July 26, 2012
Dear Hope Cooper,
I am following up on our complaint of May 24th regarding the imbalances we
found on local Milwaukee talk radio during the Scott Walker recall
campaign.
.
We have completed our report of all shows through May 24, the date we made
the FCC complaint. The full report may be found here: http://www.mediaactioncenter.net/2012/05/scott-walker-recall-talk-radio.html#more Should
the FCC need us to compile data on the remaining days of the campaign, please
let me know, as we do have archives of all the programs and can provide that
information if you deem it necessary.
.
I can say with certainty that
none of our people who complained to the stations were ever granted comparable
time, and the talkers on talk radio during the remainder of the campaign
continued to support only one political party. Here is an article written, not
by one of our members, on election day, independently supporting our
data:
.
.
Our monitoring reveals that every one of the five talk show hosts showed
political intent by both personally supporting GOP candidates and by having
guests who supported GOP candidates on the air, while denying any access at all
to supporters of Democratic candidates. Thorough data, including some on-air
quotes showing political intent, are in our report, referenced above. Some
hosts, however, were more egregious in their one sided use of the airwaves than
others. For example, Vicki McKenna had more Republican guests on her program to
support Scott Walker and GOP candidates than any of the others, routinely
recruited volunteers for the GOP over the air, and mocked our effort for balance
by stating on the air, “They're upset that conservative talk radio exists and
conservative talk radio is out there supporting conservatives like Gov.
Walker.”
.
I also wish to draw your attention to a relevant FCC document from 1972,
(emphasis added,) found in its entirety at
.
In the Matter of THE HANDLING OF
PUBLIC ISSUES UNDER THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST STANDARDS OF
THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT
Docket No.
19260
FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
36 F.C.C.2d
40
RELEASE-NUMBER:
FCC 72-534
June 22, 1972
Released
Adopted June
16, 1972
31. What we were stating in
Zapple was simply a common sense application of the statutory scheme. If the
candidate himself appears to some significant extent (cf. gray Communications,
Inc., 14 FCC 2d 766, 19 FCC 2d 532 (1968)), then the Congressional policy is
clear: equal opportunities, which means no applicability of Cullman but rather
mathematical precision of opportunity. Suppose neither the picture or voice of
the candidate is used -- even briefly -- but rather a political message devised
by him and his supporters is broadcast.
In those circumstances, a common
sense view of the policy embodied in Section 315 would still call for the
inapplicability of Cullman n9 and for some measure of treatment
that, while not mathematically rigid, at least took on the appearance of rough
comparability. If the DNC were sold time for a number of spots, it is difficult
to conceive on what basis the licensee could then refuse to sell comparable time
to the RNC. Or, if during a campaign the latter were given
a half-hour of free time to advance its cause, could a licensee fairly reject
the subsequent request of the DNC that it be given a comparable opportunity?
n10 Clearly, these
examples deal with exaggerated, hypothetical situations that would never arise.
No licensee would try to act in such an arbitrary fashion. Thus, the
Zapple ruling simply reflects the common sense of what the public interest,
taking into account underlying Congressional policies in the political broadcast
area, requires in campaign situations [*50] such as the above (and in view of
its nature, the application of Zapple, for all practical purposes, is confined
to campaign periods). Significantly, because it does take
into account the policies of Section 315, the public interest here requires both
more (comparable time) and less (no applicability of Cullman) than traditional
fairness. n11
.
It is relevant to note that today, one political
party getting a half an hour of time to the exclusion of the other is not an
exaggerated hypothetical, but rather a commonplace occurence over our publicly
owned airwaves.
This is in large part due to the public not
fully understanding their rights as the owners of the airwaves. At its core, we
are standing up for the First Amendment rights of the public in this unique
private/public partnership of radio broadcasting. (As cited in Red Lion v FCC,
"The First Amendment is relevant to public broadcasting, but it is the right if
the viewing and listening public, and not the right of the broadcasters, which
is paramount." The broadcasters seem to think only they have rights to free
speech over the microphones which influence millions. We challenge that
assertion, as we believe those excluded from accessing the microphones are
having their First Amendment rights denied them, especially during campaign
seasons.
I understand that there are issues the FCC must
consider concerning whether or not this rule about fundamental fairness during
political campaigns is intact, given the demise of the Fairness Doctrine. I
believe our original complaint well addressed this issue, and I believe the
public interest standards of the Communications Act call for retaining this
rule. However, should the FCC find itself with no rule in place, given the
egregious nature of our complaint, and given that this kind of one sided radio
broadcasting with clear political intent mirrors that of operators nationwide,
we respectfully request a proposal for a new rule.
In coming days, we will be forwarding the
FCC a petition from the public supporting this, as well as a letter of support
from groups across the nation.
Respectfully,
.
Sue Wilson
Media Action Center
4354 Town Center Blvd #114-110
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
cc: Mark Berlin