Claire Byrne: Troublemaker

American broadcasters justifiably complain and fret about the FCC’s content regulation. But here’s a reminder that it could be worse.  A lot worse. Dublin-based  Newstalk 106-108 was recently censured by Ireland’s version of the FCC because morning co-host Claire Byrne called spinster singing sensation Susan Boyle “a freak” and “not right in the head.”   The Broadcasting Authority of Ireland called the comments “inherently offensive,” “disrespectful” and (my favorite) “not editorially supported.”

Newstalk was also found guilty of hosting a “one-sided” panel discussion on an issue related to Ireland’s role in the European Union.  While the station faces no fines or other immediate consequences as a result of the BAI censures, such actions no doubt have a chilling affect on the already mild version of talk radio practiced on the Emerald Isle.

On the flip side, a Newstalk guest recently let loose a full-throated “Bullshit!” in the middle of the broadcast day, and I’m told that incident will likely bring no grief to the station.

So, they have that going for them.

Talk show hosts can be held personally liable for false claims made in their endorsement spots under a new ruling by the Federal Trade Commission.  The Commission’s revised interpretation of its long-standing rules on testimonial advertising might also chill some of the creative endorsements presentations that have appeared in recent years, including General Motor’s deal with several syndicated hosts, who frequently talked about GM and its products without clearly segueing into a commercial break.

According to the FTC press release announcing the revised policy: “While the 1980 Guides did not explicitly state that endorsers as well as advertisers could be liable under the FTC Act for statements they make in an endorsement, the revised Guides reflect Commission case law and clearly state that both advertisers and endorsers may be liable for false or unsubstantiated claims made in an endorsement – or for failure to disclose material connections between the advertiser and endorsers. The revised Guides also make it clear that celebrities have a duty to disclose their relationships with advertisers when making endorsements outside the context of traditional ads, such as on talk shows or in social media.”

And note this: the new rules apply to any and all Internet bloggers. That’s a signal of  potential future trouble for talk radio.  This FTC — which thinks bloggers’ content needs to be regulated – is still dominated by Bush appointees.  It seems likely that as President Obama’s commissioners move to the fore, the Commission will grow even more activist.  A regulatory body that currently thinks it’s OK to rein-in the Internet will have no qualms about meddling the the content of federally regulated mass media. 

 The industry may get a taste of what’s to come in early December when the FTC holds a public “workshop” on “the future of the news media.” Want to feel your blood run cold?  Here are three of the issues slated for discussion at the workshop, which is designed to help the Commission shape policy:

• Are new or changed government policies needed to support optimal amounts and types of journalism, including public affairs coverage?

• Should the tax code be modified to provide special status or tax breaks to all or certain types of news organizations?

• Should the federal government provide additional funding for news organizations?

So, what type of media do you think the FTC staff has in mind to support as it contemplates circumventing the news marketplace with such policies?

Brian Jennings

Brian Jennings, the Paul Revere of the fight against government contol of talk radio, dropped Talk Frontier a note reinforcing our  concern about the growing influence of the media “reform” group Free Press:

“[Free Press is] not to be trusted.  In the book  (“Censorship: The Threat to Silence Talk Radio,” ) I transcribed a lengthy interview their Communications Director, Craig Aaron did on a California station.  Quote:  “I don’t support re-instating the Fairness Doctrine not because I don’t support the goals, but because it’s the wrong way to go about it.” 
 
This telegraphs to me there is a “right” way to go about it and that’s where we see localism, advisory boards, and Copps looking at shorter license renewal from eight to three years with “some pubic interest teeth”.  He has also stated when speaking at Free Press that the state of journalism, including mindless talk, is “undermining democracy”. 
 
So, government should determine what is in the public interest – not the public.  This is extremely dangerous thinking in a free society.  Wow.

According to press reports, the FCC’s analysis of  broadcast news focuses on a range of issues, including media consolidation, the business challenges facing traditional electronic media, and the rise of blogging and other “new media.”  Of special concern to talk radio: The still-secret report examines the “quality of journalism” and the role of “opinion journalism” in the broadcast media.

The FCC report was initiated by Commissioner Michael Copps, a long-time critic of broadcast news.  But the study also reflects the agenda of Free Press, which dislikes “opinion” radio and advocates an eat-your-spinach approach to news.  This is from their website:

“News outlets across the country have replaced real reporting with celebrity gossip, sports and weather. And instead of fulfilling their obligation to inform the public, the massive conglomerates that decide most of what we read, see and hear every day serve us junk news and mindless commentary that is cheap to produce.”

How much influence does Free Press have at the FCC?  A lot.  Copps is clearly a fan — he spoke at a recent FP gathering — and FCC ChairmanJulius Genachowski earlier this month tapped Free Press staffer Jen Lewis to serve as his personal press secretary.

The storm clouds continue to gather over the FCC…

Hmmm.  Wonder if she supports the FCC’s pending “localism” rules?