
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: TUESDAY, June 29, 1993                   TAG: 9306290295
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-4   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: By BOB LEE
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

WHEN POLITICIANS RULE THE AIRWAVES

I AM writing in response to the editorial, "Where was Moderate John?" on June 21. I will attempt to avoid becoming shrill as I tell you that John was where I asked him to be. I asked Sen. Warner (and Sen. Robb) to vote against the so-called campaign-finance reform bill - if it came to a vote unamended. Here's why:

From the genesis of commercial radio and television, we have never achieved the same constitutional protection afforded newspapers. Unable to control newspapers' editorial content or advertising rates, Congress has consistently voted itself the special privilege of controlling its relationship with your brethren in the electronic media. This control has manifested itself in two particularly onerous regulatory ways: editorial content and political advertising.

On the editorial-content side, the Federal Communications Commission and the Congress for years imposed on radio and television stations a regulation known as the Fairness Doctrine. (Notice how these things always have such high-minded sounding names.) It purported to require broadcasters to air both sides of a controversial issue. In fact, however, it effectively stifled advocacy. The FCC killed the regulation in 1987, asserting it was no longer needed in an era of exploding media diversity. Congress passed a law reinstating the rule, but then-President Reagan vetoed the measure. One portion of the new Senate bill attempts once more to reinstate the regulation. I believe the purpose is to make it more difficult to be critical of incumbents. Broadcasters generally felt this section should be stripped from the bill - or, lacking that, the bill defeated. We lost.

As to political advertising, it seems as if few people outside the radio and television businesses are aware of the special deal Congress has already legislated for candidates. Let me explain.

Broadcasters may not refuse to accept advertising from political candidates. This provision has effectively left stations unable to deal with the reality that many candidates or their advertising gurus choose to flood the airwaves with campaign commercials. We frequently see gross overkill in scheduling. If this were a regular conventional advertiser, we could say "enough is enough," but with politicians it is all but impossible to establish that the campaign is ordering "unreasonable" quantities or frequency.

Broadcasters may not refuse to accept a particular political commercial nor censor the content of a political commercial. Through the years, this regulation has given us such happy consequences as once being compelled to run one candidate's commercial in which he berates "niggers" to today's new phenomenon, the congressional candidate who demands to show aborted fetuses in his commercial. Regardless of what is said or shown, we are required to accept the commercial.

Broadcasters are required to sell advertising time to candidates at the lowest rate offered the station's "most favored advertiser." We often make discounted rates available to businesses that agree to long-term advertising. The Congress decided it would like to have those long-term rates, too - but without buying long-term. We are required to extend these favorable prices, known as "lowest unit charge," and - if necessary - to take our regular long-term advertisers off the air to accommodate the politicians. The most egregious, outrageous provision in the recently approved Senate bill will require stations to discount the most-favorable rate by an additional 50 percent, for Senate candidates only. It then provides for so-called communications vouchers (the National Association of Broadcasters calls them "political food stamps") that Senate candidates can use to pay for their deep-discounted commercials. The bill will now go to the House, where members of that body will undoubtedly amend the law to expand the discounts and vouchers to include themselves.

How many times has your editorial page railed against exemptions Congress has given itself from laws that encumber the rest of us? How many times have your editorials deplored special-interest legislation? This Senate bill is the worst piece of self-serving, special-interest legislation I can imagine. This time the special-interest group is Congress itself.

I deeply regret your decision to deride Sen. Warner for his vote against this bill. There may well be many possible improvements in the election process, but having Congress sweeten its own deal and further cheapen its access to radio and television is not one of them.

Bob Lee is president and general manager of WDBJ 7 in Roanoke.

by CNB