There are a number of reasons it was ignored by the media (except the Corridor Business Journal):

1. During the holidays there are fewer staff in the stations, meaning less people to cover stories that aren't fires or accidents or sexual predators.
2. It's the holiday season and the media are looking for feel good or reflection stories when they're not covering the aforementioned classes of stories. For example, troops were coming home at the same time.
3. They aren't interested in taking on one of their own.
4. Nationally, less than a dozen license renewal petitions have accepted and acted upon so that existing licenses weren't renewed in the past decade. Now, if CBS2's license DOESN'T get renewed, then you have a news story.

I called the FCC about this issue just to see what they had to say and had a frank discussion with someone in their Office of Intergovernmental Affairs. I told them that CBS2 needs to increase staffing in order to maintain a quality local news product. They told me that they were aware of a national campaign against Sinclair, which doesn't bode well for your efforts.

It's clear that you don't like the political tenor of the commentary that is broadcast on every Sinclair station. So, while I understand you are using the process afforded to you by the system...honest question here...can you explain to me how what you are advocating isn't censorship of another form and contrary to the ideals of the open and free exchange of ideas that our democratic society holds so dearly?

Doug

Dear Mr. Wagner,

Thanks for your question about censorship and the open and free exchange of ideas. It is commonly accepted, by both conservative and liberal politicians, that the broadcast airwaves belong to the public. Just like trees on public land, or our nation's waterways, they are a valuable natural resource. The broadcast airwaves are a primary means of spreading information, opinion, and advertising.

The FCC has long seen that there should be a balance between a broadcasters free (yes, free) use of a public resource for their personal profit and their exclusive use of frequencies. In the past, such long-held regulations such as the Fairness Doctrine was a means of providing a check against one-sided propaganda. It stood for 40 years, until it was vetoed by President Reagan in 1987.

Now, broadcasters can state personal opinions without giving the public any recourse for balance or contrary opinions. That is what Sinclair Broadcast Group does. Their spokesperson, Mark Hyman, is on KGAN 6 days a week (during the local news), advocating SBG's point of view.

I don't see anything wrong with that. Presumably, the broadcaster has some rights to express points of view. However, that right (the "right of commercial free speech" -- something that is stated as if it exists in the Constitution, but last I checked, it's not there) must be balanced against the inability of 99.9% of the public's inability to do likewise. Mr. Hyman broadcasts his POV on 60 stations, to 22% of the national TV market. I put my POV on a modest blog, like this one.

Sinclair says they offer alternative POV's on their stations, but that is not quite true, as is outlined on the IBLTV website (http://www.ibltv.org/AboutSinclair.htm).

So, if anyone is censoring -- on our public airwaves -- it is Sinclair.

Let's assume that a person is sympathetic to Sinclair's use of the airwaves. Would that person be so keen on the notion if George Soros bought up a bunch of stations and had Michael Moore pontificate on the local news programs of KGAN and 60 other stations on a daily basis -- with no means of rebutting his statements?

I, and other media-reform minded people, feel very strongly that, if the means of communication and free speech are limited to those who can afford to buy broadcast stations, then our democracy is in trouble. The deregulation boom of the 80's eliminated the means of the public getting a say on their airwaves, eliminated any limits on advertising, and have, a a result, made our airwaves a much poorer place for the exchange of ideas. My words will never appear on a Sinclair station -- even though Sinclair and the broadcast industries enjoy one of the largest profit margins of any business (near 40%).

We have had 20 years of broadcast deregulation with no improvement in the product. Perhaps the assumptions of the free-market fans are not quite right.

First, I don't think President Reagan "vetoed" the Fairness Doctrine, as it was not a "vetoable" item. Yes, it happened under his watch and was prompted by his appointments to the FCC Board of Commissioners, but there was no action taken by Congress to establish this ideal and nothing any president had signed, so it couldn't be vetoed. In fact, it's rather interesting...this comes from the Museum of Broadcast Communications:

"The doctrine, nevertheless, disturbed many journalists, who considered it a violation of First Amendment rights of free speech/free press which should allow reporters to make their own decisions about balancing stories. Fairness, in this view, should not be forced by the FCC. In order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues. This "chilling effect" was just the opposite of what the FCC intended."

Interesting that journalists themselves were opposed to the doctrine...

Secondly, I think you are right, that there would be a lot of hand wringing if, say, George Soros bought a boatload of stations and started broadcasting what some would call "left wing" propaganda. (Some say that's what the MSM does already, but that's another thread.)

I don't always agree with Mark Hyman...maybe 50% of the time I do...but I think if they own the station, they have the right to editorialize as long as they make it clear they are doing so...which they do. For years, editorials have been a part of news broadcasts. For some reason, maybe because local owners were afraid of offending people, they have stopped this practice. The local staff does everything they can to downplay "The Point."

If Soros buys a station, then he can program editorials.

Doug

Dear Mr. Wagner,

You are quite correct that one cannot veto an FCC regulation. Please let me clarify my earlier statement about Reagan's veto. On June 3, 1987, before the FCC repealed the fairness doctrine, the U.S. House passed a bill codifying the fairness doctrine (that is moving it away from an FCC rule) by a vote of 302-102. President Ronald Reagan vetoed that bill.

I'm familiar with the Museum of Broadcast Communication's website. It's a good resource. In fairness, though, it has multiple authors and contributors, with multiple points of view. For example, there is this bit from that site, written by another author:

"But the American example of relying more on competition than regulation also threatens traditional public service broadcasting which must meet increasing competition for viewers by offering more commercially-appealing programs, usually entertainment--rather than culture-based."

And with regard to the "chilling effect" issue, I found a third essay at that site that attributed the worries of chills to a different constituency...

"Still, it is the issue of First Amendment rights of broadcasters that has generated more public controversy in the sixty year history of the Communications Act of 1934 than any other aspect of communication law. Since the earliest days, the FRC and then the FCC insisted that because of "scarcity," a licensee must operate a broadcast station in the public trust rather than promote only his or her point of view. The constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine and section 315 was upheld by the Court in Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC. Broadcasters complained that the doctrine produced a "chilling effect" on speech..."


My larger point is that, isn't it nice that you and I can actually discuss issues of merit and substance like we have done here? Wouldn't it be better if such back-and-forths were part of national conversations, rather than on a (relatively) lonely blog? I would be enriched by your point of view, you might find something I said as being helpful (I hope!). Public policy would be aided. People wouldn't think that only the rich and powerful get Washington's ear.

But I'm assuming we have very different takes on Free Speech rights. I'm very uncomfortable with the notion that the Very Wealthy are entitled to more free speech. It just doesn't seem healthy or democratic. Or what the Founders intended. Let's say Soros gets Michael Moore to duke it out with Mark Hyman on dueling networks. That would be much too much heat and blather... and just another layer of highly polarized speech. I'd rather have real conversations. We don't need more name-calling.

I really like the idea that people of differing stripes (and parties) might have valuable things to contribute. In this era of extreme polarization, you get chaps like Hyman and Moore, but I suspect that most people would welcome more nuanced (and bridging) individuals.

Finally, I guess I should note that I have nothing against KGAN. In fact, I have told the station manager, Mike Sullivan, that by beef is with the ownership. We'd like KGAN to get back to community based values. And I'm not the only one.... KGAN's ratings have tanked. It's local news program has (in 2005) gotten 1-2 market share points.

Thanks for engaging in this discussion. The worst thing (well maybe not the worst) I can do is just endlessly repeat things to people who agree with me 100%. I guess that might be my cat.

(sorry for being so lengthy)

c.m.

No need to apologize for being lengthy...you have some very salient points! In my dream world, there is no need for Soros and Sinclair's owners to duke it out. However, I think that rather than attempting to silence a point of view I don't agree with, I have the responsibility to take the issue up to the public. Which, I guess is what you've done by raising this issue...but I still am uncomfortable in the idea of silencing someone you "silences" you by not including your viewpoint.
Doug

Doug, I agree that silencing others isn't a good goal. But that is not the goal of IBLTV's effort. Our Petition to Deny (PTD) will not pull the plug on KGAN. It might (just might) get the FCC to say "hey, shape up" or look a little closer at Sinclair's harmful policies that threaten localism and dialog. The problem is simple: there are very few means left for common citizens to influence how their broadcast airwaves are used. Our group members felt that we had to do something, say something, to reverse a negative trend. And we have found that we are, by no means alone. Iowans from over 75 towns joined our effort.

To again state my agreement with your reservation, in an earlier post, I noted my agreement that station owners have privileges, such as the ability to make large revenues, choose programming, and, yes, state opinions.

But, these owners monopolize a limited public resource. They owe something back to the public. It is very little to ask, particularly given the vital role of communications in a society. How much are we, as a society willing to give for the sake of a functioning democracy? How much are we willing to let things slide, so that we become a society where only the very rich make laws and have the ear of elected officials? What is our democracy worth?

Our society is pretty comfortable with telling other users of natural resources (water, air), that they should be good stewards of those resources. Why broadcasters are given carte blanche is beyond me. There's nothing in the Constitution that says "thou shall not pollute", but we've agreed it's a bad idea to degrade such resources. Why that doesn't apply to the currency of a democracy -- the ability to share ideas -- seems almost suicidal. It’s more a reflection of lobbyists' power than what's good for our country.

In our Petition, we presented to the FCC how Sinclair is actually harmful to the public. They poorly cover local news. Their children’s programming is deficient. They are unresponsive to the public. (You can look at our Petition, its on the ibltv.org website). And the incident of SBG/KGAN smearing Ted Remington of Iowa City is quite telling. At the very least, KGAN should have given Remington a chance to answer his accusers. KGAN and Sinclair didn’t give him that simple courtesy. Why should Iowans put up with that? By FCC rules, broadcasters are supposed to serve “the public interest”. That’s serving Iowans’ interests?

Somehow, in the deregulation binge of the 80's, our society jettisoned the notion that "with privilege comes responsibility", something I heard repeatedly as a kid. That notion used to be part of FCC law for decades. It's sadly out of favor these days. I don't think our society is any richer for its loss, or the ascendancy of the control of moneyed interests in Washington.

Cordially,

Charlie

Doug,

Thanks for sharing your concern about the inadequacy of the news staff at KGAN with the FCC. It is amazing to me how many people have either contacted the station or the FCC or both regarding their concerns.

The areas of their concerns vary. Sometime it is inadequate news staff as you said. Other times it is inadequate coverage of severe weather, or inadequate programming for children, or preempting regularly scheduled programming, or an inadequate broadcast signal, or the numerous delays in their conversion to a digital signal.

The list of concerns is very long. That tells me that many of us here in Eastern Iowa would like to see KGAN return to the quality station that it once was. Thanks again for your comment.

Arron

Arron:

Thanks for the courteous reply. One thing I want to make clear is I think the staff is as good as any other in the area...I just don't think there are enough people working there.

Doug