| << Chapter < Page | Chapter >> Page > |
While some FCC violations are witnessed directly by commission members, like Jackson’s exposure at the Super Bowl, the FCC mainly relies on citizens and consumers to file complaints about violations of equal time and indecency rules. Approximately 2 percent of complaints to the FCC are about radio programming and 10 percent about television programming, compared to 71 percent about telephone complaints and 15 percent about Internet complaints.
“Obscenity, Indecency and Profanity,”
Federal Communications Commission , https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us/articles/204009760-Consumer-Complaint-Charts-and-Data-Overview. Yet what constitutes a violation is not always clear for citizens wishing to complain, nor is it clear what will lead to a fine or license revocation. In October 2014, parent advocacy groups and consumers filed complaints and called for the FCC to fine ABC for running a sexually charged opening scene in the drama
Scandal immediately after
It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown —without an ad or the cartoon’s credits to act as a buffer between the very different types of programming.
Jason Molinet, “TV Watchdog Slams ABC for Sex-filled ‘Scandal’ Opening Immediately After ‘Charlie Brown’ Special,”
Daily News , 4 November 2104. The FCC did not fine ABC.
The
Telecommunications Act of 1996 brought significant changes to the radio and television industries. It dropped the limit on the number of radio stations (forty) and television stations (twelve) a single company could own. It also allowed networks to purchase large numbers of cable stations. In essence, it reduced competition and increased the number of conglomerates. Some critics, such as Common Cause, argue that the act also raised cable prices and made it easier for companies to neglect their public interest obligations.
“The Fallout from the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Unintended Consequences and Lessons Learned,”
Common Cause , 9 May 2005; Mark Baumgartner, “Average Cable Rates on the Rise,”
ABC News , February 15, http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=88614&page=1. The act also changed the role of the FCC from regulator to monitor. The Commission oversees the purchase of stations to avoid media monopolies and adjudicates consumer complaints against radio, television, and telephone companies.
We expect the media to keep a close eye on the government. But at what point does the media coverage cross from informational to sensational?
In 2012, former secretary of state Hillary
Clinton was questioned about her department’s decisions regarding the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The consulate had been bombed by militants, leading to the death of an ambassador and a senior service officer. It was clear the United States had some knowledge that there was a threat to the consulate, and officials wondered whether requests to increase security at the consulate had been ignored. Clinton was asked to appear before a House Select Committee to answer questions, and the media began its coverage. While some journalists limited their reporting to Benghazi, others did not. Clinton was hounded about everything from her illness (dubbed the “Benghazi-flu”) to her clothing to her facial expressions to her choice of eyeglasses.
Dana Hughes and Dan Childs, “Hillary Clinton’s Glasses are for Concussion, Not Fashion,”
ABC News , 25 January 2013. Even her hospital stay was questioned.
Mary Bruce, “Hillary Clinton Took 6 Months to ‘Get Over’ Concussion, Bill Says of Timeline,”
ABC News , 14 May 2014. Some argued the expanded coverage was due to political attacks on Clinton, who at that time was widely perceived to be the top contender for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016.
Dan Merica, “Clinton Campaign, Republicans Clash Over Benghazi Testimony,”
CNN , 25 July 2015. Republican majority leader Kevin McCarthy later implied that the hearings were an attempt to make Clinton look untrustworthy.
Alex Seitz-Wald, “Kevin McCarthy Credits Benghazi Committee for Clinton Damage,”
MSNBC , 30 September 2015. Yet Clinton was again brought before the House Select Committee on Benghazi as late as October 2015 (
[link] ).
This coverage should lead us to question whether the media gives us the information we need, or the information we want. Were people concerned about an attack on U.S. state officials working abroad, or did they just want to read rumors and attacks on Clinton? Did Republicans use the media’s tendency to pursue a target as a way to hurt Clinton in the polls? If the media gives us what we want, the answer seems to be that we wanted the media to act as both watchdog and paparazzi.
How should the press have acted in this case if it were behaving only as the watchdog of democracy?
Notification Switch
Would you like to follow the 'American government' conversation and receive update notifications?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|