Coming soon: Political ads on public radio/TV

Posted at 3:40 PM on April 12, 2012 by Bob Collins (10 Comments)
Filed under: Media

It had to happen sooner or later -- political ads on public radio and TV.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled 2-to-1 that the Federal Communications Commission violated the First Amendment's free speech clause by blocking public broadcasters from running political and public issue ads.

The federal government has a very narrow definition of what commercials -- fine, we'll call them "underwriting announcements" -- are allowed by public broadcasters. In today's rulling, the court did not strike them all down.

But the court clearly was mindful of the relationship between commercial advertising sales and lousy programming:

As previously discussed, we accept Congress's conclusion that commercial advertisers seek the largest audience possible, and that, were public broadcast stations permitted to transmit commercial advertisements without restriction, such stations would seek to make themselves more attractive to advertisers by broadcasting programs with mass-market appeal. But neither logic nor evidence supports the notion that public issue and political advertisers are likely to encourage public broadcast stations to dilute the kind of noncommercial programming whose maintenance is the substantial interest that would support the advertising bans.

But the court doubted an effect on programming by allowing public issue advertising:

The government's evidence in this case shows only the size and effect of one class of advertising: traditional commercial advertising. That is the content of speech proscribed in subsection § 399b(a)(1), which proscription we today hold passes "intermediate scrutiny" and which we uphold. But the government cannot point to evidence that its fear of harm to public television that would come from allowing stations to air public issue and political advertisements is "real, not merely conjectural," much less that the portions of the statute which ban such political and public issue advertisements "alleviate those harms in a direct and material way." Turner I, 512 U.S. at 664. Thus, we strike down as unconstitutional subsections 399b(a)(2) and (a)(3).

In a concurring opinion, a justice seemed to suggest public broadcasting isn't the "special" form of media it once was...

With the rapid flux of technologies transmitting television, there have come new forms of television that do not require use of the narrow spectrum employed by broadcast television. These new forms -- cable, satellite, cell phone, the Internet and the iPad -- have introduced a variety of ways of communicating on television and call at least for a new look at the government's substantial role in licensing and regulating speech on broadcast television.

But in a dissent, a justice says political advertising poses a bigger threat to public broadcasting than the commercial advertising that remains banned:

As described above, nonprofit announcements on public broadcasts are virtually negligible, and could easily be swamped by the very large market for political advertising. Congress could have reasonably feared the corrosive impact of advertising in general, but viewed non-profit advertisements as harmless to the public interest mission of public broadcasting.8 In addition, while Congress has long sought to shield public broadcasting from political influences, there is no evidence that Congress has viewed non-profit entities as a harmful outside influence. As Ozier's declaration makes clear, the content and quantity of non-profit advertising do not pose the same sort of threat to public broadcasting's financial model as other sorts of advertisements.

Reuters has the reaction:

Jeffrey Silva, a telecommunications analyst at Medley Global Advisors, said the decision could help ease the scramble that public broadcasters often face to raise money, but at a cost.

"You can almost see with some of them that are very much vested in keeping public television's educational, nonpartisan nature intact that this could be kind of a complicating factor," he said. "You can envision where public TV does not look like it traditionally had. It suddenly becomes a different animal."

Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said the decision could "fundamentally change the character of public television and radio" by allowing deep-pocketed political and other organizations to begin "swooping" onto the public airwaves to air their messages.

"This is just going to move us further away from what remains of a public square," said Ornstein, who said he served on PBS' board for six years. "To be truthful, it scares me to death."

Here's the full opinion.

---

Comments (10)

If public broadcasting starts to look like commercial broadcasting I might be down to the worldwide network of interconnected computers for my information and entertainment. Maybe the CBC/BBC streams will remain free of this stuff.

On the other hand, I can't see political candidates trying to pull their usual distortions and half-truths on NPR listeners. They would be more likely to see through it than most, so political ads could backfire.

Is nothing sacred in the eyes of the political industrial complex?

Posted by John P. | April 12, 2012 5:26 PM

---

Public broadcasting in general would greatly benefit from an overall agreement to not accept these ads or the money behind them. Doing so would undermine the integrity of the balanced news coverage we get now. There are far more important things in the balance than what a cursory reading of this ruling would imply.

Posted by Brent Walker | April 12, 2012 7:53 PM

---

Doesn't the existence of "underwriters" put the integrity of public broadcasters on par with commercial ones?

Posted by Tom K | April 12, 2012 8:06 PM

---

I don't consider the acceptance of underwriting to mar the integrity of public broadcasting, provided that the underwriting "ads" are short, unobtrusive and not obnoxious. I also believe that there is an attempt to separate the "underwritten by" ads from segments related to that particular underwriter.

Since so much of MPR news is political, it would be much harder to find non adjacent slots for specifically political ads.

But then again, I wouldn't care, because I believe that if MPR begins to accept political ads, I would instantaneously call the member services number, perhaps reaching Valerie A. directly, and cancelling my sustaining membership. I would also pretty much cease listening to MPR. I also expect I would have a hard time getting through because of the other members doing the same thing.

Since that's really the only radio I listen to, I'd become either a very targeted podcast listener, or retreat to the Internet sites of various print media.

Posted by davidz | April 12, 2012 9:34 PM

---

I can see it already:

Voiceover Person: "Today's episode of Sesame Street is brought to you by the number 2, the number 1, and [insert politican's name] who reminds you that [name of his/her political opponent] thinks that when you add 2 and 1 together, you get 4."

Posted by John O. | April 13, 2012 7:04 AM

---

You'd be back, DavidZ. You know why? Because you listen now and you must find some value in it and you won't find it in your iPod. You wouldn't admit you listen, and you won't renew a membership, but you'll listen.

When the big political race in the state culminates with the traditional Sunday night debate, you'll listen. When there's a big story and the other stations in town are doing interviews about affordable kitchen makeovers, you'll listen. When you get tired of being disconnected by a non-live medium and you're searching for a connection to the state, you'll listen.

You know it. I know it. The '27 Yankees know it.

BTW, Valerie is leaving the company. It's a huge loss for us. She's terrific!

Posted by Bob Collins | April 13, 2012 7:55 AM

---

//Doesn't the existence of "underwriters" put the integrity of public broadcasters on par with commercial ones?

What's your answer?

Posted by Bob Collins | April 13, 2012 7:57 AM

---

Maybe I'd be back Bob, but I'd be surprised.

The real value I see in NPR/MPR is the relief from the crap that is the commercial advertising world.

I am a political junkie, and I have some friends who can't understand why, given all of the bluster and bluff and noise without signal that they associate with politics. But they watch commercial television, and are utterly turned off of politics with all of the ads they're subjected to.

I listen to useful and interesting news (mostly) about the campaigns and the politicians, and I get my information from sources that aren't 30 second sound bites designed to scare me. I have an entirely different view of the political scene than most people, and I suspect that most MPR listeners are much closer to my view of the news. That's why I am a sustaining member.

I think it's bad enough when I listen to the NPR news shows where they discuss the new political ads and play a clip. At least I'm not subjected to the massive repetition and flooding that the commercial viewers are, since the news piece is on once and then done.

Public radio is my refuge from those sorts of ads. That is the main value that I see - intelligent reporting without bombast and interruption. The moment that isn't the case, the value proposition made in favor of MPR is toast.

I can't imagine what my life without the near constant presence of public radio would be like. It would be a massive change. But I also cannot imagine willingly subjecting myself to the onslaught of commercial political advertising.

It's true that there's nowhere else that I'd go to on the live radio dial.

It's not true that there aren't other possible sources for some, but only some, similar content.

Posted by davidz | April 13, 2012 11:42 AM

---

Gee, where could this go wrong. NPR has done such a good job remaining untarnished when mixing finance and politics.

Posted by gjkennedy_1984@yahoo.com | April 13, 2012 11:46 AM

---

//Doesn't the existence of "underwriters" put the integrity of public broadcasters on par with commercial ones?

//What's your answer?

While Newscut has done a good job covering the BNSF case (where as I understand it BNSF acted in ethically questionable ways), I haven't heard much broadcast over the air on MPR.

However, I often hear the BNSF ad/underwriting touting their commitments to safety.

However, solely because the NYT or WSJ are for-profit entities doesn't mean I question their news integrity any more or less than a public radio news source.

Posted by Tom K | April 13, 2012 12:42 PM

---

• E-mail this page
• Print this page
• Tweet this page
• Share this

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories