NEWS October 27, 1994 CHAIRMAN HUNDT URGES CONNECTICUT BROADCASTERS TO DISSEMINATE FACTS TO EVERYONE Characterizing broadcast TV and radio as "long on opinions, but short on facts," FCC Chairman Reed Hundt urged his audience of Connecticut broadcasters to gather the facts and disseminate them to their audiences, including children, minorities and non-English speakers. Noting that most print publishers adhere to numerous practices to promote truth and accuracy in their publications, the Chairman asked, "Since the reality is that broadcasters deliver the news to more Americans that print publishers do, why isn't it time for broadcasters to adopt similar practices?" He noted that, in the face of auctioning of spectrum space, which in the current narrowband auction is going at $3.00 per pop per megahertz, the public will be asking more and more what it is that broadcasters are giving back to the public that justifies the fact that they get their licenses for nothing. Chairman Hundt urged the broadcasters to redefine their social compact with their audiences, predicting "big challenges but greater opportunities for success." "You'll have regulators demanding less while customers are demanding more." The Chairman discussed some recent and upcoming developments at the Commission and noted that many of the recent actions were reviewed "in light of relevant economic and antitrust principles. To a degree, this is a new approach." Also being stressed at the FCC is improving customer service so that it is "equal to the best in business." He pointed out that earlier this year the FCC began making public notices and Commission documents available on the Internet. "Now, 4,000 FCC documents are downloaded by the public over the Internet each week." "Ultimately, we hope to establish what one could call a 'virtual public reference room," where people have full, cheap, easy remote access to Commission decisions and parties' pleadings." Chairman Hundt closed by noting, "I'm in this for the public service of the job and you are a key part of the FCC's public. So tell us how to redefine our job, how to simplify your life, and how to serve you better." - FCC - REMARKS OF CHAIRMAN REED E. HUND T CONNECTICUT BROADCASTERS ASSOCIATION ANNUAL CONVENTION THURSDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1994 FARMINGTON, CONNECTICUT Thank you, Donna, for that kind introduction. I also want to thank Paul Taft for inviting me to speak to you. Paul waited until I had been in office exactly ten days before he extended the invitation. The early bird catches the worm, Paul -- so here I am! It's a special honor for me to offer some remarks to the Connecticut Broadcasters Association on its 40th anniversary because I love the Nutmeg State. I spent seven wonderful years in this state -- down at the Elm City. As we've just seen from the video, some of the most famous personalities in broadcasting ("Hogan's Heroes" star Bob Crane; Howdy Doody; Dave Brubeck; and Merv Griffin) began their careers in Connecticut. As Connecticut's broadcasting pioneers realized, communications technologies -- what are now called the information superhighway -- help people share news, facts and information. Certainly the entertainment you as broadcasters provide to your viewers and listeners is important. I know that. After all, I grew up on "Kookla, Fran & Ollie," "Dobie Gillis," and "Mama." But as my friend and mentor Commissioner Jim Quello recently said in a very significant speech in St. Petersburg, Russia, "The major impact of television and radio today on the American way of life is in news and news analysis, not in entertainment programs." Seventy percent of all Americans get 100% of their news from TV and radio. For Americans to discuss social issues in a sensible way, we must be able to develop and share reasonable opinions based on facts. We need TV and radio to provide us our facts. Because TV and radio reach all Americans, these mediums give us the potential to live in the most well-informed society in history. And, it's not just adults who get their facts from radio and TV. Our children need to get facts over the air. Finally, broadcasters have to share the facts with everyone, including minorities and non-English speakers. People sometimes question whether sufficiently diverse opinions are fairly expressed over the airwaves. I don't think that's a big problem in this country. As far as I can tell, broadcast TV and radio is long on opinions, but short on facts. I see and hear no shortage of opinions. That's why we don't have the fairness doctrine on our upcoming agenda at the Commission. But whether broadcasters are doing as much as they could or should do to disseminate true facts and to correct disinformation or misinformation -- that is a serious and open question. Today's Wall Street Journal contains the following quote: "'The more you listen, the more you know,' boasts a local talk station, and there is a hunger and restlessness amid the flood of information -- and misinformation -- around voters." I believe we are more likely to come to consensus in this country and get done that which needs doing, if we concentrate, like Joe Friday on Dragnet, on "just the facts." I've seen a study by the NAB which indicates that in 1990 commercial broadcasters devoted $1.5 billion worth of air time to public service announcements. But how much air time was devoted to the correction of misinformation? How many of them run over-the-air anything like a letters-to-the-editor column? How many try to correct in any way for those talk radio shows in which facts may sink completely out of sight? My friend Jim Quello spoke very directly to this subject in his St. Petersburg speech: "Editors, publishers and broadcast executives have the responsibility to make sure reporters are not wrong too often . . . . [B]roadcast owners, executives and managers should more and more assume the role of publisher or even editor-in-chief. Top management must emphasize truth and responsibility in news and public affairs reporting . . . ." Now, as I've said elsewhere, the primary mission of the FCC is to promote competition among the five lanes of the information highway: broadcast, cable, wire, wireless, and satellite. The FCC is in effect working to become the Federal Promotion of Competition in All Communications Markets and Protection of Consumers from Monopoly Commission. We don't want the FCC to be the editor-in-chief for broadcast news. We don't want the FCC to be the conscience of broadcasting. My nine-year-old son Nathaniel asked me the other day where a person's conscience is located. I said I don't know exactly but it's somewhere inside you. That is true for people and it must be true for business. Your conscience -- your ethics -- your responsibilities -- have to be institutionalized in the best practices of your industry. That is how we can guarantee that the FCC never becomes the Federal Censorship Commission. So broadcasers might do well to ask themselves the questions that Diane Rehm, a talk radio host in Washington, D.C., recently asked in an article in The Washington Post: "Should there be as careful an examination of statements uttered on the air as there is of words printed? Is there any way in which talk programming can be monitored to ensure factual presentation and correction of error? How can we as citizens participate more fully in the process of questioning and demanding accuracy?" I don't think Jim Quello or I or anyone wants the government to issue regulations providing answers to these questions. My friend Don West wrote in an editorial in Broadcasting and Cable that he was hopeful that I thought that someone outside government would raise the issue of whether true facts, news and sound information was reliably delivered to the American people by our broadcasters. He's right on that. Then he wrote that he certainly wasn't going to help. Most people in the print media disgree. Most print publishers adhere to numerous practices to promote truth and accuracy in their publications. Since the reality is that broadcasters deliver the news to more Americans than print publishers do, why isn't it time for broadcasters to adopt similar practices" If they do -- if they answer Diane Rehm's questions -- they can help guarantee an extended run for the world's longest playing experiment in democracy. Another part of broadcasting's responsibility concerns the need to teach children how to gather, assess and apply facts. This is the core of education. The business of educating kids should be part of the TV business. The fact is that TV and radio do captivate, acculturate and inculcate attitudes and beliefs in our children. Broadcasting cannot deny its power. It must not shirk the responsibility that goes with that power. On June 28, the Commission held an en banc hearing on children's television. Twenty-six witnesses gave us a broad range of suggestions. We need your help as we sort through these ideas in preparation for releasing a notice of proposed rulemaking in the next few months. We know that TV can reach kids. We want it to teach them, too. Third, it is crucial that broadcasters get the facts out over-the-air to all minorities. In a country with more than 400 different spoken languages, that is no easy goal to reach. One key step is to increase the participation of minorities in TV and radio, particularly in management positions. It's critically imporant for broadcasters to redefine their responsibilities because the public's conception of the fair use of the airwaves is changing. Some are saying already that broadcasters receive a big break from government because of their free use of scarce spectrum. Even as I am standing here, back in Washington the FCC is raising hundreds of millions of dollars auctioning off that which broadcasters receive for free. The going rate as of right now in today's narrowband auctions is $3.00 per pop per magahertz - and it's heading north. For broadcasters using 6 megahertz, that's $18.00 for every person in your audience -- every man, woman and child within reach of your signal. Some have suggested broadcasters pay for this spectrum. Under the calculation set by our current auction, the payments would be frighteningly large. I don't think spectrum auctions or spectrum fees would be a good idea for broadcasting. But I would urge broadcasters not to put their heads in the sand. In the wake of the auctions, I predict America will ask what broadcasters are giving back to the public that justifies their deal. They will ask why shouldn't broadcasters, who powerfully influence our knowledge of all social issues and our fate as a community, live up to their responsibilities to inform us all and to help raise our children the right way? This question will also be voiced in the context of HDTV. The public will want to know,if broadcasters acquire additional valuable spectrum without purchssing it at auction, why shouldn't they be required to give something back to the public in return. Some in the public will expect that part of the profits from the use of the additional spectrum could be used to pay for new public affairs or children's educational programming. I believe broadcasters can and will give powerful answers to these questions. But the answers have to be right for the times. The answers about the social value of broadcasting have to fit a world in which most Americans get all their news from TV and radio -- they have to relate to a world in which large numbers of children are born to unwed mothers, grow up with a patchwork of adult supervision, and turn to the television every day to learn about their present and their future. In re-explaining the public interest obligations of broadcasters, you might want to consider echoing the words of Grant Tinker in his book "Tinker in Television": "Maximizing profit is an honorable goal, and American companies are devoted to achieving it. For most business people, it's the reason for coming to work. For broadcasters, it's a prescription for being second-rate. "My ideal world would [have] . . rules [that] . . . obligate anyone wanting the unique and priceless franchise of immediate access to American homes to recognize the public service component of their responsibilities. Being a broadcaster, not just a businessman, ought to be required." Redefining the public interest role of broadcasting may or may not require rules. Certainly it will require change. But it is far easier to change in good times than in bad. And in these boom times for the broadcasting business, our opportunity is to make the best of a great situation. So I predict if you take on the job of redefining your social compact, you'll have big challenges but greater opportunities for success. You'll have greater flexibility to conduct business in a profit-maximizing way, but you'll have clearly and reliably defined social responsibilities. Finally, and most important, you'll have regulators demanding less while customers are demanding more. Let me talk for a moment about some recent and upcoming developments at the Commission. We just affirmed the Commission's earlier decision to relax the radio ownership rules. We did take special steps to strengthen the incentives for minority ownership. I want to note especially that we did not rubber stamp the revised rules. Instead, we reviewed them in light of relevant economic and antitrust principles. To a degree, this is a new approach. It will require new understanding by communications lawyers and advisers. But if good antitrust law guides Commission thinking, business can count on consistent rulings and the Commission will steer far away from the rocks of judicial review called "arbitrariness" and "capriciousness" by the appellate court that far too often reverses us. Shortly, we will be examining our TV ownership rules to see if they should be modified in light of changed market conditions. Again we will apply sound antitrust principles, as well as a parallel concern with the issue of diversity of voice. We also intend in the near future to begin a proceeding to address revised and new steps to improve the representation of minorities in ownership and management of mass media outlets. By the beginning of 1995, we will need to address satellite digital audio broadcasting. I urge you to tell us how digital technology can be phased in harmoniously with existing businesses. I've met with some broadcasters from Connecticut already on this subject, and I invite others to share their views with us. I'm happy to report that the FCC on October 13 released an Order that cleared the way for implementing the AM expanded band. The following day, the Mass Media Bureau issued the allotment plan for the expanded band. Seventy-nine stations were selected for expanded band allotments, but the big beneficiaries will be the broadcasters and listeners who will see tangible improvements in the technical quality of AM service. As part of our reinventing government initiative, we're working to improve the FCC's customer service. It should be equal to the best in business. Let me share with you an example. The FM Radio Branch determined that because of an unclear form and poor instructions, 60% of the license application forms filed with the Commission contained errors that contributed to a processing backlog of 600 applications. The FM Branch redesigned the form and instructions to make them easer to understand. As a result, errors were reduced by 60% and the processing backlog was almost entirely eliminated. Let's do this on every flawed form. If you don't think we've designed them right, e- mail me a message on Internet and let me know. Earlier this year we began to make public notices and Commission documents available on the Internet. Now, 4,000 FCC documents are downloaded by the public over the Internet each week. Ultimately, we hope to establish what one could call a "virtual public reference room," where people have full, cheap, easy remote access to Commission decisions and parties' pleadings. A critical part of our reinventing government effort involves taking advantage of the capabilities that new technologies give us. About a month ago, we began to provide immediate access to Commission documents such as news releases, public notices and fact sheets through a free "fax-on-demand" service. [The number is 202-418-2830.] We want to set things up so you won't have to call a Washington lawyer to get the latest release or a form you have to file. We're working to develop electronic filing systems. The Commission currently has more than 20 electronic filing initiatives that are in various stages of development. We want to give broadcasters a cheap way to use the information highway to file documents with the Commission. We're sreamlining the licensing and license renewal processes. For example, within the next several months we hope to propose changing our rules to provide for antenna structure owners, and not licensees, to register their antenna structures with us. This will reduce the number of registrations from 850,000 to approximately 70,000. This will save the FCC and licensees hundreds of thousands of dollars annually in filing and processing costs. We hope to adopt soon a procedure that allows a station owner to file license renewal applications for translators simultaneously with and on the same form as the owner's main station. In the future, we will be examining the way we handle interference issues in general. I am not convinced that we have defined the role of the government in this respect as well as we should. I can't tell you why we didn't have these ideas before. I can't be sure we aren't overlooking a good idea right now. But I strongly encourage you not to file one more cumbersome form, or have one more expensive interaction with your government without at least taking the time to tell us how we can do it better. I'm in this for the public service of the job and you are a key part of the FCC's public. So tell us how to redefine our job, how to simplify your duties, and how to serve you better. I look forward to the next 40 years of broadcasting in Connecticut. And I fully expect that in another forty years, my successor as Chairman of the FCC will, like me, have the honor of appearing before you and congratulating you on a job well done.