Why you can't count on the FCC to control the smut on TV

Many people look to the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, to keep smut off of their TV's, to stop "wardrobe malfunctions," to force the cable companies to offer a la carte programming, and to regulate junk food commercials for kids.

However, an ongoing scandal in which senior members of the FCC attempted to destroy studies favorable to locally-owned TV stations demonstrates that the current FCC cannot be trusted to carry out it duties to the public.

Just before New Year's, apparently under pressure from public interest groups, the Federal Communications Commission quietly released 46 more studies and documents pertaining to media consolidation and ownership, some dating back to 2002.

On the surface, this release is fairly innocuous. In the context of the abhorrent scandal last fall, this release suggests that suppressing studies contrary to the political aims of the Commission has been commonplace. The scandal first erupted last fall during the confirmation hearings for FCC Chairman Kevin Martin.

A government whistleblower, Adam Candeub, sent Sen. Barbara Boxer a copy of a study, that the FCC had been commissioned to do. According to Mr. Candeub, when the study revealed that locally-owned stations produce significantly more local news than non-locally owned stations, senior managers at the FCC ordered "every last piece" of the report destroyed.

The report found that locally owned stations were more likely to produce local stories and provide local footage of events. In fact, locally owned stations produced an average of 5 1/2 minutes more local news per show.

From the report:

"Our study suggests that locally owned television broadcast stations air more local news than network owned-and-operated and non-locally owned stations, even adjusting for the number of stations owned by the corporate parent. We find that local ownership of television stations adds almost five and one-half minutes of local news and over three minutes of local on-location news."

Senator Boxer questioned Mr. Martin about the study during the confirmation hearings. Mr. Martin denied ever hearing of the report or ordering its destruction. Former Chairman Michael Powell also denied ever hearing of the reports. Then a second report surfaced about ownership concentration in the radio industry.

In spite of the serious allegations and their implications, the scandal blew over quickly. The Senate confirmed Mr. Martin for the FCC chair without much ado.

Senator Boxer requested that the FCC Inspector General carry out an investigation about the suppressed documents. However, aside from a brief mention in his semi-annual report in 2006, the FCC Inspector General has not released any formal announcements about the results of the investigation.

This quiet release of 46 further documents with reports dating back to 2002 suggests that the problem of document suppression may be significantly larger than just the two studies. The FCC may have been very selective in the reports it has published over the years, suppressing what does not fit its political agenda.

In case this release of documents appears to herald a change in FCC policy and offer hope to those who believe the FCC might start acting in the public interest, the commission makes clear at the end of the page listing the newly released reports, that the FCC has the legal right to censor which documents it releases.

"The Commission is legally entitled to withhold certain internal documents under the deliberative process privilege of FOIA Exemption 5D. However, in light of the unique circumstances present here — principally, the Commission's current consideration of our media ownership rules and the very strong level of public interest in this proceeding — we are solely, in an exercise of our own discretion, releasing these materials."

This can be translated as:

"We will withhold from the public whatever documents we darn well please. We only released the above files because we felt like it."

The FCC is a taxpayer-funded government entity that is charged with "regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable." It is supposed to examine how its policies affect localism, competition, and diversity. It is supposed to be accountable to Congress. However, it is clear from the FCC's arrogant behavior that it cannot be trusted to regulate the quality of TV programming. Because of the FCC's failure, as parents and as sovereign individuals, YOU must take control of the content and quality of the TV programming that you allow into your home. Using the government as a shortcut will not work.

If you are reading this, you are probably old enough to make such decisions on your own anyway. You do not need to hand your power away to the government. Become informed about the problems with TV and take control of your family's television viewing.

Sources:
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?
fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=53273
http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/materials/already-released/doownersdeliver070004.pdf
www.fcc.gov/ownership/additional.html
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268745A1.pdf