Campaigns & Elections' Political Broadcast Manual - March 2008 - (Page 51)

Except for the fact that there was no 72-hour rule here, the “reasonable opportunity” provision was to be interpreted as discussed previously with respect to political editorials. Should the person or group have refused the station’s offer, the broadcaster need have made no further effort. The right to respond was a personal one, and no outside party was able to raise a complaint on behalf of the party actually attacked. Note that the personal attack rule applied whether or not the broadcaster was responsible for the attack. In any event, it was the broadcaster who was responsible for remedying the personal attack. Thus, if a paid issue advertisement contained a personal attack, then it was the broadcaster, rather than the sponsor of the advertisement, who had to take remedial steps. Similarly, an attack during a network or syndicated program triggered an obligation in each affiliate or station carrying the program to notify and offer an opportunity for a response. XVII. Issue Advertising Political action committees (PACs) have become increasingly involved in the sponsorship of broadcast issue advertising. Frequently, the advertisements are used to express support or opposition to a political philosophy or legislative program. In other instances, they are used to criticize the performance of an incumbent. Broadcasters are not required to allow such groups access to a broadcast station. The FCC has reasoned that no group has a general right of access. The only exception deals with individual federal candidates. The FCC has specifically approved a policy of refusing time to any PAC during the political campaign season regardless of views expressed. It falls within a broadcaster’s editorial discretion as to whether any specific PAC spot should be accepted. Thus, permitting one PAC to air a spot does not open the door to all others (from a strictly legal standpoint, that is - public perception of fair play is an entirely different, and potentially a more serious, matter). Should a broadcaster choose to run PAC spots, the question arises as to what obligations would be triggered. The Fairness Doctrine is no longer applicable. However a PAC spot directed against an incumbent who has not yet declared his candidacy for reelection could have triggered the personal attack rules while they were in effect, and possibly libel or slander liability since only a “use” protects a broadcaster. To guard against these problems, a broadcaster is free to accept or reject an issue advertisement based upon whether its content could trigger additional obligations or liability. A further concern is whether a PAC can claim a right of reply to a candidate or his supporters. For example, if antilabor representative X buys time to advance his candidacy for election, can a union PAC claim a right to reply to criticize his record? This point has never been addressed by the FCC, but the answer seems to be no, since a PAC, by its very nature, generally cannot be considered the supporter or authorized representative of an opposing candidate. XVIII. News Distortion The FCC’s present standards for considering news distortion complaints still rest upon a handful of cases centered upon controversy over network coverage of the 1969 Democratic Convention and CBS’s “Selling of the Pentagon” and “Hunger in America” television exposés. At that time, the FCC proceeded from the premise that “rigging or slanting the news is a heinous act against the public interest - indeed there is no act more harmful to the public’s ability to handle its affairs.” Although the FCC undertook its own investigation of the convention coverage, it soon adopted a policy of refusing to take direct action, instead referring the complaint to the broadcaster for internal investigation and proper handling. In an extreme case, the FCC held out the possibility of forfeiture against the broadcaster. Two practices in particular have proven troublesome. The first is the editing of interview responses, ostensibly to “tighten up” a rambling answer. An extreme example was revealed in a 1984 case involving a CBS report on automobile accidents staged for the purpose of defrauding insurance companies. There, a former participant in such a scheme was asked a simple question, to which his broadcast answer was a simple “yes.” The unedited transcripts of the interview, however, revealed the actual answer to have been equivocal but generally negative. Even so, the FCC was willing to write the incident off as a legitimate exercise of journalistic judgment. The other focal point of many distortion complaints is that of staging an event - that is, portraying an event that did not occur or reenacting an event without clear identification as such. In the “Hunger in America” investigation, CBS was criticized for having portrayed an infant dying of starvation, when in fact the depicted victim was prematurely born, not undernourished, and expiring of natural causes. In another incident, jail employees were cast as inmates in order to illustrate prison conditions in which actual prisoners could not be photographed. In that event, the FCC carved out a broad exception to its general policy in order to permit staging that is relatively minor and incidental to the program as a whole. March 2008 « 51

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Campaigns & Elections' Political Broadcast Manual - March 2008

Campaigns & Elections' Political Broadcast Manual - March 2008 Contents Introduction – The Scope of the Political Broadcasting Rules “Legally Qualified” Candidates Reasonable Access “Uses” of Broadcast Facilities Exempt Programs Requests for Equal Opportunities Equal Opportunities Lowest Unit Charges The Disclosure Censorship of Uses Sponsorship Identification Political File Contents Access to the Political File The Fairness Doctrine Political Editorials Personal Attacks Issue Advertising News Distortion Conclusion

Campaigns & Elections' Political Broadcast Manual - March 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.