I'm sure it's tempting.

At the NAB Radio Show last week, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin suggested that broadcasters cut a deal with him on new localism rules this year,

The clear implication was that the deal with him will be a lot less onerous that the deal they'll get next year when Democrats will have a tighter grip on Congress and, lord knows, what kind of wild-eyed, liberal regulator will be heading the FCC.

Don't do it.

First off, the deal won't be that great. To do a deal, Martin will have to bring in at least one of the two FCC Democrats — Michael Copps or Jonathan Adelstein — and I am certain that neither would agreed to anything that would not cause broadcasters undue pain.

If localism starts moving toward an order, the Hill Democrats will also get in the act, demanding this and that, none of it good for stations. This is what happened last year when NAB tried to be a good guy and negotiate rules on DTV PSA mandates.

Second, even if the broadcasters can work out a palatable set of rules this year, it doesn't mean that an Obama- or McCain-appointed chairman can't heap on more obligations next year or the year after.

And, most important, doing a deal would perpetuate the idea that broadcasters work for the federal government and that bureaucrats can tell them what kinds of programming to air.

That's an old-fashioned notion that will ultimately lead to disaster for broadcasters. At one time, broadcasting and television were synonymous. Today, broadcasting is just one of many ways of delivering TV.

If broadcasters are to survive, they must have absolute freedom to serve their markets the best way they can. They cannot keep up with quick-moving rivals like cable and the Web if they have to drag around pointless regulatory burdens.

I know that some broadcasters fear that, unless they accept some concrete obligations, the government will begin insisting they pay for their spectrum, whose value has been clearly established now in the various FCC auctions.

Such an idea may appeal especially to the hard-headed McCain and is one reason broadcasters might want to think twice about rooting him into office.

But I also am also confident that broadcasters can ward off the spectrum fees. After all, it is true that most broadcasters paid — and paid dearly — for their spectrum when they bought their stations on the open market.

It is also true that those few broadcasters that did receive their spectrum for free — I am thinking of families like the Hubbards here — tend to be among the most public spirited. They don't need to be told what to do to serve their communities.

The thing that has baffled me since I began covering TV 30 years ago is why all the good works that broadcasters do fail to satisfy the public-service demands of the FCC and Congress.

You know how they say that everybody hates Congress but they love their congressman.

I think that's true for broadcasting, too.

Everybody hates broadcasting, but they love their local broadcasters, especially in emergencies when lives and property are at stake and people are desperate for timely information.

What we need is a demonstration to impress upon Washington once and for that TV stations provide critical public service.

How about this? A little test.

The next time a hurricane approaches, say, Miami, all the broadcasters in town should simply ignore it.

Instead of going to 24/7 coverage of the storm and relief efforts, the stations would just continue to air their usual programming just as all the cable networks do.

Maybe the broadcasters' coverage would not be missed.

Facing devastation, the millions of Miamians would turn to the Weather Channel and Fox News, the latter sure to provide "fair and balanced" coverage of the downed buildings and flooded neighborhoods.

Is there a more reassuring presence in times of crisis than Sean Hannity?

Maybe FEMA would jump in, too, passing out flyers warning residents to evacuate or instructing them on where to find food and shelter. Of course, this assumes that the agency can even get there in time to make any difference.

Residents digging out the day after could count on great photographs in the newspaper of residents digging out the day before, although it may be too soggy to read.

But I'm betting that the broadcasters would be missed and, in the aftermath of my Miami experiment, Washington policymakers will finally come to understand that they already have a pretty good deal here.

Broadcasters do what they do. The Washington folks sit back and do nothing.

OK, the Miami test will never happen. Broadcasters are too damn conscientious.

But they have to keep pounding home the stories of what they do during the floods and tornadoes and wild fires and during the in-between times when they faithfully report the news.

At the Radio Show, Martin posed the question: Deal or no deal?

Hit the button: No deal.