Deregulated Media And Our Endless Campaign "Silly Season"

As a democracy, the U.S. government guarantees us the right to "free and fair" elections. Ideally, every licensed voter can cast a ballot without fear of harm or reprisal, and all votes are counted. But this certainly isn't all that there is to a free and fair election. Our government, through the unconscionable complacency of the deregulated Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Federal Elections Commission (FEC), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Congress has derailed our right to fair elections well before we pull the curtain to cast our votes. The roles played by broadcasters and political advertisers in the months leading up to the first Tuesday in November are critical to the legitimate execution of our political process. Thanks to the blatant and careless airing of false advertising and broadcaster retreat from journalistic responsibilities, the American people are denied the fundamental democratic principle of free and fair elections. If citizens are fed half-truths and lies, the outcome of the election process certainly cannot be considered fair.

Refusing to intercede as a protectorate of the airwaves, a seemingly powerless FCC has ignored its primary function as the people's advocate within the realm of pubic broadcasting, falling desperately short of its mandated duties. By choosing not to enforce the governmental mandates designed to guide broadcasters while protecting the American people, the FCC's ineptness has afforded a climate of misrepresentation on the airwaves.

All licensed broadcasters must act "in the interest, convenience and necessity" of the American people as outlined by the Commission or risk losing their licenses. (The American people own the airwaves and broadcasters merely lease access, with the FCC standing as the federal governor of such licenses.) By knowingly airing false political advertising and carrying news stories that would not stand up to the litmus test of truth, broadcasters are doing a fundamental disservice to the American people. Although a deregulated FCC washes its hands of responsibility by asserting local communities should be the truth police of the political airwaves, it is ludicrous to put the onus on them. Citizens are not equipped to battle broadcasters, nor can they fully participate in fair elections if what is being conveyed to them by broadcasters is false or misleading. The broadcasters have a duty to question, not simply accept, the information provided to them and the political ads they voluntarily air.

In recent years, broadcasters seem more afraid of politicians blocking access to candidates and stories than the potential threat of a deregulated FCC's censures. Without the story provided by the candidate, the broadcaster risks losing market share and with it advertising revenue. Looking to societal trends rather than delivering what is best for the citizen, broadcasters have swung the content pendulum to the tabloid rather than the informative. We are told about up-dos before issues, erroneous mud slinging rather than policy driven fact. Without the FCC demanding otherwise, broadcasters have little impetus for change. Further, a media focused on staying on the good side of politicians in exchange for access falls prey to the most dangerous of pitfalls -- media manipulation.

The pit-bull watchdog of consumer advertising, the FTC, sits the political advertising dance out because it claims no product is being sold. In the 22 years I've been in marketing, I can't think of a larger, more carefully packaged product being sold to the American people than that of the office of the President of the United States. Campaigns sell personalities and concepts and ideas to a voting American public. Millions of Americans donate money to campaigns that they learn of from broadcasters, making the argument that there's no money in the game baseless. If the FTC would simply extend its non-political advertising regulations to that of political advertising, the face of such communication would be drastically transformed.

Beyond political advertising, TV and radio stations have often forgotten that the higher purpose of broadcast journalism is to factually inform the American people about the political issues facing the country. Broadcasters are advocates of the people, charged with acting in their best interests first and foremost. Reporting on political candidate fashion trends and filling the airwaves with who didn't really call whom a pig or other forms of political saber rattling disguised as fact dangerously erodes a critical bond between broadcaster and audience. Edward R. Morrow, the patriarch of broadcast journalism, once interviewed an empty chair on the news show "See it Now" when Senator Joseph McCarthy refused an invitation to speak on the issues. Willing to ask the tough questions on behalf of the American people, Murrow's actions lead to the eventual demise of the corrupt senator. Mr. Murrow understood the weighty responsibility he had to the American people and acted in our "interest, convenience and necessity."

There's a psychological term when a patient is running from his/her issues called "avoidance." The therapist searches for what it is a patient doesn't want to address rather than simply accept at face value the misdirection. In this campaign cycle, broadcasters often seem more interested in the sensational rather than the substance, not looking to what politicians hoping to distract or so desperate to avoid. It is a broadcaster's responsibility, however, to deliver to the American public the truth in the best way they know as professionals to do. Otherwise, the broadcaster falls victim to masterful media manipulation.

If a candidate would prefer not to speak to the issues, his or her camp can wipe out a day of reporting by falsely attacking a rival. The sensational attack will serve two purposes: 1) it will divert attention from the issues the public deserves to have addressed and 2) once reported, the audience may believe the lie to be true. Broadcast journalists have a responsibility not only for fact, but also for substance. It is to execute blinders on reporting that is devoid of real fact checking. The airwaves aren't meant to be a forum for propaganda, but for honesty. And the big loser is not the unfairly defeated candidate, but the American people.

In the Communications Act of 1934 (as amended by the Telecom Act of 1996), the FCC itself stated that a broadcaster could lose its license if it "has knowingly transmitted false or deceptive signals or communications." (See FCC.gov) The FCC are well aware that licensees are not supposed to propagate misrepresentations, but seems disinterested in pursuing such situations in regards to political reporting or advertising. The FCC is clear that censorship by broadcasters of candidates is forbidden, yet rarely holds the broadcaster responsible for derailing the spread of propaganda.

At one point in media time, there was grave concern about subliminal advertising, or messages covertly planted within advertising unbeknownst to the viewer or listener. The government swiftly outlawed such communication, as such obvious manipulation was most certainly not in the citizens' best interest. At present, there's no need for subliminal political advertising. Thanks to the ineffectiveness of the FCC and FTC, politicians and action groups can spread untruths in full view on news programs and through advertising for all to see without any negative repercussions.

We couldn't have learned this lesson more fully than we did with the now infamous reporting of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction. The results of such misinformation, widely distributed by a mostly unquestioning media, have been world changing. If we allow the same principles of misdirection to be applied to the race for the most important political office in the world, we risk having the American people make decisions based on airwave truth-lies; statements that are broadcast through formats that we trust to deliver factual information to us.

The deregulation of the FCC, particularly under President Regan in the mid-80s, must shoulder the lion's share of blame when considering the ineptness of today's Commission. Tragically, without federal governance of our airwaves, we create a sieve-like system that gives too many
opportunities for skillful audience manipulation. How does a local community control a national network? It simply cannot. Believing that the communities and its citizens can police airwaves is simply an excuse for inaction, and certainly not in keeping with the wants, needs and desires of the American public.

Experts in marketing and media will attest that we're in the midst of a cycle of media manipulation that surpasses any other time in our country's history. The American people deserve truth on the airwaves, and the FCC should be revoking the licenses of stations that knowingly distribute misinformation. The job of our government and the broadcasters who use public airwaves is to serve its citizens.

With an economy on the brink of a catastrophic meltdown, an unsuspecting nation has seen how much greedy and power hungry mice will play when the cat is non-existent. If the government can learn one regulatory lesson from Wall Street, hopefully it's that a government is supposed to govern. When the FCC, FEC and FTC don't protect the rights of the people, a trusting America will be lied to early and often.

-----
Some related sources:

* 2008 Wikipedia Search: FCC, FTC, Advertising
* FCC.gov
* The Museum of Broadcast Communication, keyword: "Deregulation"

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/D/htmlD/deregulation/deregulation.html

Comments

[kothian1]

Geez! This was posted the 23rd? How did I miss it? And how is it that there are so few comments? The media and the communication of facts and ideas is (at least in my own small opinion) the absolute crux of what's wrong with politics and journalism today. I'm really surprised that there was such a small response.

[kothian1]

Hasn't the spectacle devolved into "politics for the sake of entertainment" much the same way that journalism has? Networks promote political events like rounds of a boxing match, and even use fight euphemisms to describe the action (Chris Matthews and Pat Buchannan going on about debate comparisons to the Ali-Fraser fight just stands right out). Damn, but I wish I had the solution, but as long as the media's only impetus is the almighty dollar, I guess we'll get what we pay for. Where the hell is Walter Cronkite when you really need him? I think the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, or something akin to it would be a good place to start. As it is, we pay more attention to the accuracy of the advertisements for dog food than we do to those for Presidential candidates. It has to start with the public DEMANDING better coverage and turning off the talking heads...but just how do you do that?

[Travellini]

EXCELLENT article! This election is showing us a lot of our shadow - a bizarre sexism perpuated by the objectified woman we are supposed to celebrate; racism, agism, and the bizarre "elitism" that ridicules those who refuse to dumb down. Lots to work on when we get past this switch in the track. All of these things work together, and education will be key to Obama's presidency! Thanks for your time on this article - really spot on!

[KELLI2L]

< This long election process has left us weary. As long as it's been - we still don't feel we know any more about the candidates than we did before - We need to shorten the time by letting all states vote at the same period of time (one week) for the primaries. The candidates should be able to campaign all the states within six months. Then we go on to the General Election. However, there should be one place the America citizens can go for all the unbiased factual information about each candidate. This should be accessed by internet and made available in every library. This would put an end to the media biased coverage and be a great help to the voters. >

[MediaLawyer]

Sorry to let reality rain on this parade of flaming rhetoric, but the blame doesn't rest with broadcasters or the FCC. Congress (the 1970s version) passed a statute that (1) prohibits broadcasters from editing any political advertisements by qualified federal candidates or (2) rejecting a political candidate's spot that constitutes a "use" on the basis of its content. Broadcasters' hands are tied. They can't edit federal candidate spots for truth, and they can't reject those spots for falsity. You can't pick and choose the parts of the Communications Act that support your argument, and ignore those that don't.

[saraholeary]

Media, thanks for the comment!

Regarding the 70s congressional statue, would you kindly cite which one? I referred to the Federal Communications Act of 1934, which was amended in 1996. It is my understanding that the 1996 version would reach beyond anything from the "70s version" of Congress. Your clarification would be much appreciated.

Having spent 22-years in marketing, I can promise you that broadcasters aren't in the business of editing any advertiser's TV spot, let alone those of a political nature. Broadcasters do, however, reject commercials on a regular basis for not meeting a burden of truth proof. It should be noted the difference between rejecting a spot vs. rejecting a spot filled with unprovable assertions. There in lies the difference between censorship and affording politicians a platform to lie to the American people on our airwaves. Advertisers can't air a spot that says toothpaste makes teeth "their whitest" if the advertisers can't prove it, which is as it should be. The point I make is that political advertising should be held to the same standards as a tube of toothpaste.

Lastly, the main charge of the FCC is to act "in the interest, convenience and necessity of the public." I simply assert that the FCC (as well as broadcasters, the FEC and FTC) has an obligation to do all that it can within its powers to make certain the airwaves are not used to mislead the American people. Thanks again for the post!

[althea123]

as a teacher educator, i sadly encounter young adults who possess poor critical thinking skills. growing up in the i-pod / video game era, where if one doesnt like the song being played or how a videogame has started, simply forwards to the next selection or restarts the game, little is given to reflection­/ponderig/­meaning-ma­king. this population receives politcal advetising in the same manner - with little or no critical analysis...and wanting to fast forward. nevertheless, everyday i am fortunate to have reason to firmly believe in the talent of our young adults. while they may be 'infomation rich - but experience poor', the ones in my miliue are fortright and integral. if only the same could be said for the campaigns developing erroneous ads and the oversight that lacks, well, oversight...

[saraholeary]

Thank you for the insightful post, and for sharing your unique point of view. The changes in how information is received is very interesting to consider.

[ReElectNoOne]

On one hand we have a 1st Amendment right to free speech protecting candidates lies. Rules require broadcasters to publish political ads without censorship even if they know them to contain lies.

Then there is the media who make a killing selling these ads who don't want to "piss off" either golden egg by overly emphasizing the lies in their news broadcasts...as they should be doing.

A company cannot false advertise based on the "harm" principle. Personally I think electing a liar does great harm to America too and the "Truth in Advertising" should be enforced and that an out-right lie should not be protected speech when it is aimed at potential voters.

Campaign lies are an assault on the dignity of all Americans.

[krocklin]

The dumbing down of the entire electorate has resulted from the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine and of course Regan's deregulatory actions. The result has been increasing media consolidation, less diversity of opinion and much more advertising per hour than used to be allowed.

But the endless Presidential campaign with all the massive spending required and diversionary tactics that result has also dealt an blow to Democracy.

We need simply to limit the campaign - to two weeks - and the amount that can be spent on it. And maybe make voting mandatory as in Australia.

[saraholeary]

You've read my mind. We need smaller political war chest, shorter election processes, a decrease of electoral college power (maybe shared with popular vote), a national holiday for election day, and maybe even a tax rebate for those who vote to cover the costs of a sitter and gas.

Thanks for the post.