FREE AIRTIME

 

The idea that media, the news media or journalism, in particular, play an invaluable part in the functioning of democracy is, unfortunately, in our market oriented society and culture, not always apparent in our collective notions about the function of media.  Democracy can only function properly when citizens, in whose hands power is supposed to rest, have accurate and useful information readily available for them with which to make informed decisions about the selection of its representatives.

 

However, as many media critics have been pointing out, the current state of journalism is abysmal, from failing to properly question President Bush’s motives for going to war with Iraq in 2003 to paltry coverage of candidates and elections.  Much of these problems can be traced to the central problem that in the United States the media is a profit making enterprise and very seldom does the public interest coincide with the accumulation of profit. 

 

There are many resources available for addressing what Robert McChesney has succinctly called “the problem of the media” including such things as media literacy, ownership reform, to spotlighting the facts that we, the citizens, own the airwaves and that big media makes big profits. McChesney points out in Tragedy and Farce “Campaign finance reform is a first cousin to media reform, and any route to success in the realm of campaign finance, or in making our elections work, must include changes in media policy” (187). I wanted to highlight a particular media reform that also addresses the problem of campaign finance reform: free airtime for politicians during election cycles.

 

To hopefully facilitate a wider circulation of this important call for reform I have constructed this website; the purpose of which is to bring together as much information available to one place and to continue to update that information when it becomes available for the advocacy of providing free airtime for political campaigns.

 

Why does this issue need to be highlighted? One, it shifts the problem of campaign finance reform onto the shoulders of media conglomerates who’s high advertising rates are a central cause of the increased need for campaign funding which might potentially lead to a decrease in the power of special interests (for example the NAB). Two, it demands that media fulfill its obligation by providing a space in which quality information and coverage can be found so that citizens are better able to make informed political decisions.  Three, though it had some momentum after the 2000 and 2002 election cycles that momentum has slipped, perhaps this might draw attention to it again.

 

The airtime reform is simply one possibility among many in which we shift our focus from understanding ourselves as consumers to knowing ourselves as citizens.  To do this the very concept of the “good” must be rearticulated towards democracy and away from profit.  Of course, a critique of capitalism and its culture is implied within such an appeal.   The picture is larger than free airtime, but it is a good step in the right direction. 

 

Erika Johnson-Lewis

Doctoral Student in Interdisciplinary Humanities

Florida State University

Tallahassee FL. 

 

RESOURCES and INFORMATION

 

*          Our Democracy, Our Airwaves Campaign

(http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org)

 

Perhaps indicative of the campaign’s lack of support and interest is that many of the links on this page are broken.   

 

*          TV's Political Profit in Mother Jones May/June 2000

 

Paul Taylor’s short piece is an excellent introduction to the problems free airtime addresses.

 

*          Profiteering from Democracy

 

Article from The Center for Public Integrity recounts the way in which the broadcast lobby (NAB) squashed Clinton’s request “the Federal Communications Commission act to provide free or reduced-cost television time for candidates," the president said. "The airwaves are a public trust, and broadcasters also have to help us in this effort to strengthen our democracy."

 

 

*          The Perfect Political Storm

 

This article, describing what the “traffic” department goes through during a spike of political advertising prior to an election, demonstrates the amount of cash generated by political ads and how little a difference there is between regular advertising and campaign ads.  From the article: “WPEC General Sales Manager Doug Wolfmueller concurred. "There were days in October when our traffic department resembled the chaos of the floor of the commodities exchange. It was very intense," he said. "I've never seen anything like it in my 18 years here."

 

 

*          Free Airtime Is Not the Answer

“What John McCain needs to understand about free airtime for political candidates.”

 

This article against free airtime misses some of the fundamental problems of the media itself.  Bob Priddy argues that: “The point is, editorial decisions about the content of our newscasts should be left to the editors, not some pol who can’t raise enough money or who can’t spend enough money to buy the commercials that wipe out all of the hard work done by stations that do cover politics and campaigns. When government starts dictating journalistic decisions, we’ve lost an important part of our freedoms and a significant value that sets our country apart from others.”  What Priddy ignores is the way in which the corporate structure of the media often dictates journalistic decisions, nor does he seem to have a problem with the barriers to entry that high priced ad space can be for the average Joanne’s ability to even throw her hat into the ring. 

 

Priddy, however, does point out that free airtime does necessarily equal quality airtime. 

 

*          An Annual Report on American Journalism - Political Ad Revenue in Local TV - 2000/2002/2004 – State of the News Media (www.stateofthenewsmedia.org)

 

This shows the percentage of TV advertising revenue from political ads increasing 4% from 2000 to 2004.  Following this are two charts showing total ad revenue from the Presidential race in 2004 and the total revenue from political ads on TV from 1974 to 2004.

 

*          Links from the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign:

 

*          36,000 Political Ads Aired in State's Top 3 TV Markets  - Nov. 12 2002 - Wisconsin Democracy Campaign (www.wisdc.org)

 

This has a breakdown of the amount of Ads aired in the Wisconsin market plus a table showing the number and cost of political Ads by station from January 1 to November 5, 2002 which gives a basic feel of what these numbers are for each market in a non-Presidential election year.

 

*          McCain, Feingold & Company Unveil Free Air Time Proposal - June 19, 2002 - Wisconsin Democracy Campaign (www.wisdc.org)

 

This article starts with McCain’s and Feingold’s announcement and breakdown of the plan followed by quotes from members of the Alliance for Better Campaigns, which has assembled a coalition of more than 50 national groups that support free air time.

 

*          Five Free Air Time Facts - June 11, 2002 - Wisconsin Democracy Campaign (www.wisdc.org)

 

1.    MOST AMERICANS SUPPORT FREE AIR TIME

2.    FREE AIR TIME IS THE MOST WIDELY-USED CAMPAIGN FINANCE REGULATION IN THE WORLD

3.    THE COST OF AIR TIME IS THE BIGGEST REASON THAT CAMPAIGNS HAVE BECOME SO EXPENSIVE

4.    MOST AMERICANS DON’T REALIZE THAT THE PUBLIC OWNS THE AIRWAVES

5.    AMERICANS MISTAKENLY BELIEVE THAT BROADCASTERS PAY LICENSE FEES

 

 

*          No offseason for political ads. - Stanford University from a San Diego Union-Tribune article written by John Marelius (pcl.stanford.edu and www.signonsandiego.com)

 

“Schwarzenegger's agenda, national issues induce onslaught” shows that political ads are used even for State referendums on proposed changes to the State’s Constitution.

 

*          Don't Mess with Television By Dave Denison 06.05.00 (www.prospect.org)

 

“When Congress cleared the way for the digital transformation, it largely ignored the broadcast industry's public-interest obligations. Nor did the Telecommunications Act of 1996 require the nation's broadcasters to cough up any money for its new spectrum windfall. By contrast, in 1993 the FCC was authorized to hold auctions for licenses that went to mobile phone companies. Billions of dollars have been raised from spectrum auctions as the wireless communication companies have grown.”

 

“But television is different: It's vastly more powerful in Washington, for one thing. So the licenses for digital broadcasting were granted to television companies without charge. As this gift of digital spectrum turns into a bonanza, what will the public get in return? More sitcoms, more game shows, more hair-pulling freak shows, and ads and ads and ads? Will new technology make free candidate access to television more likely, or less?”

 

*          Ad Costs Fuel Need for Campaign Dollars - Capital Eye: A Close-Up Look at Money in Politics (www.opensecrets.org)

 

New push for free airtime aims to curb skyrocketing cost of running for office, but the television industry not eager to yield. By Joel Bleifuss

 

*          How the Media picks the Candidates - By Josh Robinson & Lorna Tychostup (zmagsite.zmag.org)

 

“This bias is exaggerated by the exorbitant cost of covering campaigns. Simply put, the major television networks, newsmagazines, and newspapers can’t afford to cover a ‘many’ field. It’s a budget buster inside a budget that already requires huge outlays for pre-primary coverage, primary and caucus Election Night broadcasts, party convention coverage, debate coverage, general election campaign coverage, and Election Night broadcasts. As a matter of simple economics, the field must be reduced to two as quickly as possible.” 

 

*          TV's Big Stick - WHY THE BROADCAST INDUSTRY GETS WHAT IT WANTS IN WASHINGTON - NEIL HICKEY (www.cjr.org)

 

“As a classic example and case history of the use of power in Washington, the free-airtime controversy has few equals. Broadcasters have successfully demolished at least a dozen previous attempts to mandate free airtime. Starting in 1996 to 1998, they spent almost $11 million in that cause, according to the Washington-based Center for Public Integrity, a watchdog that tracks political spending. In his 1998 State of the Union address, President Clinton said he would order the Federal Communications Commission to provide free or lower-cost television time for candidates. Days later, the FCC received messages from a light brigade of legislators — Republicans and Democrats — with the implied threat that the agency’s budget would be in real peril if it dared follow through on Clinton’s directive. That ended that. It was a stinging defeat for the president and the FCC.”

 

*          Free TV Speech for Candidates - By E. Joshua Rosenkranz

(The Nation, June 8, 1998 - www.brennancenter.org)

 

“We own the airwaves. We, the public. Not GE, not Disney, not Westinghouse, and not Rupert Murdoch. But we lend them our airwaves for free, as trustees, in return for a pledge to serve the public interest. That’s a good place to start when evaluating the broadcast industry’s cri du coeur against proposals to require them to reserve a tiny sliver of air time for political candidates.”

 

*          McCain Wants Free Airtime For Candidates; Is Media Fair to Bush on Corporate Scandals? –

CNN RELIABLE SOURCES (Aired July 6, 2002 - 18:30   ET - transcripts.cnn.com)

 

“KURTZ: Right, but philosophically, isn't that the federal government sticking its big fat nose into private First Amendment decisions by private companies?

 

MCCAIN: If it were not for the fact that the broadcasters are using a government/taxpayer's asset. That's the basis of our whole argument, and the reason why we're not requiring, trying to require newspapers or magazines or any other material that doesn't use -- any other entity that doesn't use the taxpayer's own spectrum or anything else owned by the spectator, the taxpayer will be OK for use.”