Public Service Mandate Lost in New TV Era

A visitor to KUSI-TV (Channel 51) asked to see the station’s Federal Communications Commission file, the public’s most important link to the inner workings of television stations. KUSI had been running commercials inviting the public to inspect the file as part of its license renewal process. However, the station receptionist had never heard of it. After two phone calls, the station general manager, William Moore, personally came out to deal with the visitor.

“We only get one or two requests a year (to see the file),” Moore said. “We take every person seriously. Our license is on the line.”

The FCC licenses television stations to serve the public interest, to provide programming responsive to the needs of the community. In the context of this lofty goal, no one at the FCC can recall a television station ever having its license renewal denied, despite the avalanche of situation comedies, titillating made-for-television movies and prime-time soaps and other shows making up the vast majority of programming.

KUSI’s FCC license renewal application for 1988, the key element of the public file, consists of no more than 10 pages, a sharp contrast to the 1983 file, which is more than an inch thick, including a detailed breakdown of the station’s programming and how it meets the needs of the community.

Although stations are required to keep quarterly records listing programs that serve the expressed needs of the community, there is no longer a breakdown of public service programming or the station’s community activities required in television stations’ FCC public files. In addition, the FCC now renews licenses every five years instead of every three years.

So it goes in the age of deregulation.

The FCC slowly began to ease regulations on radio and television stations during the Carter Administration. However, since Ronald Reagan became President in 1980, the FCC has almost completely eliminated most operating guidelines for television stations.

By 1984, the FCC had dropped almost all reporting requirements, practically eliminating any illusion that the federal agency had standards requiring certain amounts of public affairs and childrens’ programming. A cap on the amount of commercials a station could air was also eliminated, in addition to restrictions on station ownership. Last year, the Fairness Doctrine, the measure guaranteeing political candidates equal time, was also struck down.

“In general, broadcasters have a feeling that nothing in the way of public service will be called for,” said Andy Schwartzman, executive director of the Washington-based Media Access Project, a 15-year-old public interest law firm that regularly challenges FCC policies in the courts.

The ultimate role of television stations has not changed, FCC officials and broadcasters say, only the reporting requirements and restrictions that hamper a station’s competitiveness. In the new world of VCRs, satellite dishes and cable television, the FCC had to change, they argue.

“Broadcasters were spending thousands of dollars . . . to file fancy reports that no one at this agency had any time to look at anyway,” said Donald McClellan, special assistant to FCC’s policy division chief. “The commission is merely reacting to technological and economic changes that are happening in the market.”

Since stations are no longer required to list the percentage of public affairs programming they air, it would be difficult for a member of the public to gauge whether the local stations are airing more or less public affairs programs.

The lack of reporting is the “most cynical aspect” of deregulation, according to Schwartzman. “It’s the scorched-earth policy,” he said. “By not only not requiring records be made, but not requiring that they be kept, they’ve made it impossible to document the impact of deregulation.”

The FCC has never had specific requirements for public affairs programming. But, during the license renewal process the stations were required to detail their activities, and the unwritten rule required an explanation if there was a decrease in public service programs.

Of course, the definition of public affairs programming was extremely vague. For example, in its 1983 report, NBC-affiliate KNSD-TV (Channel 39) listed segments of Johnny Carson’s “Tonight Show” and “Real People” as part of the 6.2% of its daily programming it devoted to public affairs. Representatives of several state and local public service organizations generally said they had seen little change in the working policies of the local television stations toward public interests in the age of deregulation.

Citizens for Limited Growth, a local group that had worked for slow-growth measures on the November ballot, ran into resistance from KFMB when the station invoked the Fairness Doctrine in an attempt to get ads on its radio and television station. But the other radio and television stations were all receptive when contacted.

Noticeable or not, there have been changes, and not all of them are bad.

KGTV (Channel 10) has increased its local and public affairs programming by 40% in the past year, according to general manager Ed Quinn, primarily because of the addition of “InSide San Diego,” its midday chat show. Channel 10 also has stepped up its community involvement by adding a “Leadership Award” program and working with Children’s Hospital on a phone-line project.

On the other hand, Quinn admits, Channel 10 may not be running as many public service announcements as in the past.

“There could be some truth to that,” he said. “If we just do PSAs, it may be at the expense of bigger projects.”

When Channel 39 wanted to establish its new identity this year, it bulked up on public affairs programming, including a monthly public affairs show, “Third Thursday,” and a weekly round table, “San Diego Headliners,” which airs Sundays at 9 a.m.

This is the way things are supposed to work under deregulation: Local stations should add public affairs programming out of a desire to be competitive and establish an identity in the local community, not because the FCC forces stations to follow certain parameters.

“I think (community involvement) is good business,” Channel 10’s Quinn said. “We’re competing against so many signals that we have to carve out our identity.”

By removing costly and time-consuming paper work and arbitrary constraints, deregulation has helped local stations onto a course they would have to take anyway, broadcasters say.

“What’s doing it is not deregulation, but just the economic realities,” Channel 39 general manager Neil Derrough said. “The license renewal process was laborious. It would take two or three months to do it.”

Recent speculation about the ownership of Channel 39 illustrates the possible negative aspects of deregulation. Rumors of economic problems within Gillett Communications, the owner of Channel 39 and 11 other television stations around the country, fueled speculation that the station would be sold. Gillett had purchased the station only a year earlier.

Until 1984, when the FCC eliminated a requirement that owners keep stations for three years, talk of such a quick turnover would have been impossible. Now, owners are required to keep a station for only a year, creating a situation that detractors say has opened the business to financial exploitation. Since they can be bought and sold much more easily, the value of television stations has risen dramatically in the past few years, despite the competition from cable and other sources.

The FCC also upped the cap on the number of stations a single company could own to 12.

George Gillett Jr. paid $1.26 billion to quickly buy 12 stations over the last few years, including KCST-TV (now KNSD). The leveraged buyout firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and Co. owns 49% of the six stations Gillett bought from Storer Communications, including KNSD.

Gillett’s financial difficulties illustrate the downside of the new generation of television station owner, Schwartzman said.

“Gillett is somebody with a distinguished past record who has gotten in over his head,” he said. “Lifting the limit, combined with the removal of trafficking restrictions (the three-year minimum) has brought in a new breed of investor. Instead of having broadcasters who know they have three years to operate, now you have speculators coming in with a clear intent to flip the station and sell it. The emphasis is now on short-term thinking.”

The FCC, under the direction of Mark Fowler, who left in 1987 after six years of implementing deregulation, and current Chairman Dennis Patrick, has taken the position that increased competition--sparked by the increasing value of stations--will make for better television stations.

“Since deregulation, surveys have shown that not only has there not been a decrease in public programming, there has been an increase,” McClellan said. One of the reasons for this reported increase, he said, is that news programming has developed into a “profit maker.”

Rules and regulations were developing “blandness and sameness” among television stations, McClellan added, not public service. In a competitive market, television stations have an incentive to strive to be better and to meet the specific needs of their community. Instead of simply meeting the FCC requirements they can program public service to battle the public service programming of other stations, McClellan said. If one station is doing a tremendous amount of political programming, a competing station is now free to cut back on its political shows and air more childrens’ programs, or so the theory goes.

McCellan said television stations “were just trying to meet the regulations of some bureaucrat here in Washington. Who am I to decide what kind of programming is right for Des Moines?”

Enforcement of FCC policy, which was never overwhelming in the past, has not changed in this new era, McClellan said, although manpower has been cut.

“The FCC doesn’t have hordes of enforcement agents,” he said. “We really rely on the public to monitor the stations and file complaints. The ultimate weapon is the petition to deny. Any member of the public or organization can file a petition to deny (the license).”

And, of course, FCC policy might change. The FCC is a bureaucracy directed by political appointees. The $64,000 question: How will the age of deregulation fare under the administration of George Bush? Congress has been fighting much of the deregulation policies, particularly elimination of the Fairness Doctrine.

“Congress is fed up,” Schwartzman said. “It’s entirely possible that a Bush FCC will prefer to respond to congressional pressure by taking steps to forestall more dramatic congressional action.”

McClellan agrees that a Bush Administration is unlikely to maintain the status quo.

“This agency is not really driving an agenda of its own, even during the Reagan administration,” McClellan said. “I expect to see a continuation of the current changes. We have to continue to respond to the technological and economic changes happening out there.”

Everyone involved seems to agree on one thing, perhaps best articulated by McClellan: “It’s going to be an exciting few years.”