FCC COMMISSIONER COPPS - RIGHT ON THE MONEY!

[joshzz]

Too many radio stations do not serve their local communities, the worst offender being K-LOVE.

If Michael Copps is successful in his attempt to hold stations more accountable to broadcasting local content the rewards would be great for radio station listeners and would hopefully put some bad radio stations out of business.

Here's more information, courtesy of "Radio Journal"




"An end to rubber-stamp license renewals? Michael Copps says yes. It’s not the first time the Democratic FCC commissioner has spoken out about changing the rules for renewing station licenses, but in a talk last week to the Columbia University School of Journalism, Copps was unusually detailed about his ideas for reforming the process. Under the Copps plan, stations would undergo a “public value test” every four years, replacing the “slam dunk, no-questions-asked” eight year renewals currently used by the FCC. “If a station passes the public value test, it keeps its license,” he explained. “If not, put it on probation for a year. But if the station fails again, give that license to someone who will use it to serve the public interest.” The test would include a number of “quantifiable” benchmarks. Copps says, “Increasing the financial and human resources going into news would be one way to benchmark progress. Producing more local civic programming would be another.” Stations would also need to file detailed plans for how they’d respond to emergencies."

 

[dmargalotti]

Josh,

Before I weigh in with a reply, where is K-Love and how would you suggest they improve their service to their community?

 

[landtuna]

K-love is a national chain of god-casting stations. None of their programming is local to the best of my knowledge.

 

[Darth_vader]

Calvary Chapel and Air One are a couple other big-time offenders here, along with K-Love. Maybe Mr. Copps' proposal will help clean up some of this garbage currently going out over the air.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I don't have a lot of confidence that Mr. Copps can get his initiative implemented, but even if it goes nowhere, it will be good for the nation and the industry that we have this discussion.

If getting the stations operated by the religious groups that do NO local programming to change that is worthy and valuable, that could be done without government action. Just get all the people of the traditional brick-and-mortar houses of worship to make that change a part of their "mission" and watch the fur fly as people of religion get into a nationwide discussion of what we call "stewardship".

We probably have a better chance of getting congress to construct and pass something Mr. Copps wants than getting "the people of Jesus" to deal with this mess on their own.

As I read the Radio-Info topics, I see a lot of enthusiasm for radio to once again become the flower-garden where warm and fuzzy radio announcers give us glib conversation that is local and live. I, too, would find that interesting, maybe enjoyable. But here is the bottom line: if Mr. Copps can change FCC policy about how stations are licensed, and if the church people can shame to bird-based religion stations into doing something local... can anyone tell me what good comes of such a change? Will our kids do a better job of getting a good education? Will our national economy return to vibrancy? Will our crime rates go down?

Tell me why I would join into a mass movement to pressure for the changes we are talking about when we talk about Mr. Copps.

 

[JimmyJames]

As someone with an interest in local licenses, I don't fear these regulations because this is something I am doing, have done throughout my career and will continue to. The only people with reason to fear this, in my book, are those who KNOW they provide no local service and expect to continue to be allowed to put stations everywhere with no responsibility to the community.

 

[TomT]

What he wants is a cross between NPR and '60's college radio. Not practical in today's environment; there are just too many stations in most markets --and an advertising pool that is proportionately smaller than it was 25~30 years ago.

Here's the proposals, borrowed from Broadcast Law Blog: [My comments imbedded thusly]

1. A Meaningful Commitment to News and Public Affairs Programming - an increased commitment to news, local public affairs, election debates and issues oriented programming would be reviewed according to some quantitative benchmarks.

[Most small market stations don't have the staff to produce this programming, so this just means more canned Sunday morning talking heads programs, and adding Fox news--heh, heh!!]

2. Enhanced Disclosure - requiring broadcasters to provide more information about their programming performance, on the Internet, as the Commissioner believes that information in the public file is "laughable", and also requiring that the FCC review that information at renewal time.

[Again, so who is going to do this? Nobody looks at the public file, so we are to waste more dollars having staff produce endless reports that no-one reads? And, without some standards as to % of news and public affairs, what is the Commission staff going to do with it? The news-talk station can generate lots of b.s. for the file, but he seems to want EVERY station to sound like some European government run operation--the garden club report followed by the rock n roll hour then classical music???]

3. Political Advertising Disclosure - requiring more information about the sponsors of political ads

[Only if they are Republican oriented groups, the Dems get a free pass...the real intent is to go around recent Supreme Court decisions and shut down the independent advocacy groups. Candidate-sponsored ads can't be touched--all Federal candidates must be allowed to purchase time.]

4. Reflecting Diversity - looking to increase the gender, ethnic and racial ownership of broadcast stations

[Translation: force the big groups to sell stations to "favored" minority owners]

5. Community Discovery - requiring that broadcasters be required to, in some formal way, communicate with their communities to determine local programming needs and the interests of various groups within a station's community

[The old ascertainment survey reborn: I've done one, was a joke then, even more of a joke now. In my part of the country, if you listened to the vocal old farts who run "the various groups within the station's community"--EVERY station in the market would be running Blue Grass, Classic Country or southern Gospel.]

6. Local and independent programming - requiring that broadcasters provide more local and independent programming instead of "homogenized music and entertainment from huge conglomerates - the Commissioner suggesting 25% of local programming being dedicated to local and independent programs. More local PSAs too.

[Think "Canadian content,"--or more to the point, 1940's block programming; the BBC circa 1960.]

7. Public Safety - requiring that all broadcasters have a plan to address emergencies and be either staffed during all hours of operation or be otherwise able to respond immediately to any local emergency.

[When he first floated this idea--24/7 staffing--the minority -owned broadcasters screamed the loudest. Think about it--the Clear Channels of the world can pay some kid to push a broom and empty wastebaskets overnight at their 6 station cluster--and therefore be "manned." The urban or Spanish outlet with one suburban FM would go broke trying to meet the staffing requirements--let alone the requirements for local news and public affairs, and all the reporting requirements.]

Bottom Line: It's not 1970. The are three times the number of stations. Plus satellite radio. Plus the internet. Cable TV. And many FEWER advertisers--the Walmart killed off the local drug store, hard ware store, and corner grocery a long time ago.

Every requirement is a prescription for disaster for small market radio, and independent owners even in the large markets.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

KLove has several hundred stations.
http://www.klove.com/music/radio-stations/radio-station-download.aspx
KLove's parent, EMF, also runs the Air 1 network:
http://www.air1.com/Music/stationsPrinterFriendly.aspx

The ugly question that comes up every time is whether or not news programming, as suggested by the commissioner, is public interest programming. Your typical Air1 listener is the 25 year old female. Is she interested in city council meetings? Will she turn from Air1 to Kiss FM when the news comes on?

One other question. From the paragraph JOSH posted,
"But if the station fails again, give that license to someone who will use it to serve the public interest."
Give it away? Not auction it? Yeah, right.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

The ugly question that comes up every time is whether or not news programming, as suggested by the commissioner, is public interest programming. Your typical Air1 listener is the 25 year old female. Is she interested in city council meetings? Will she turn from Air1 to Kiss FM when the news comes on?

With that logic, you may do well in the debate the GOVERNMENT REGULATION should NOT tell EMF or anyone else that all their stations need to do x% news programming.

However, if I were on a committee representing other faith groups and our task was to go meet with EMF and other Christian broadcasters, I would propose the debate point that the written religious foundation that in underneath the goals of EMF and others would call for programming that teaches those who want to follow that written religions foundation (The Bible) it is their DUTY as citizens to get interested in city council and state government and national government when they live in a SELF GOVERNING nation. And you successfully make that argument with news and information programming that paints the various levels of our self-government system as a beautify fabric of opportunity and responsibility.

If those organizations that hold themselves out as supporters/purveyors of faith-related values are not going to teach 25 year old females that they have some kind of opportunity and responsibility to make civilization work, who DOES get that job done?

So where are we on this question? We have those who say it is none of government's business to suggest programming much less dictate it. We have those who don't seem to think one's faith system organization should do that either. What are we left with? Is that the responsibility of the National Association of Left-handed Pot Dealers?

 

[Lee Rust]

I'm sympathetic with Mr. Copp's intentions, but for commercial radio, it's not 1960 anymore.

Certainly, some types of local programming can be entertaining and audience-building, and many successful commercial operators already do it, but the more serious stuff can be a drag if not presented well. You can tell how hard it is to make public affairs sound interesting by listening to the non-commercial news-talk stations asking for more money during their fund drives.

Back in the day when commercial radio broadcasters had to air public service programming, there were many fewer stations and competing alternative audio services or technologies. Nowadays, when such programming might cause a listener to turn to another source for entertainment, the chances of them returning at another time would be greatly reduced. Of course, all potentially boring long-form programming of this type could be run at 3 AM, but then what's the point? During the day, short-form public service programming works OK. That's what we do now.

In any case, increased local production of such programming would require additional personnel or more paid hours... an unfunded mandate in an era when most stations already operate with skeleton staffing. If a lot more public service programming were to be required, then many broadcasters would probably need a cash subsidy to offset the costs. Otherwise, it's just another drag on an already over-stressed business model.

 

[bossbill]

The marketplace still dictates programming. And listeners don't identify with City of License. They identify with a usable signal and programming they like. The Commission would do better by simply enforcing existing rules. EMF gets away with "studio waivers", and the scam is that they are "non-commercial". Hmmm... a lot of money flows through that organization.

In this day of pre-recorded music, "locally-produced programming" is a nebulous concept. The average person will listen to a "balanced" station only if it is the only receivable signal. And with so many other ways to get information and entertainment, even that is perhaps no longer applicable.

Radio broadcasting has evolved from "scarcity of spectrum" to an over-abundance of available signals in any pocket of population. Commissioner Copps is 30 years too late.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Back in the day when commercial radio broadcasters had to air public service programming, there were many fewer stations and competing alternative audio services or technologies. Nowadays, when such programming might cause a listener to turn to another source for entertainment, the chances of them returning at another time would be greatly reduced. Of course, all potentially boring long-form programming of this type could be run at 3 AM, but then what's the point? During the day, short-form public service programming works OK. That's what we do now.

One of the problems we have in discussing this topic, this concept in these forums is that participants immediately jump to the conclusion that in order to please Mr. Copps we would have to return to formatting the program content he wants to see as part of the mix in the same format that was used in the 1960s.

I am just naive enough to believe that some broadcasters are creative enough, smart enough to re-package local useful information in a style more appropriate for the way we listen today. Now and then I come across a station that feels they have the luxury of spending just a little extra and they are doing it today. My guess is that many others would also.... if they knew their competitors were also going to be required to reach up for that new bar of performance.

Those broadcasters who can't figure out how to do it will not be terribly missed if their place on the dial shows up AWOL.

 

[JimmyJames]

I agree completely that it's all about creativity. I'm looking at getting commercial licenses in small communities, and I'm not at all fearful of these types of things because I believe it's what local radio should do.

With the tools we have, it is more economical and possible than ever to create content in whatever format, that serves our audience and keeps them to connected to something beyond a format on shuffle. It's not about requiring the format to be the same as it was in 1960. It's simply saying that if you have a license, to serve a community, you find a way within your format to serve them and make sure that commitment is clearly documented.

It amazes me how broadcasting seems to have moved in some owner's minds from a public trust to a private right. The airwaves are on loan. If you don't like the terms, find another way to deliver your programming.

 

[TomT]

Creativity is enhanced if you have the money to pay the salaries. I have a stand-alone FM in a market with two clusters: one with 5 stations, one with six. We are, believe it or not, live 6 to 6. But only one announcer is full-time, the other three are part-time and have other interests keeping them paid. And the full time guy sells & is the PD.

It is nice to pontificate about being creative to meet these pipe dreams of public service programing, live news, endless paperwork, etc. 35 years ago we had requirements for certain % of news & public affairs. But this market had 9 signals in 1975--and now has 21 (6 AMs, 5 non-com FM's and 10 commercial FM's). Market population has not changed--perhaps even declined slightly. Back then we had no Wal-mart, and the one mall had just opened. Sears and Penney's both bought local radio. Now we have three Wal-marts and the downtown has virtually no retail.

Copps is just another in a long line of political hacks appointed to the Commission who simply do not have a clue. The last broadcaster on the Commission was Jim Quello.

 

[TheBigA]

Michael Copps has been saying the exact same thing since he got on the FCC, and with no results. He is alone on the Commission in this opinion. The current Chairman doesn't agree with him. The other Democrat doesn't agree. And the two Republicans are opposed. It's regulatory sabre-rattling. Nothing more.

It amazes me how broadcasting seems to have moved in some owner's minds from a public trust to a private right. The airwaves are on loan. If you don't like the terms, find another way to deliver your programming.

The problem with all this is the public, who broadcasters serve, don't like public service programming. So it's one thing to require a whole bunch of school board meetings or other local public service programming. But if no one listens, who does it serve? The public has 8 billion programming choices. If their local radio stations are broadcasting local high school football, the people can put on XM or the internet, and listen to some station someplace else. Bill Paley said it best: The public interest is what the public is interested in. And they're not interested in what regulators want them to be interested in.

 

[TheBigA]

It amazes me how broadcasting seems to have moved in some owner's minds from a public trust to a private right.

Let me add one more thing, so you understand the owner POV: The FCC has been treating the public airwaves as a cash cow. It is auctioning off spectrum to the highest bidder. So much for the government viewing airwaves as a public trust. If the government is going to treat spectrum space as a commodity, then that's what it is. And so broadcasting, as regulated by the FCC for the past 25 years, is neither public trust nor private right. It's simply a business, like all the other businesses that operate using public resources.

 

[TomT]

Indeed. This is "Radio Info," but look at TV. TV station owners just spent millions to upgrade transmitter plants and studios for HD--enduring a game of "button-button" for several years as they moved channels around to accommodate both HD changes and the need to provide homes for displaced stations from those channels above ch. 52 that were auctioned off by the government.

They did get a small bonus of an extra "channel" or two based on the digital signal's ability to carry several standard definition channels.

Now they face an FCC chairman who is determined to auction off the entire UHF TV spectrum--suggesting that the stations either find a way to cram into the less desirable lower V channels--or just rent a channel off their competitor.

 

[TheBigA]

They did get a small bonus of an extra "channel" or two based on the digital signal's ability to carry several standard definition channels.

Now there's a new proposal by the FCC that would take back those additional channels gained by the digital expansion. Why? So the FCC can auction them off.

 

[TomT]

Haven't seen that one--but it is technologically improbable. Digital TV uses all of the 6 mhz, channel for the digital stream, even if only one 480P channel is being transmitted. They've tried using the remaining "bits" for leased-data but it did not work very well. The only sensible proposal is two TV "channels" sharing one transmitted stream. E.G., a PBS station carrying their own 720P programming and a religious station leasing the remaining data "space" for their programming at 480P--and the religious station then selling their existing UHF channel for data transmission services (which would more likely be "cellular" in nature rather than using the single transmitter broadcast mode). Under one proposal being floated, the tenant channel would have "must-carry" status on cable. Of course, this restricts the capabilities of the landlord to transmit full digital signals.

 

[TVradioguru]

Haven't seen that one--but it is technologically improbable. Digital TV uses all of the 6 mhz, channel for the digital stream, even if only one 480P channel is being transmitted. They've tried using the remaining "bits" for leased-data but it did not work very well. The only sensible proposal is two TV "channels" sharing one transmitted stream. E.G., a PBS station carrying their own 720P programming and a religious station leasing the remaining data "space" for their programming at 480P--and the religious station then selling their existing UHF channel for data transmission services (which would more likely be "cellular" in nature rather than using the single transmitter broadcast mode). Under one proposal being floated, the tenant channel would have "must-carry" status on cable. Of course, this restricts the capabilities of the landlord to transmit full digital signals.

The original premise was each station would be High Definition. It was broadcasters that came up with the use of other channels with the extra bits or forgetting HD and do 'multicasting'. An engineer friend of mine said that if a station were to forget broadcasting HD, one wouldn't need the full 6mHZ.

There are some small and medium market owners who would welcome selling their channel and walking away with something. The problem is that owners willing to shutter and walk away from a broadcast property on channel-whatever, wouldn't happen in every market on the same channel. In that case the value of the channel in a small or medium market would be diminished to the point of not being attractive to the mobile industry, who would want to have similar spectrum in each market. In large markets, I don't see anyone being willing to take a buyout of a portion or the entire channel.