Community Video Report (Autumn 1974)

Fairness Doctrine makes awful strange bedfellows By Maurice Jacobsen “Because of the application of the Fairness Doctrine to paid commercial time, stations and networks would rather run ‘Deep Throat’ than any kind of advocacy advertising.” (1 Who do you think made that statement? Nick Johnson, Tracy Westen, Phil Jacklin or any of the other people actively looking out for the public interest on media issues? Nope, it was John E. O'Toole, president of Foote, Cone & Belding, whose ad agency had billings of $326 million in 1973. What Mr. O'Toole was referring to in his remarks before the Association of National Advertisers Convention was the refusal of the three television networks to run spots submitted by Mobil Oil promoting their position on the energy crisis. It’s amazing, the bedfellows that the issues of access to media create. Undoubtedly, Mobil would have challenged the networks’ refusals in court but they probably knew they didn’t have much of a chance of winning their argument in light of an important recent Supreme Court decision. That case which actually involved two separate proceedings also brought about an interesting union. The complainants in these actions were the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Business Executives Move for Vietnam Peace (BEM). In January 1970 BEM filed a complaint with the FCC charging that radio station WTOP in Washington D.C. had refused to broadcast a series of one-minute spot announcements expressing BEM’s anti-war views on the Vietnam confiict. Four months later, in May 1970, the Democratic Party filed with the Commission a request for a declaratory ruling: “That under the First Amendment to the Constitution and the Communications Act, abroadcaster may not, as a general policy, refuse to sell time to responsible entities such as DNC, for the solicitation of funds or for comment on public issues.” (2 The FCC rejected the challenge and ruled that a broadcaster was not prohibited from having a policy of refusing to accept advertisements by individuals and organizations like the respondents. There was a brief glimmer of hope for access, however, when the U.S. Federal District Court of Appeals reversed the flat ban on public issue announcements as a violation of the First Amendment especially when other sorts of paid announcements are accepted. But on May 29, 1973 the Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and in effect said the Fairness Doctrine was the prime consideration in judging controversial topics. And, that it was the broadcasters’ responsibility to judge what issues are of public importance, “thus, no private individual or group has a right to command the OSS ek De Oancast ACCS. 2 amen a ee .. Broadcasting Mag , Ww is about a a 4300 1b. toad in its industry position on these matters headlined its lead story June 4th, ’73, Broadcasters Win One at the High Court. In a box on the first page of the article they quoted from Chief Justice Burger who wrote the majority opinion for the court: D — pe Oe “Oad “For better or for worse, editing is what editors are for, and editing is selection of choice and material. That editors—newspaper or broadcast—can and do abuse this power is beyond doubt, but that is no reason to deny the discretion C ongress has provided.” (4 Kind of like saying mother knows best because she’s mother! At first glance the 7-to-2 decision seems to have dealt a serious setback to the movement on the part of citizen groups and public-interest lawyers seeking to establish a right of access to the broadcast media for individuals and groups interested in speaking directly on the issues of the day rather than through the reporters and commentators of broadcast stations. It seems to be a setback, because indeed it is! However the decision leaves room for some new approaches toward interpreting the whole issue of the Fairness Doctrine. There is a real irony in the broadcasters’ delight over this decision anchored in the Fairness Doctrine as just five years earlier they had challenged in vain its very constitutionality in the Red Lion vs. FCC case. In that endeavor, radio station WGCB owned by Red Lion Broadcasting of Pennsylvania carried a 15 minute broadcast by the Reverend Billy James Hargis in which the Reverend severely lambasted a Fred J. Cook, charging that Cook had been fired by a newspaper for making false charges against city officials, that Cook had then worked for for Communist-affiliated publications, and that he had written a book “to smear and destroy Barry Goldwater.” (5 MAURICE JACOBSEN has taught communications with emphasis on community with Los Angeles Public Access Project and Community Video at Federal City College, Washington. He has worked for ABC-TV and local broadcasters. based video at University of Bridgeport, Conn. since September. Before that he worked’ broadcasting: 7 —— |= Kristin Moeller When Cook heard the broadcast he was not at all pleased and concluded that he had been personally attacked and demanded free reply time, which the station refused. Cook then appealed to the FCC who agreed that he should indeed have a right of reply. Red Lion still refused and took to the courts. They lost. In a 7-to-0 decision the Supreme Court upheld the keystone of the FCC’s Fairness ‘Doctrine. The basis of that regulatory scheme makes two basic demands on broadcasters: |) that sufficient broadcast time be devoted to issues of public importance, and 2) that when an issue is raised, all sides be presented. All this brings us to what is happening today. Public interest groups and others, Mobil Oil and Friends of the Earth included, can’t get access to the air waves even if they: ford to buy it~but we still have the concept of the Fairness Doctrine to play around with and a newapproach to the Doctrine is that of equating fairness to access. In California the Committee for Open Media has filed challenges against stations in San Jose (KSJO-FM), San Francisco (KGO), and Los Angeles (KABC & KNXT). The basis for the petition to deny introduces the idea that broadcasters have a dual obligation with respect to the Fairness Doctrine. Not only must they provide “access to information” as the FCC rules recognize, but they must also provide “access to the people”. The distinction lies in who seeks the access. Access to information is “receiverinitiated communications”, whereby a listener can consciously choose to tune into a particular news or public affairs program, knowing that the station has scheduled that program fora particular time. Access to people or “source initiated communications” involve allowing broadcast time to individuals who want to address local issues and problems but not in the context of a regularly scheduled public affairs program. The plan is the development of 60. second issue-oriented spot messages scheduled , throughout the broadcast day, similar to commercial advertisements, where the listener cannot previously choose whether to tune in or not. In this way a broadcast station can assue its audience a “full airing” of community issues just as listeners are delivered to commercial advertisers. The question now is whether the FCC and/or the courts will buy this argument. Charlie Firestone of Citizens Communications Center in Washington D.C. has written a legal treatment of this position, and there are plans afoot to challenge stations on the East Coast on the same grounds. But as our comrade Jack O'Toole from Foote, Cone, and Belding says: “What it gets down to is that advertisers [and concerned people] must present their own points of view in advertising. One thing I know for sure, the government isn’t going to do it for us. And unless tongues of fire alight upon their heads, our friends the broadcast industry aren’t going to help.” Right on, Mr. O'Toole. 1) Broadcasting Magazine. Nov. 4. 1974. page 35 2) Supreme Court Reporter. June 14, 1973, CBS vs. DNC 93 St. Ct. 2080 (1973) 3) 93'S. Ct. 2080 (1973) pp. 2087-2092 4) Broadcasting Magazine. June 4, 1973. p. 22 5) Red Lion vs. FCC 395 U.S. 367 (1969) [Ol oO DUY NBFO Attacks Black TV Series Several chapters of the National Black Feminist Organization (NBFO), including those in Washington, D.C., Atlanta, N.Y., and Chicago, recently made simultaneous statements of complaint to their local media, demanding an end to racism and sexism in broadcast television programing. Illustrating their charges against the television networks with very specific examples from the current season of prime time programs (a season dotted with blacks, a Chicano and an overemployment of lady cops in starring roles), NBFO’s press statement calls for “immediate and on-going action to improve the quality of TV programing, particularly as it attempts to reflect the lives of black people.” Among the numerous complaints, there isa special protest given to the new ABC series, That's My Mama, which they consider, “unlike some Black TV characters that can be developed to be credible, responsible persons, is beyond any redemption in terms of the damage it has done in perpetuating racist and sexist stereotypes.” The specific complaints against the TV industry are the following: Firstly, that black shows are. slanted towards the ridiculous and have no redeeming counter-images. For example NBFO points out, “We have a junkman, the white audiences have a Marcus Welby. We have a full grown super-stud son living with a matriarchal mother, as opposed to the Wonderful (white) World of Disney.” Further, they stated, when Blacks are cast as professional people. the characters they portray generally lack professionalism and give the impression that black people are inferior in such positions. The character of Leonard on That's My Mama ts again pointed to. The worst types of role models in TV programming exist for black women and children, the NBFO statement claims. “Television has been too reluctant to reflect the growing numbers of black female attorneys, physicians and paraprofessionals.” They use the few black women on TV who have careers or hold down any kind of a job as evidence for their complaint. Regarding the roles of black children on TV, NBFO feels there are few, if any, of any worth. “J.J. on Good Times glorifies the ‘sporting life’, while his brother Michael's political commitment is distorted and ridiculed to the point where it is an insult to all black people who have political consciousness.” In concluding, the NBFO statement made an immeiate demand for: the removal of the show That's My Mama, and further, for more black producers, directors, actors and actresses and for a generally higher quality projection of black character images in TV programing. CTW Has Newsletter The Children’s Television Workshop, creators of Sesame Street, Electric Company and other successful PBS programming, issues Scope, a newsletter reporting “grassroots activities which promote the Community Education Service Program of CTW. It is aimed primarily at educators, and is available from Mid-Atlantic Regional Office, 938 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001. Carolyn Whitehorn is editor.