Broadcasters enlist legislators to fight proposed FCC rules that would restore some localism

During the National Association of Broadcasters' annual conference in Las Vegas last week, new proposals from the Federal Communications Commission dominated discussions. The NAB does not like the localism rules proposed by the FCC that "would require television and radio station owners to reconnect with their markets at a time when technology allows remote broadcasting and shared programming," reports Cindy Skrzycki for The Washington Post.

The proposals, which include requirements for broadcasters such as creating citizen advisory panels or sharing radio playlists with the government, aim to improve the relationship between stations and their communities. "Public-interest groups say modern radio broadcasters owned by big media companies have sacrificed local radio voices for homogenized playlists, local TV political coverage for sensational news of celebrities and a presence in the community with a distant headquarters and marketing agreements," Skrzycki writes. "They are also unhappy with the lack of minority and female ownership." She also notes that the American Farm Bureau Federation has complained that agricultural news has been virtually eliminated.

The NAB has said proposals' community boards would be unwieldy, their content restrictions might infringe on First Amendment rights and their staffing requirements would strain the finances of smaller stations. (Read more)

As part of its response to the proposals, the NAB asked its members as well as members of Congress to write letters in opposition. "More than 120 legislators signed onto a letter to Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin asking him not to impose any localism mandates on broadcasters," reports John S. Eggerton of Broadcasting & Cable. "A copy of the letter was released by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), but included Democrats, as well."

In the letter legislators said they agreed with the goal of boosting localism but opposed the methods. "Any approach to regulate media that violates constitutional principles or unnecessarily burdens the industry when other, less burdensome methods are available should be discarded," they wrote. (Read more)