Posted on 08/30/2004 8:56:21 AM PDT by EUPHORIC
Show Me the Convention
By MICHAEL J. COPPS
ashington — As a Democratic commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission, I may not agree with many positions taken by speakers this week at the Republican National Convention. Even so, I believe our broadcast media owe us more coverage of an event that remains an important component of the presidential campaign. Yet tonight, if people around the country tune in to the commercial broadcast TV networks, most will not see any live convention coverage. That's not right.
Let's remember that American citizens own the public airwaves, not TV executives. We give broadcasters the right to use these airwaves for free in exchange for their agreement to broadcast in the public interest. They earn huge profits using this public resource. During this campaign season broadcasters will receive nearly $1.5 billion from political advertising.
What do we get in return for granting TV stations free use of our airwaves? Unfortunately, when it comes to coverage of issues important to our nation, the answer is less and less. Coverage of the 2000 presidential election on the network evening news dropped by a third compared to reporting on the 1996 election. During the last election cycle we heard directly from presidential candidates for an average of 9 seconds a night on the news. Local races? Forget it. In 2002 - the most recent midterm elections - more than half of local newscasts contained no campaign coverage at all. Local coverage has diminished to the point that campaign ads outnumber campaign stories by four to one. What coverage there is focuses inordinately on polls and handicapping the horse race.
TV executives tell us that the convention and campaign coverage provided by the cable channels is sufficient. I don't think so. Around 35 million Americans don't get cable, often because they cannot afford it. To put it in perspective, that's more than the combined populations of Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Furthermore, broadcasters legally undertake to serve the public interest themselves in exchange for free spectrum - their licenses don't allow them to pass the buck to cable. Remember also that the vast majority of cable channels are national, not local. So don't look for local campaign coverage on cable, except in the few towns where local cable news exists. Most Americans still must look to their local broadcaster for news of local campaigns and issues.
The F.C.C. is doing nothing to help as the situation deteriorates. It has weakened almost every explicit duty stations once had for serving the public interest, like ensuring that stations cover local issues and offer viewers a diversity of opinion. Just as bad, the commission eliminated protections against media consolidation last year, even though critics warned that this would result in even less local coverage. Luckily, a federal court rejected this decision, so we have another chance to save these rules.
The F.C.C. has also failed to set guidelines for how broadcasters will meet their public interest responsibilities when digital TV and multicasting become more widespread. To make matters worse, the F.C.C. now practically rubber-stamps TV license renewals, usually without auditing station records to determine whether licensees are fulfilling their public interest responsibilities or checking with communities to ensure that stations are meeting local needs.
Whether we are Democrats, Republicans or independents, we all can agree that democracy depends on well-informed citizens. So as you flip through the channels tonight while the convention is largely ignored, consider whether TV broadcasters, sustained by free access to the public airwaves in exchange for programming in the public interest, are holding up their end of the deal.
Michael J. Copps is a commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission.
Well, the FCC sure hasn't held up its end of the deal. They've allowed an open sewer of filth to flow unchecked into America's living rooms for years, while Hollywood perverts line their pockets. Now they're calling the kettle black? Gimme a break!
Do you have the amount of time each network covered the Democratic Convention each night? If so we could do a comparison of time spent on each convention. I wonder who will have received the most coverage.
There are exact figures somewhere. In addition, the networks decide what they think is "newsworthy" (A.K.A suits their agenda) and broadcasts that.
Even a blind Democrat squirrel finds a nut ever now and then...
Will they show democrat Zell Miller's speach?
>>>Do you have the amount of time each network covered the Democratic Convention each night? If so we could do a comparison of time spent on each convention. I wonder who will have received the most coverage.
NBC, CBS and ABC devoted about an hour on each of three nights (M,W and R) starting at 10:00 for the DNC.
I believe that they are expected to provide the same coverage to the RNC on (T,W and R).
Fox, WB and UPN did not show any of the DNC and are not planning any coverage of the RNC.
The broadcast networks covered three nights of the DNC. They were dark on Tuesday night. They were scheduled for an hour a night, 10-11 Eastern, but went long due to the lenght of the speeches. They covered the Clintons on Monday, didn't show Te-ray-zuh or Teddy on Tuesday, covered Edwards on Wednesday and of course Kerry on Thursday.
I'm delighted that the major broadcasters want folks to tune into the cable networks.
It'll probably increase the number of FoxNews clientele and get some more of them hooked.
Evidently, they're not broadcasting the opening night (tonight) of the Republican convention (figures).
If any one has heard something else about this, please post.
Leni
Larry Sabato was on Fox talking about the media's bias convention coverage. Not only are they not covering the Republicans in the same glowing terms they did the Democrats, the media is intentionally using the protestors as a reason NOT to cover the Republican convention.
In fact, the media's coverage of the protestors is filled with bias. As someone who was there, Sabato points out how the media is only showing what they describe as "soccer moms" and average Americans protesting, when in fact this is a slim minority of the people there.
I just can't recall the media's coverage of the protestors in Boston during the Dems convention. And while those prostests may not have been as large or vocal, there is some irony in that the media and the Dems, themselves, never pointed out how the dissedents in that city weren't given the same broad discretion that they are given in NY.
On the contrary, the protestors in Boston were confined to one area with a cage for those who wanted to voice their opinions. Gee...if this would've happened in NY, the Dems and the media would've shouted about people's free-speech being squelched.
In his own words, Sabato says the media is intentionally ignoring the majority of protestors, who are swearing and assaulting anyone who doesn't look like they belong with these dissedents. As I watched events today, it was obvious that the media's intent was not to allow the Republicans to get their message out.
Some have covered the Democrat's so-called "Truth-Squad," while others are asking irrelevant questions to those who are particpating. The levels to which the media has gone this year to support Kerry is unprecendented in my lifetime. There is no longer any prestense of objectivity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.