Reopening discourse
Section 315 of the Federal Communications Act of 1934 is intended to give equal time to candidates on media broadcast channels. If a media broadcaster gives air time to a candidate, they must also give an equal amount of time to an opponent of that candidate, upon request.
Except.
Bona fide news coverage is exempt. On one hand, this would seem to protect freedom of the press. After all, if one candidate shows up in a public place and a media outlet captures the event, this should not oblige the media outlet to give time to an opponent with a campaign advertisement.
But a real consequence of this policy has been a distinct narrowing of our political discourse throughout the nation. To understand how, we can look at a few case studies in one particular realm of media broadcast programming: televised political debates.
Without attempting any exhaustive analysis of how the rules have evolved, let’s just look at fairly recent history. In 2008, for example, then-presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission against Cable News Network (CNN) and its owner, Time Warner, Inc.
Kucinich wanted to participate in a Democratic presidential primary debate scheduled to air on CNN January 21, 2008. The FCC sided with CNN.
“Debates are exempt from the equal opportunities provision of Section 315 in that they are considered to be on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events,” said a memorandum opinion and order released Jan. 18, 2008. “In addition, debates may be sponsored or initiated by broadcasters, candidates, third parties, and others and remain exempt from the equal opportunities provision.”
According to the FCC’s logic, as long as any one, particular candidate is not given an advantage, an event like a televised debate is exempt from the equal-time rule. That is, even if candidates and their campaigns work together with a broadcasting company to schedule and produce television appearances, the FCC will still consider it bona fide news coverage as long as a minimum of two candidates are involved.
“A station is free to choose its participants, provided that its intent is not to further the candidacy of any particular individual,” said the Jan. 18 order.
Precedent like this allowed two studios, one in Grand Rapids and another in Detroit, to ignore requests to participate and challenges invoking the equal-time rule from minor party candidates, when they broadcast debates for this year’s U.S. Senate race in Michigan on Oct. 8 and 14.
The two major party candidates in the race, both darlings of national intelligence agencies, have collected tens of millions of dollars campaigning. In the wider context of what former president Jimmy Carter called “an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery” in 2015, media outlets are free to platform these two candidates almost exclusively, no matter how much popular support alternative candidates and campaigns can muster. Popular support itself is short-circuited by relentless media coverage emphasizing campaigns in near-direct proportion to the size of their war chests.
Kucinich argued in his 2008 complaint that his exclusion prevented him from presenting his “strong anti-war and national health care messages” to a wider segment of the population. Indeed, until the nation’s oligarchs are prevented from pouring unlimited dark money into political campaigns and media companies are required to platform genuine alternatives, nothing will fundamentally change.
And as politicians on both sides of the beltway aisle are sometimes caught on hot-mic saying: that’s precisely the point.
Comments
Post a Comment