4 Senators Assail TV Broadcasters in FCC Letter

Decrying the “rapidly declining standards of broadcast television” through a “rising tide of glorified violence and increasingly explicit sexual content,” four U.S. senators are asking the Federal Communications Commission to consider whether broadcasters are serving the public interest with the TV shows they put on the air.

The group--which includes Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), chairman of the Senate committee that regulates television; and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), a frequent critic of television content--has written a letter to FCC Chairman William E. Kennard calling on the FCC to reexamine the public-interest standard and the license-renewal process for broadcasters. The intent of the letter, the senators said, is to encourage the FCC to revisit the ways in which the agency determines whether broadcasters are meeting their mandate to serve the public interest and whether those standards need to be clarified.

The letter, which will be released today, is also signed by Sens. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) and Sam Brownback (R-Kan.).

The FCC is considering what changes, if any, should be made in the public-interest obligations required of broadcasters as they convert to digital television. Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress gave broadcasters the rights to additional digital-channel spectrum space, an asset estimated to be worth as much as $70 billion, for free.

FCC officials said Wednesday that Kennard had received and was reviewing the letter and that the agency may hold a public hearing on all of the issues--including the senators’ proposals--sometime this summer.

For TV broadcasters, this represents yet another Washington initiative to regulate their content. The industry’s voluntary parental guidelines code, which is now used on all TV programming, has been in place for several years.

The 1996 Telecommunications Act also mandated availability of the V-chip, a device allowing parents to block out objectionable programming. Still, widespread use of the technology has thus far failed to materialize, with a recent survey indicating 40% of parents have never heard of it--a finding some TV executives took as evidence of the modest public appetite for the issue.

Nevertheless, Lieberman, who is spearheading this effort--argues that there is more that should be done to assess programming content.

“Since broadcasters are required to serve the public interest in return for the right to operate over the public’s airwaves, isn’t it fair to ask them not just what they’re doing in terms of free air time to good causes in their communities but also what is the overall impact of the content of the programming they’re putting on the air?” Lieberman asked in an interview Wednesday.

“We’re asking, is there a way--without getting into censorship--that the cumulative effect of programming can be considered as one factor in the public-interest standards? This is an opportunity for the experts to consider the questions we’ve raised and begin to discuss them with the broadcast industry.”

The four senators are also seeking FCC comment on the advisability of asking broadcasters to reinstitute a voluntary code of conduct like the old National Assn. of Broadcasters TV Code, which was in force from 1952 to 1983. That code, which predates competition from cable, stated that the industry had a special responsibility to children and called on broadcasters to exercise great care to avoid programming done “for the purpose of sensationalism or to shock or exploit the audience or appeal to prurient interests or to morbid curiosity.”

“We would like for the FCC to explain the public-interest standard for broadcasters in the Digital Age,” McCain said. “I’m sure broadcasters will portray this [letter] as censorship. But they also received $70 billion worth of digital-spectrum space for free. There should be some public-interest obligation for that.”

McCain--who held hearings on TV ratings and children’s television guidelines before the industry agreed to voluntary guidelines in those areas several years ago--said that it was possible that the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee might also hold hearings on public-interest obligations. But he added, “We want to hear from the FCC first.”

Executives at the National Assn. of Broadcasters and CBS declined comment, while NBC, ABC and Fox did not return calls by press time. However, broadcasters have generally been resistant to what they perceive as efforts by the government to influence the content of programming.

FCC Chairman Kennard issued a statement Wednesday, saying: “I applaud Sens. Lieberman, McCain, Brownback and Byrd for their thoughtful letter regarding the effect of violent and sexually explicit television programming for America’s children. We will carefully review their recommendation and look forward to the ensuing dialogue.”

After the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, President Clinton issued an executive order calling for an advisory committee to come up with recommendations on what public-interest obligations digital-TV broadcasters should assume.

The bipartisan advisory committee--co-chaired by CBS Television President Leslie Moonves and Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, a conservative think tank--recommended that broadcasters move to reinstitute a new version of the old NAB code.

The NAB, “acting as the representatives of the broadcasting industry, should draft an updated voluntary code of conduct to highlight and reinforce the public-interest commitment of broadcasters,” the advisory committee said in its report, which was delivered to Vice President Al Gore and forwarded to the FCC in December 1998.

Despite the recommendation of the committee, the industry has not moved to enact a code.

Broadcasters have operated without a code since 1983, following a challenge brought by the Justice Department under the Reagan administration. A federal court ruled that the code’s specific guidelines on TV advertising (including restrictions on the number of TV commercials per hour) violated provisions of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The industry agreed to take out the advertising provisions and, arguing that the TV code in general left it vulnerable to antitrust provisions, dropped the code. But supporters argue that the programming standards were never ruled to violate any antitrust provisions.

A 1993 opinion from the Department of Justice said that the industry could cooperate to reduce television violence--as they did in creating TV ratings--without violating antitrust laws. And the presidential advisory committee in its report said that a voluntary code, by itself, would not constitute a violation of the 1st Amendment.

‘We’re calling their bluff,” an aide to one of the senators said Wednesday. “On the one hand, broadcasters say they can’t do a code. But on the other hand, a committee that included Les Moonves and Studios USA Chairman Barry Diller said they should have a new code.”

Hall reported from Washington. Times staff writer Brian Lowry in Los Angeles contributed to this story.