FCC commissioner wants to institute a “Public Value Test” on radio stations
Big Brother is watching…..or is at least listening, if Michael Copps–the head of the FCC–has his way. What is the big deal you may be asking? After all, isn’t it the job of the FCC set broadcast standards and ensure that stations are living up to them? Yes, but this news should be a little concerning to everybody; Michael Copps wants to set up a “Public Value Test” which a station must pass every four years in order for that station to keep its licence.
This will be done under the guise of trying to save “traditional media” which Copps has declared is in “grave peril,” but it is nothing more than another way to pass a version of the Fairness Doctrine. Here is what Michael Copps had to say about this idea during a recent speech:
If a station passes the Public Value Test, it of course keeps the license it has earned to use the people’s airwaves,” Copps said. “If not, it goes on probation for a year, renewable for an additional year if it demonstrates measurable progress. If the station fails again, give the license to someone who will use it to serve the public interest
The first question that came to my mind when I read that quote was this: who gets to decide whether a station is adequately serving the public interest? I think we all know the answer to this question, don’t we? This will give the government more control over the product that radio stations are allowed to broadcast, because if the product does not meet the government standard of the “public interest” the radio station will lose its license. But on top of that, if the government feels a radio station is making adequate progress towards airing content the government approves of, the lisencing process will be sped up for those stations:
Copps said stations meeting certain benchmarks of progress would qualify for “expedited handling of their license renewals.”
We already have a means to decide which radio stations are meeting the “public interest” and that standard is ratings and revenue. If a radio station is not serving up a product that the people want to listen to they will simply turn it off, as a result of this the station will lose advertising revenue and will either change formats or go out of business. This is a free market solution to a problem that only exists in the government’s mind, but this solution is not giving the government the results it wants so they must create another crisis which must be averted.
This problem of the “grave peril” of traditional media is exactly the crisis the government is looking for, but it is simply not what the Public Value Test is about; the Public Value Test is a means to an end, it is not about saving “traditional media,” it is about letting the government have more control over the content of the radio stations, instead of letting the free market dictate the content of these stations. And I think the reason for this is pretty clear, the government does not like the content that is on the radio.
What content could the government possibly be opposed to? I think we all know the answer to that question as well. Part of this Public Value Test has its eyes on “localizing” the radio stations so that they are all not focusing on national stories, but more on the local community.
This is what Michael Copps had to say about “community diversity:”
the goal is more localism in our program diet, more local news and information, and a lot less streamed-in homogenization and monotonous nationalized music at the expense of local and regional talent. Homogenized music and entertainment from huge conglomerates constrains creativity, suppresses local talent, and detracts from the great tapestry of our nation’s cultural diversity
There can be no doubt that this is an attempt at allowing the FCC and the federal government more direct influence on the content of radio stations. The government has no right to tell a radio station who they have to put on the air and what topics they can discuss–the free market should decide these issues–but that is exactly what they are trying to do.
This is being done–much like everything else that liberals do–for the public good, or the greater good. The FCC wants to localize the radio stations because they do not like the message that is coming from the national radio figures, they feel that national radio hosts have too much influence over the people and they want to curb that influence.
This will be portrayed as being for our own good, Jonah Goldberg called this type of government for your own good soft fascism and smiley face fascism, as well as liberal fascism, but the fact is; no matter what you want to call it, it is a type of controlling government. If the government controls the airwaves, and if the government controls which content is allowed on the airwaves, they control the argument. When the government controls the message, they control the people.
The FCC is looking to become the Ministry of Propaganda. Separated at birth?:
Michael Copps
Joseph Goebbels
America's Watchtower 
I’m with you on this Steve. This is the fairness doctrine wrapped up in a different color wrapping paper. The concept is to create a balancing act for these radio stations that cannot possibly meet. These stations will weigh the costs to implement new programming that no one wants to listen to and will ultimately be forced to just drop radio shows deemed by the government as one sided or dare I say extreme. Monitoring the political content of a radio station should never be in the charter of the FCC. I was watching O’Reilly last night and he said that he was going to use every resource available to fight this. He also had people from the left that agreed with him. One of the steps a tyrannical regime does to control the people is to control the message. This is exactly what they are trying to do. Great post Steve.
LikeLike
I agree! The FCC shouldn’t be in the business of monitoring the content of the stations, but that is what they want to do. This is another example of a government agency extending its powers beyond the original scope of their authority, we are seeing more and more of this every day and it is getting a little concerning!
Thank you for the compliment!
LikeLike
It seems that Obama and Chavez have the same playbook. As John commented, the left should be to happy about this either because the the right has control there will be paybacks to deal with.
Great post.
LikeLike
Hopefully we will be able to stop this, I think the left continues to push too hard and the American people have already told them they have had enough. This cannot be a winning position for the left.
Thank you for the compliment!
LikeLike
oops! It’s “shouln’t” and it is “when” the right…
Sorry
LikeLike
I have one question for everyone; When and WHERE do We, The People, draw a line in the sand and take a stand for freedom?
LikeLike
Very soon, my friend, very soon! I can’t believe that the American people are going to go along with this!
LikeLike
When I grew up in New York City, there were 7 television stations and a relatively limited number of radio stations. Thus, the Fairness Doctrine made sense because there was a limited number of sources of information. (Note that the FD never was applied to the print media because of the First Amendment – it was held, though, that broadcast journalism doesn’t share that protection.)
Today, there’s virtually an unlimited number of television stations from which to choose. Likewise, the number of radio stations has increased dramatically, and the public’s access to information is simply enhanced by the internet.
Neitther I, nor any of my liberal friends, has ever called for a return of the FD in any form, and I’m confounded by those in high office who sometimes seem enamored of this form of censorship. It’s far easier to try to ban Hannity, Limbaugh and Boortz than it is to expose their demagoguery and the deficiencies in their arguments, but the unalterable fact is that the only way to beat a lie is to expose it, not outlaw its telling.
Even today, for example, we’re still wrestling with the allure of communism and its related failed ideologies because we’ve concentrated more on demonizing it and trying to outlaw it instead of educationg our idealistic young about its essential flaws and unrealistic expectations.
Hope everyone had a grand Thanksgiving and is ready for a glorious Christmas!
LikeLike
I honestly don’t know anyone that wants the fairness doctrine reinstated either, it seems to only be an issue that the leftist politicians care about. I agree with you, the government chouldn’t outlaw a postion because they do not agree with it, they should try to counter it. The fact that they want to ban the opposition tells me that they are losing the argument.
I had a great Thanksgiving and I hope you did as well. Merry Christmas.
LikeLike
I’m glad to hear that you do not agree with the FCC’s proposed Public Values Test, GA Yank. Sometimes, I’m chilled by the talk of leftists like Media Matters, Sen Rockefeller, etc. To just take stuff off the air b/c “they know best” is fascism, plain and simple.
I seem to remember when liberals were known for protecting important freedoms, like to burn flags and stuff. Now I hear, “violent rhetoric, violent rhetoric! Shut them up, shut them up!”
Can liberals like you remind the fascist left that censorship is bad, perhaps? That would be a really good thing.
BTW, communism and its related ideologizes should be demonized. Lotsa deaths, lotsa suffering and all that, you know.
LikeLike
Georgia Yankee seems to be a more moderate Democrat, we agree on some issues, athough we probably disagree on most. I am curious to know how many liberal voters actually support this, I think this is more of an issue with elected liberals than it is with the voters.
LikeLike
Who will administer this public value “test”? Mark Lloyd?
LikeLike
That is a good question!
LikeLike