November 9, 2002
WHAT'S THE FREQUENCY, KENNETH?:
The 30-Second Democracy (Richard Cohen, November 8, 2002, Washington Post)So now we come to yet another of Tuesday night's unheralded winners -- Sen. John McCain. The Arizona Republican will soon become chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee. Along with Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) and Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), McCain has introduced a bill that would require radio and TV stations to air a minimum of two hours a week of political programming in the campaign season. The proposal is the brainchild of Paul Taylor, executive director of the Alliance for Better Campaigns.Does the bill have a chance? Not in the immediate future. The owners of local TV and radio stations are a powerful lobby. Two years ago, they made almost $7 million in political contributions. What's more, they are just the sort of people politicians are loath to anger. They own the 6 o'clock news, after all.
But the American people own the airwaves. The broadcast spectrum is limited. The broadcast media, unlike (thank God) newspapers, are licensed. The government assigns frequencies. It has the constitutional right to require that broadcasters give us something in return. They could start by devoting two hours to discussions of political or ideological issues.
Certainly, the McCain-Feingold-Durbin bill is no panacea for a political system that has the ethics of a hooker and the attention span of a goldfish. But if it weans candidates even a bit from the 30-second spot and relieves them of the burden of always having their hands out, then American democracy will be better for it. We can only hope that the new Republican congressional leadership gives it more than 30 seconds of consideration.
Once you get past the obligatory implication by Mr. Cohen that the GOP won because the system is flawed, he actually gets to a valid point. It won't reduce the number of political ads on TV one little bit, but broadcasters should be forced to perform such public services as part of their licensing. Posted by Orrin Judd at November 9, 2002 12:27 PM
The best thing would be to privatize the spectrum, so that it could either be turned to other uses like wireless communications, or could be the property of the broadcaster just as newspapers own their printing presses.
But as long as that's on the agenda, I'm glad to weigh the licensees down with burdens. It will get them to support turning licenses into property.
This is just goo-goo pablum. The government certainly has the right to impose burdens on broadcasters, but the idea that forcing them to put on more political shows is going to improve the electorate neglects one important point: people aren't going to watch the shows if they don't want to. Broadcasters live and die by ratings, and they know damned well what the public wants to see. If they're not showing more politics it's because people aren't tuning in. Those who are interested have a multitude of other sources for this stuff: newspapers, cable, internet. And the complaint about 30-second soundbites is a red herring. If you want to buy a car, are you going to base your decision on TV ads? The ads are only intended to give an impression; you have to go elsewhere for more complete information. It may be that too many voters don't do their homework, but forcing broadcasters to put on more political shows isn't going to fix the problem.
Posted by: Jed Roberts at November 10, 2002 7:43 AMJed:
I believe you overestimate the American people. Make all the networks put on political programming from say 8-11 on two Saturdays in October and most folks will watch just out of inertia. Once they click around and see everyone has it on they'll watch. It's not like they'll read a book instead.
PJ;
Absolutely. The "licensing" of specrtum is straight up corporate welfare. Privative and sell it off - make Big Media pay for what they want.
Do both: sell it with the proviso that they set aside time in perpetuity.
Posted by: oj at November 10, 2002 2:38 PM