McCain Wants to Cut License Terms

[paineinthearse]

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA504364.html?display=Breaking+News&referral=SUPP

McCain Wants to Cut License Terms

By Bill McConnell -- Broadcasting & Cable, 2/15/2005 6:30:00 PM


Tied to a new study showing that claimed TV stations provide only cursory coverage of local political campaigns, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) introduced legislation Tuesday that would require the FCC to more closely examine how stations have served their local communities at license renewal time. “Eight times more news coverage went to stories about accidental injuries than local elections,” during the 2004 campaign, McCain said, citing the study. “If a local candidate wants to be on television, and cannot afford to advertise, his only hope may be to have a freak accident.”

McCain’s “Localism in Broadcasting Reform Act of 2005” would:

* Reduce the length of station license terms from eight years to three, which would require individual broadcasters to more frequently justify why they should keep their licenses.

* Require the full Commission to review five percent of all license and renewal applications, rather than entrusting agency staff to conduct all the reviews.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

[mark414]

1. it's a step forward...

go with it john

[Dying Eagle]

2. I like it

[Liberty Belle]

3. But with Reps in charge, they might yank progressive station's licenses.

[coloradodem2005]

4. I just hope that it goes equally on both sides.

[theboss]

I don't like one of the proposals

Allow viewers not residing in a station's market to complain about the station.

To me that means that people in Alabama can complain if a San Francisco tv station gives positive coverage of a gay rights issue. People are too organized these days to give this kind of complaint too much credence.

[paineinthearse]

9. Good point.

Relay it to McCain through your Senators.

[moggie12]

5. I'm not worried about partisan politics

Anything that would help ensure more coverage of local campaigns sounds good. The license review process would give opportunity for all sides to present their views so I'm not worried about psrtisans hijacking the process. Also, mandating review by full commission of 5% of applications, instead of just letting staff process applications, would increase oversight/publicity.

I love this McCain quote: “If a local candidate wants to be on television, and cannot afford to advertise, his only hope may be to have a freak accident.” (he says most local stations cover nothing but car accidents, etc.)

[Moderator]

6. paineinthearse

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
copyrighted news source.


Thank you.


DU Moderator

[paineinthearse]

7. oops

I didn't think the "points" would count as stand-alone bullets.

In the newspaper version, the points actually were all in one paragraph. When transposed here, they were crowded. I added the blivits and space beteen each.

[paineinthearse]

8. SENATOR MCCAIN INTRODUCES BROADCASTING REFORM LEGISLATION

Mods, feel free to substitute this public domain document for the lead article.

http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=NewsCenter.ViewPressRelease&Content_id=1523

SENATOR MCCAIN INTRODUCES BROADCASTING REFORM LEGISLATION
For Immediate Release
Tuesday, Feb 15, 2005

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) delivered the following remarks at a press conference held today to announce the findings of a study on broadcasters’ coverage of the 2004 election cycle and to announce the introduction of “Localism in Broadcasting Reform Act of 2005”:

“Thank you, Dean Kaplan for your work analyzing another year’s local news coverage of local elections. It is incredible that since you began studying local news coverage in 1988, broadcasters have yet to show marked improvement.

“One of the most startling statistics from the study is the ratio of political advertisements to candidate news stories aired during a half-hour news cast. Reduced news coverage led candidates to spend over $1.6 billion on television ads in 2004 to introduce themselves to voters, double the amount spent in 2000.

“Another interesting finding was that eight times more news coverage went to stories about accidental injuries than local elections. From what I can gather, if a local candidate wants to be on television, and cannot afford to advertise, his only hope may be to have a freak accident.

“Last summer, after hearing similar data, FCC Chairman Michael Powell and I challenged all local broadcast television and radio stations to provide their local communities with significant information on the local political issues facing communities, the local candidates’ campaign platforms, and the local candidate debates during the 2004 election.

“In response to the challenge, many broadcasters sent volumes of material detailing their extensive election coverage and committing to increase their coverage in 2004. To those broadcasters, thank you for serving your viewers.

“To those broadcasters whose dismal performance is captured in this study or whose performance was as dismal as the broadcasters in the study, I question how you are meeting your obligation to use the Nation’s spectrum to serve the “public interest.”

“Therefore, I feel it is now time to introduce legislation to bring local back into local broadcasting. Later today, I will introduce the “Localism in Broadcasting Reform Act of 2005,” which would reduce the license term for broadcasters from eight years to three years, thereby requiring broadcasters to provide the FCC with information every three years on why their license should be renewed.

“Additionally, the bill would require the full Commission to review five percent of all license and renewal applications, and would command broadcasters to post on their Internet sites information detailing their commitment to local public affairs programming. The bill also calls for the FCC to complete its open proceeding on whether public interest obligations should apply to broadcasters in the digital era.

“I believe this legislation is a step in the right direction. It will have a small impact on those stations that are currently meeting their public interest obligations, but it should have a large impact on those citizens whose local broadcaster is not meeting its obligation to serve the local community. I refuse to believe that the “public interest” is served by three minutes of campaign coverage and a 12 second sound bite from a candidate during a half-hour local news program. Citizens deserve more from their local broadcaster.”

[Vidar]

10. Good idea. Thanks for posting.

[SoCalDem]

11. Public financing/ free air time is the only way to go

There should be special Political Channels available in ALL viewing areas..

Each legitimate candidate should have equal time available to them individually, so they could use it as they chose....an hour here and there or "byte-sized" commercials or whatever..

There should be scheduled debates, moderated by real news people and REAL town hall meetings with NON invited guests..No pre-screening of questions..

There should also be a TOTAL BAN on ANY fund-raising. The parties could furnish people to man phones and distribute candidate information, but That's IT..

If a person has good ideas, and cannot communicate them to the voters, that's too bad..

The people who are truly interested in elections would know which channel to tune to, or they could read the information passed out.

Cutting the corporations and the sugar daddies out would solve a lot of our problems..

Most of the money "recruited" just goes for TV ads anyway.. Cut them out completely, and there is no need to raise $8million for a 2 yr congressional seat :)