Are you reading this from a forwarded email?
New readers can receive our RBR Morning Epaper FREE for the next 60 Business days! SIGN UP HERE

Radio News ®

Click on the banner to learn more...


It's not the money, it's the license

The third round of indecency hearings at the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet 2/26/04 was a relatively subdued affair, compared to the first two go-arounds. The fact is that most of the witnesses representing the broadcasting industry said that the tenfold increase in indecency fines already passed out of the subcommittee was not a problem.

Gail Berman offered a slight hedge - - she was hesitant to put artists and anyone else appearing over Fox airspace in under too much pre-broadcast indecency pressure. She said they couldn't afford to have talent refuse to appear for fear of an inadvertent or accidental slip which may be tied to grave personal repercussions. She said the network preferred to take the risk of liability and the responsibility for precautions on itself.

Clear Channel's John Hogan, in his written testimony, pinpointed the true concern of broadcasters. It's not the money, it's the licenses.

He cautioned the Subcommittee about making license renewals too big a part of indecency proceedings.

Sure, if there is a slip up, and the company is found to blame, they'll pay up. But the punishment should be commensurate to the crime. If it's an inadvertent, unplanned slip, drastic measures such as a license revocation should not be on the punishment table.

"Although this isn't the case with every licensee," Hogan wrote, "in the past Clear Channel has admitted wrong-doing and paid its fines without contesting the allegation. Upping the ante to include revocation as a sanction will put an end to that, since we will have no choice but to protect our company's assets."

If that happens, the government may be forced to finally take its case to court, where instead of ridding the airwaves of indecent programming, it could very possibly wind up legitimizing it as protected under the First Amendment. He said he would not want to be party of such an example of the "law of unintended consequences," but if it came up would have no real option.


Radio Business Report
First... Fast... Factual and Independently Owned

Sign up here!New readers can receive our RBR Morning Epaper
FREE for the next 60 Business days!


Have a news story you'd like to share? [email protected]

Advertise with RBR | Contact RBR
© 2004 Radio Business Report. All rights reserved.