My answer to today’s editorial from TVNewsCheck – The lack of regulation enforcement is one reason we are in this mess, so don’t use the misguided attempt to punish the Murdochs as an excuse to throw out the rules that work. An update and expansion of FCC rules to cable and internet news organizations is the answer.
In the article, there was no mention that the Media and Democracy Project includes former Fox Network Executive and broadcasting veteran Preston Padden so I include it here for the record. Mr. Padden’s track record in broadcasting is extensive and should be considered.
Interestingly, you write that broadcasting is the only media that is subjective to “second-guessing by federal bureaucrats” while also pointing out that “like most station newsrooms, it (WTXF) steered clear of Trump’s election ravings.” So, suppose broadcast TV remained one of the few platforms steering clear of Trump’s unfounded election ravings, which led to the January 6th fiasco and current polarization. In that case, the regulation formula for Broadcasting TV seems to work just fine. It’s the other de-regulated platforms that are the problem. So the question begs – why get rid of the regulation that works? Why not expand the regulation that works to the other de-regulated platforms?
Until the Full Invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the cable channel “Russia Today” was allowed to spew blatant lies all over cable networks for anyone weak-minded enough to believe Russian propaganda. Plenty of takers heard what they wanted to hear; facts (or basic human decency) be damned.
No one likes regulation. Airlines, Broadcasters, Bankers, etc., but I’ve yet to see a de-regulated industry that didn’t exploit deregulation for a quick profit and did not quickly kill any consumer trust in the sector—flown recently? Had money in a failed bank, perhaps?
In this case, I submit that FCC Regulation has benefitted broadcast TV. I know of Broadcast TV Executives who claimed to believe “Trump’s election ravings,” unfounded and silly as they were. Yet these baseless allegations did not appear in broadcast newsrooms because no facts could be plausibly used in any newsroom that uses even a fraction of basic journalistic principles. There’s a reason local broadcast TV is still the most trusted voice in the media landscape.
I submit the opposite of your view, that the FCC Rules ensure broadcasting continues to be credible and, in this case, an outlier the country and our tested democracy sorely need. The other “news” platforms should be regulated to the WORKING broadcast TV standards, as these platforms have clearly demonstrated they will not or cannot regulate themselves. This is why, I assume, MDP is using the only tool they have, as misguided and unfair as it may seem. We need more tools, not less. Our very democracy’s existence may depend on it.
Full Disclosure – I work with the Fox O&Os… they’ve ALWAYS treated me honorably, lived up to their commitments, and are tough but fair. If anyone is rooting for them not to be punished for their parent company’s behavior, it is me. My point is that regulation is not the problem. It’s outdated regulation NOT applied to all players equally. If we had a functioning FCC that rolled with the times, we wouldn’t need to debate this because then FNC would abide by a basic set of journalistic principles, as would the rest of cable and internet news outlets. Yes, we can and should do this and still preserve the first amendment.
POST SCRIPT: 7/21/23
I was surprised at my post’s reaction. I want to clarify. Working in broadcast media for 30+ years, I felt comfortable commenting on matters such as FCC regulation. Some random radio person who does not follow me or know me felt compelled to accuse me of being against the 1st Amendment & freedom of expression. I’ve had the privilege of visiting 80+ countries, several of which (Cuba, Thailand, Russia, Vietnam, Nicaragua, etc.) don’t enjoy free speech or a free press. My visits to these countries have resulted in friendships with people suffering under the weight of oppression. They have only strengthened my resolve to protect their freedoms, and it’s one big reason I visit Ukraine during their fight to stay free.
I’ve also seen the flip side. I was a victim of a vicious defamation campaign by a mentally unhinged cyberstalker. Though we won our court case, she freely continued her libelous ways. I’ve learned to deal, but it shakes one’s confidence in justice.
There has never been absolute protection of free speech under the 1st Amendment. In fact, several categories of speech are not protected from government restrictions, including incitement, defamation, fraud, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and threats.
Broadcast is regulated by the FCC because, theoretically, at least, the airwaves (spectrum) that broadcasters traditionally use are a “scarce PUBLIC resource.” Cable and the internet are not considered limited and thus don’t require the same rigorous standard of review that applies to regulating broadcasting. Hence the growth of conspiracy theories and hate speech on these platforms.
While I don’t have all the answers, I’m proud that I’ve worked in a media segment that has consistently maintained public trust by sticking to journalistic principles. This is partly because of the FCC Regulation governing their license to operate. It is a model that works, whereas cable and the internet seem broken and contribute to disinformation, misinformation, and conspiracy theories, and, in general, endanger lives and the prospect of a healthy society.
My comments were directed at Mr. Jessell’s (a person I’ve met, respect & often agree with) seeming assertion that FCC rules hold back broadcast TV while simultaneously pointing out that broadcast TV was one of the few media that didn’t amplify Trump’s baseless “big lie” assertions. If the rules worked, as Mr. Jessell demonstrates, then why is that bad? Why drag broadcast TV down to internet and cable standards? Why not lift internet/cable to broadcast TV standards?
No, this isn’t enshrined in law, but it could be. A reasonable, civil society can protect free speech AND have basic ground rules (i.e., regulation) to safeguard society from the worst actors, many of whom are fueled by foreign adversaries whose sole intention is to weaken the US specifically & democracy in general.
