No fireworks, but some sparks at FCC meeting
The FCC's annual opening open meeting is generally used for horn-tooting with a little navel-gazing thrown in for good measure, but there are usually enough interesting moments tossed in to spice things up a bit, and this year was no exception. We can say that the early favorite for the "Really Stepped In It Award" for 2005 is Armstrong Williams.
Williams was brought to the fore by newly reinstated Democratic Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, who wanted to know what plans Enforcement Bureau Chief David Solomon had as far as mounting an investigation into the 240K pay for plug deal between the commentator and the Department of Education.
Adelstein quoted anti-payola statutes, noting that the requirement to identify the paying sponsor of any broadcast communication, and suggesting that the Williams case belongs squarely in this category. He also mentioned the ongoing independent promotion issue in radio.
In addition to calling for an investigation of Williams, Adelstein said that broadcast licensees are supposed to exercise reasonable diligence in monitoring what is said on their airspace, suggesting that an investigation could extend beyond Williams himself.
Adelstein noted that complaints from citizens were already coming into his office. Solomon was noncommittal when pressed for a plan of action, saying the EB was looking into it.
Watchdog Free Press has taken the same tack, calling for both Congress and the FCC to investigate Bush administration "payola pundits."
Free Press Executive Director Josh Silver said, "This is not about liberals vs. conservatives. It is about the law and media industry ethics. Williams has issued a mea culpa in hopes this will go away, but the scandal is about more than journalistic ethics. Undisclosed payments to shape broadcast matter are illegal payola. Laws have been broken, and it's time for Congress and the FCC to step in and answer some questions. How did this happen? Who else is on the government payroll? Why haven't broadcasters been more diligent? Why aren't we protected from such brazen attempts to manipulate public opinion?"
Are you reading this from a forwarded email?
