MARTIN TURNS HIS SIGHTS ON BROADCASTING

NCTA President Kyle McSlarrow last week accused FCC Chairman Kevin Martin of having a vendetta against cable.

But what about his vendetta against broadcasting?

Two week ago, in this space, I railed against the FCC’s new programming reporting requirements, which I saw as a back-door route to reregulating broadcasting.

I was unaware at the time that the agency was preparing to regulate through the front door, too.

Yesterday, at a hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee, Martin outlined a rulemaking the FCC is expected to launch next Tuesday at its open meeting.

It would, in effect, restore the programming and ascertainment mandates that the FCC dumped a quarter of a century ago.

The chairman said the FCC “should adopt processing guidelines that will ensure that all broadcasters provide a significant amount of locally-oriented programming.”

In addition, he said, stations “should establish permanent advisory boards in each community (including representatives of underserved community segments) with which to consult periodically on community needs and issues.”

Communications attorneys also tell me that the item is loaded with other regulations aimed primarily at radio. One provision would restore the main studio rule; another would require stations to explain how they select the music they play.

“The rule changes that I propose are intended to promote localism by providing viewers and listeners greater access to locally responsive programming including, but not limited to, local news and other civic affairs programming,” the chairman told the Senators.

Note the use of the first-person pronoun. Broadcasters cannot slough this off as something cooked up by the rereg rabid Democratic Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein. This is coming from the chairman, who controls the agenda and could bring the rulemaking to fruition in a few months, if he wants.

It’s something of a surprise. At the FCC’s last localism hearing on Halloween, Martin gave no hint he would go down this road. In fact, he said he had “concerns with mandatory minimums.”
 

What’s also surprising is the NAB’s response to all this. When the FCC scheduled the reporting requirements for a vote a few weeks ago, no alarms bells went off on N Street, and after they were adopted, there was not a peep of protest.

Having been caught flat-footed on the localism rulemaking, the NAB launched an 11th-hour scramble to get the thing pulled from the meeting agenda or at least soften its language.

The NAB sent out alerts to the communications bar yesterday and to members today urging them to contact the commissioners if only to leave an e-mail or voice mail. We will see next Tuesday how effective it's been.

Sadly, there also doesn’t seem to be anyone on the Hill on in the administration—some grownup Republican—that the NAB brass can call on to put a check on Martin.

Meanwhile, Andy Schwartzman of the Media Access Project, whose mission is to regulate broadcasting into extinction, has been busy.
 

He’s trying to sell the idea that local programming performance should be reviewed not only at license-renewal time, but also when the FCC is considering sales applications. That little tack-on would certainly raise the stakes, wouldn’t it?

I don’t understand Martin’s broadcasting vendetta, why he would want to return broadcasting to ascertainment and renewal standards. Is it punishment because the networks didn’t completely roll over when he cracked down on indecency?

Perhaps he is trying win the support of Copps and Adelstein for his efforts to tame cable. However, the two Democrats do not seem to be in a cooperative mood. They remain adamantly opposed to his relaxing the newspaper-broadcast crossownership rule next week, even though his proposal is so wimpy that neither broadcasters nor newspaper publishers much cares anymore.

In a joint statement Tuesday, the Dem duo blasted Martin for his “callous disregard” for public opinion on media ownership and dismissed Martin’s efforts on diversity and localism as a “mish-mash of half-baked ideas.”

That statement is a shot at Martin right between his eyes.

Whatever’s bothering Martin about broadcasting, the NAB needs to figure it out and move to mollify him. And it needs to do it fast.

That’s not all, folks.

Martin has also put another item on Tuesday’s agenda that should concern the broadcast networks. It’s a proceeding to tighten sponsorship-identification rules to curtail product placement advertising.

Martin signaled his intentions last September at the media ownership hearing in Chicago, noting that the networks are employing “subtle and sophisticated” (i.e., sneaky) means of inserting commercials into their shows.

“I believe it is important for consumers to know when someone is trying to sell them something,” Martin said.

Well, I have a better idea than promulgating a whole new tangle of regulations. It’s simple.

Through one of those multi-million dollar public awareness campaigns, the government should continually remind all consumers that “someone is always, always trying to sell them something.”

The feds could call the campaign, “This is America.”