There is a saying
that goes, “Everybody has a story to tell.”
My own NAB Show
story began a decade ago – almost to this day, in fact – when I spoke at my
first show as the new president and CEO.
On that morning, I shared the story of broadcasters’ unrelenting
commitment to always be there for their communities … to inform them … and to
It is a
deep-rooted commitment that manifests itself in many ways that often go
unnoticed – in ways that have become ingrained in everyday life for millions of
turn on the radio to find out what the weather is like before heading to work …
to learn how to help their neighbors in need … or to listen to the great
personalities who seem like old friends.
They turn on their televisions to watch their favorite local news anchor
and to get an unbiased report of what is happening in their communities.
Continue reading “Broadcasting Today: Energized by Innovation”
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) first went on the warpath against big
banks, she captured the attention of middle America. Now, Warren has turned her wrath on Big Tech. Her mantra is that big companies are bad, and
the bigger the badder they are for all of us. The government, she argues, should step up its
regulation of these companies and step in to break them up if necessary. Not only is Warren wrong but she is also out
of step with most Americans today.
would be unfair to lay all the blame on Warren for the campaign against big
corporations. This sort of populism has
been a strain in American politics since the Revolution, and most recently
since the Occupy Wall Street campaign. But
today’s anti-corporate movement has a new look and a new lexicon, including
terms like privacy, net neutrality, and transparency, to accompany the typical
notions of competition and consumer protection.
Continue reading “Campaign To Break Big Tech Is Regulatory Overkill”
A new era of American history begins when the 116th Congress convenes in January 2019 with one of the most partisan classes in modern history. Depending on which side of the aisle they sit, the members’ mission will be either to balance the ship of state or continue full steam ahead.
Conventional wisdom suggests there will be conflict. Optimists hope there will be compromise. The reality will be somewhere in between as the new Congress will have the opportunity to forge a unified path on things that matter to all Americans. With so many pressing policy issues facing the republic – immigration, healthcare, homeland security, and more – it is a stretch to think telecom, media, and technology (TMT) issues will top the agenda or lead the day.
Continue reading “Conflict and Compromise Await New Congress in Telecom, Media, Tech”
We are living in the platinum age of television. Consumers are enjoying an abundance of movies, news, sports, and entertainment, available anytime and anyplace, in-home or out. Every communications medium from wireless phones to the worldwide web is in the business of broadcasting content over its platform. Although we now call it “video,” at the core, it is television nonetheless, and the world cannot get enough of it. For legacy broadcasters, this is both a blessing and a bane.
Before the end of the year, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will finalize its mandatory review of the national ownership rules – set of regulations governing television and radio station ownership in the U.S. The FCC is expected to expand, and perhaps eliminate, the national ownership cap. If it does, broadcasters will be dealt an unprecedented, but fortuitous, break that will change the media landscape for the foreseeable future. It would be a follow-on to the FCC’s 2017 decision to reinstate the UHF discount, an arrangement that allows broadcasters to count UHF stations as only 50 percent toward the national ownership cap.
Continue reading “TV Owners Need New Rules To Keep Pace”
Something quite remarkable – unprecedented, actually – is scheduled to take place on Aug. 16. More than 100 newspapers across the country will mount a coordinated editorial response to President Trump’s increasingly frequent attacks on the media. Responding to a rallying cry from the Boston Globe, papers ranging from large metropolitan dailies to small weeklies will publish editorials defending freedom of the press and their critical role in this democracy. They will be joined by members of the broadcast media as well, with the strong support of the Radio-Television Digital News Association.
These editorial writers will be reacting to the constant stream of messages from the president, in tweets and speeches, that the mainstream media are “the enemy of the people,” “fake, fake disgusting news,” “fake news media,” and so forth.
One school of thought has held that replying to such charges is pointless because the president’s pronouncements are either hollow rhetoric or impulsive ramblings or political fodder for his base – or some combination of the three. Furthermore, since the First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press, and the courts are willing to uphold that freedom, the president’s words can have no real effect on the media. Thus, this line of thinking concludes, the act of replying to hollow assertions becomes a hollow act itself.
Continue reading “Speaking Up for a Free Press”
The “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” introduced amid great fanfare on Nov. 2, has now been passed by the U.S. House of Representatives along an essentially party-line vote. The Senate’s version, introduced Nov. 9, is still undergoing intense scrutiny as groups from every quarter weigh the bill’s proposed cuts in tax rates versus the elimination of certain deductions, credits, and other tax breaks.
As ideas for reforming the tax code were tossed around in recent months and even years, one proposal – or some variation of it – would surface from time to time. This was the idea that the tax deduction for business advertising expenses should be eliminated.
This has always been an ill-considered idea (as we shall discuss below), and thus we were relieved that it did not find its way into the new tax bills of either the House or Senate. But since these bills are only the opening salvos in the difficult battle to revise the tax code, it would be worthwhile to examine why this ad-related provision should not be a part of the measure that finally reaches the president’s desk.
Continue reading “Advertising Deductibility: For the Sake of Speech”
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has proposed the most reasonable of actions: repealing or revising 40-year-old media ownership rules that long ago outlived any marginal usefulness they might’ve once had.
This should be a no-brainer. But, Washington being what it is, entrenched interests and politicians bent on maintaining the status quo for their own purposes have pilloried Pai for trying to do something that should’ve been done decades ago.
First, the facts. On Oct. 26, Chairman Pai released an Order on Reconsideration and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. This proceeding seeks to accomplish the following:
- Eliminate the Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership Rule;
- Eliminate the Radio/Television Cross-Ownership Rule; and
- Revise the Local Television Rule to eliminate the Eight-Voices Test and to incorporate a case-by-case review provision in the Top Four Prohibition.
The proceeding would also seek to eliminate the attribution rule for television Joint Sales Agreements; retain the disclosure requirement for commercial television Shared Services Agreements; keep the Local Radio Ownership Rule; and create an incubator program to encourage new and diverse voices in the broadcast industry.
Continue reading “Repealing Media Ownership Regulations: It’s About Time”
Free Speech Week is upon us. Or, as the headline of a story about the week written by Amy Mclean in Cablefax puts it: “What a Time for Free Speech Week.” What a time, indeed.
Just last week we saw the president raising the specter of whether the government should revoke television licenses based on the content of televised news coverage. The same president has wondered aloud (via Twitter, of course) whether the National Football League should have federal tax benefits revoked if owners continue to allow players to kneel during the National Anthem.
Speech on college campuses continues to be stifled in a variety of ways, from disinviting controversial guest speakers to relegating the expression of opinions by individuals to out-of-the-way “free speech zones.” On some campuses, students are supposed to be warned by professors before controversial topics are discussed in class, lest the students be traumatized. Continue reading “Free Speech Week: Much To Celebrate”
As was the case a half-dozen years ago, PBS and NPR are again the subject of a contentious debate about their taxpayer funding, this time courtesy of President Trump. The problem with that debate, then and now, is that like so many policy disputes, the arguments employed oversimplify the facts and ignore the obvious. I wrote about this matter in 2011 in a piece published in the now-defunct app called The Daily. What follows is an update of that piece.
For years, Republicans and conservatives have accused NPR and PBS of ideological and political bias. Things came to a head in 2010 when NPR fired Juan Williams as a commentator for allegedly making anti-Muslim remarks, and NPR successfully solicited funding for local reporting from a foundation controlled by the uber liberal George Soros.
This perception of bias would be noteworthy enough even if these broadcasters were not financially supported by taxpayers, conditioned on explicit statutory language requiring objectivity and balance. Since, however, they are, the ubiquity and durability of this perception becomes very nearly miraculous. Surely it’s not easy to so thoroughly offend one of the two major parties that, in the House vote in 2011, virtually every Republican member voted to defund NPR » Read More
Maines is president of The Media Institute. The opinions expressed are his alone and not those of The Media Institute, its board, advisory councils, or contributors. The full version of this article appeared in The Hill on March 21, 2017.
LAS VEGAS – Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Tom Wheeler’s speech yesterday to broadcasters attending the NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) Show here dealt primarily with broadcast-specific subjects. But as expected, he also used the occasion to tout the Commission’s new Open Internet Order, arguing that broadcasters should support it because, like the must-carry rules, the order “assures that your use of the Internet will be free from the risk of discrimination or hold-up by a gatekeeper.”
To characterize this claim as 100-proof claptrap would be to understate the case. Put simply, no Internet service provider has, or would have, the tiniest interest in discriminating against anything broadcasters might want to put online. Indeed, net neutrality is widely embraced by the phone and cable companies.
The real issue is the way in which the FCC – through Title II regulation – proposes to define and enforce net neutrality in the future.
Much has been said about the inefficiencies and investment-reducing effects of Title II regulation, and most all of it is true. But the less-well-discussed aspect is the potential in it for activist groups and ideologues like Free Press and kindred organizations to exploit this order in attempts to impose certain types of content controls. >> Read More