GAO Report on Broadcaster Political Ad Disclosures Draws Backers of Online Public File Expansion
A GAO report on disclosure requirements for on-air ads aimed at Congress for broadcasters’ interests (CD Sept 18 p20) underscores the need for improved and extended online public file rules, said public interest groups. The GAO findings on rules for broadcaster disclosure are simply a result of the discontinued enforcement of the fairness doctrine, and could have been discovered by accessing the FCC rules, broadcast attorneys said. They said the report showed broadcasters are abiding by the rules. GAO didn’t make recommendations and the FCC offered technical comments, the report said.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The GAO findings demonstrate that the online public file requirement for TV stations was overdue, said Meredith McGehee, Campaign Legal Center policy director. GAO said gathering research involved going physically to the station, she noted. McGehee said this shows that a government agency is trying to do a congressionally directed assessment of what’s going on in an industry that depends on licenses from the government, but “they're finding it incredibly difficult to make a fair assessment.” CLC, Common Cause and Sunlight Foundation filed the petition to expand the obligation to cable- and satellite-TV operators (CD Aug 11 p5).
The recordkeeping and public nature of the documents is utterly inadequate, said Sean Vitka, federal policy manager at Sunlight Foundation. GAO has the government’s most acute analytical ability, but its ability to access the information is “so dismal and ephemeral that they're reduced to going through a private company that tracks these for profit,” he said. The FCC should “drag these files out of the Dark Ages,” he said. The report cited the pending petition, which is “an indication that GAO knows what the next right step is,” Vitka said.
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill., asked GAO to do the assessment (CD Sept 18 p20). While GAO identified the public file and private data as two possible types of sources for information on the number and fair-market value of relevant ads, it decided those sources are limited, it said.
GAO said it hired Kantar Media Campaign Media Analysis Group (CMAG) to obtain data on TV ads between 2007 and 2012. CMAG data found TV stations aired ads on issues like the Performance Rights Act and retransmission consent at least 2,646 times, “ranging in estimated cost from $6 to over $15,000 per airing,” said GAO. While the cost estimates are reliable enough for the report’s purpose, they're estimates “and do not represent what was actually paid for these spots,” it said. GAO couldn’t make a comprehensive assessment of relevant content aired from 2007 to 2012 because broadcasters are obligated to keep information on political material on file for two years, it said.
Broadcasters have been exceptionally good about sponsorship disclosures in situations where they aren’t being paid, but material is being provided, said Scott Flick, a broadcast attorney at Pillsbury Winthrop. The elimination of the fairness doctrine “gave broadcasters the ability to speak out on all sorts of issues without having to know that they'd have to dedicate airtime to locating people to speak on the opposite side of the issue,” he said. It sounds like GAO was asked to look at what broadcasters are doing regarding issues that they personally are speaking on, he said. “That moves very quickly from the regulatory structure of sponsorship ID in the political file to arguably trying to chill speech by broadcasters."
NAB is “pleased with the GAO’s explicit finding that there is no legal obligation for broadcasters to air advertisements or programming presenting opposing views, including views that do not align with broadcasters’ interests,” said a spokesman.
The report acknowledged there’s no legal obligation for broadcasters to air ads presenting opposing views, but the musicFIRST Coalition said the lack of such an obligation is a problem. NAB’s ability to flood the airwaves with unpaid advocacy that serves its political and pecuniary interests while excluding other viewpoints, “to the point of rejecting paid ads that take a contrary position,” fails to serve the public interest, the coalition said in a letter to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler (http://bit.ly/1rmi7zc). Although the two-year requirement is lawful, “it has left Congress, this commission, and the public in the dark,” it said.
The NAB spokesman said musicFIRST’s claim is “silly” and “flat out false.” The coalition rejected an offer from WTOP(FM) Washington, D.C., to sell airtime to get its message out, he said. “Pointing to a supposed offer by one station in one market speaks for itself in terms of NAB’s inability to defend themselves against these charges,” said musicFIRST Coalition Executive Director Ted Kalo.
McGehee bemoaned the radio industry’s exemption from the online public file rule, which resulted in GAO’s inability to provide information on the number of radio ads aired. The study makes pretty clear that trying to make any assessment of what’s going on in radio is next to impossible, she said. “This provides further ammunition for why the requirement should be extended for radio.” When radio broadcasters’ recordkeeping practices are “so lax” that GAO is unable to adduce the basic facts needed to render policy advice to lawmakers, “it is clear the FCC must itself consider whether existing rules and policies in this area are adequate,” musicFIRST said. (klane@warren-news.com)