Click on the banner to learn more...

Copps gets ink in NYT

Democratic FCC Commissioner Michael Copps took to the Op-Ed page of the New York Times today, wondering why citizens must have a cable television subscription to stay on top of the happenings at this week's Republican National Convention, not to mention the Democrat's convention of a month ago. He further questioned political coverage in general.

"What do we get in return for granting TV stations free use of our airwaves?" queried Copps. "Unfortunately, when it comes to coverage of issues important to our nation, the answer is less and less." He went on to note the dwindling amount of coverage, and diminishing quality of what coverage there is, for both national and local elections. He said political ads outnumber news stories four to one.

Copps claimed that broadcasters cannot to use cable coverage as an excuse to limit political coverage, arguing that many Americans do not have access to cable, and further, that broadcasters, not cable operators, have an explicit public interest obligation.

He condemned his own agency, saying the FCC "...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."

He concluded, "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."

RBR observation:

Should the networks be required to go gavel-to-gavel at the conventions, at least during prime time? Here at RBR we are not in agreement on this issue.

It would be nice if the networks would take the high road and up their coverage. Forcing this, however, runs into obvious freedom of speech issues. There are very good reasons for the FCC's traditional reluctance to take on programming issues.

And we understand the networks' reluctance to stick with the conventions. The conventions are hardly the best source of information with which to make an informed voting decision - - each party's convention is going to be self-glorifying and one-sided. We almost always know who the nominee is going to be going in. More to the point, many viewers will simply bolt to the ample programming alternatives offered by cable, satellite and less civic-minded local over-the-air stations.

Still, it is an opportunity for the candidates to get beyond the sound bite and address the issues at some length before a national audience.

Maybe the networks' decision to go with minimal coverage is understandable. But there is nothing about it worth applauding.