cozy relationship between broadcasters and the agency charged with regulating them. Three Reasons for Positive Campaigns In his response to my CLCblog.org commentary on “Stand By Your Ad” provisions Bob Bauer suggests that concern about negative campaigning is misguided, and that attempts to provide incentives for more “positive” campaigning are yet again examples of reformers run amok. Certainly, negative campaigning has been prevalent in American politics since the beginning of the Republic and will continue to thrive because these attack ads are seen as effective. Stand By Your Ad Images of Adolph Hitler. Accusations by ex-wives. Black and white grainy photos. Ominous-sounding music. These tools are now the well-known staples of the modern election campaign advertising. The recent 2005 off-year elections were no different. In the high profile gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey, the mudslinging began early and triggered the usual hand-wringing by observers who lament the growth of negative campaigning. Campaign strategists, however, are more cold-blooded because they know that the reason that negative campaigning is growing is because it works. Or does it? |
|