On November 14, 2023, the Chairwoman of the FCC announced a proposal that, if adopted, would begin a proceeding “to advance the Commission’s longstanding policy goal of supporting local journalism and broadcasters’ commitment to meet the needs and interests of local communities.”
Two months later, a NPRM is being teed up by the Commission — using its majority position to push the proposal ahead despite GOP opposition to the plan.
Introducing MB Docket No. 24-14, which the FCC says would “prioritize processing
review of certain applications filed by commercial and noncommercial radio and television broadcast stations that provide locally originated programming.”
Explaining how the proposed rules would be enforced, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking states, “Our goal is to provide additional incentive to stations to provide programming that responds to the needs and interests of the communities they are licensed to serve.”
While this impacts both television and radio, Rosenworcel specifically takes up the Commission’s 2017 elimination of a main studio rule, “as well as the associated
requirement that the main studio have program origination capability.”
With that rule “modernized” under Rosenworcel’s predecessor, Ajit Pai, she proposes this processing priority “in order to further encourage radio and TV stations to serve their community of license with local journalism or other locally originated programming.”
Such prioritization would be granted to renewal applicants, as well as applicants for assignment or transfer of license, that certify they provide locally originated programming.
For Rosenworcel, this would serve in “advancing our efforts to promote localism and serve local communities across the nation.” She adds, “Here, we propose to sweeten the incentives for locally-originated news and content.”
FROM SUPPORT TO SIDEWAYS HEAD-SCRATCHING
Brendan Carr, the senior Republican FCC Commissioner, couldn’t be more blunt in his opposition to the NPRM.
“This one is a head scratcher,” he said in a statement. “My colleagues wanted to seek comment on prioritizing the FCC’s processing of applications filed
by broadcasters that provide locally originated programming. I was happy to support them and their
proposal. I am not sure the idea will make much difference in the real world, but I don’t see how it can
do much harm. So I looked forward to offering my colleagues my support. But then things went sideways fairly quickly.”
He continued, “When I read the item, I was surprised to learn that it did something entirely different and separate from just proposing the prioritization of locally originated programming. It also raised the FCC’s 2017 decision to repeal the main studio rule and determined— even though this is a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with no evidentiary record before the agency — that this 2017 decision was an error. Of course, there is no basis for asserting that conclusion here, but more fundamentally there is no reason to get into that rule at all in this Notice. There are plenty of ways that the FCC can ground its prioritization proposal in the agency’s long-standing and statutorily-grounded
commitment to localism.”
Carr suggested a few edits to the NPRM proposed by Rosenworcel. “But, surprisingly, I was told that these edits were a no go,” Carr shared. “My colleagues were only interested in
moving forward with the localism proposal if they could also cast aspersion on the separate main studio rule along the way. Odd. That’s their choice, of course, but it is not one that I support. It also introduces unnecessary litigation risk. How can the FCC ground its localism proposal in the FCC’s record-less conclusion that the 2017 main studio repeal was an error while simultaneously not proposing to reinstate that rule? Anyways, that will be for my colleagues to figure out.”
Nathan Simington, the other Republican Commissioner, was equally frustrated. “[F]or me, the language that this item recollects is that of Chicagoan Emily Nicklin, the first female partner to serve on the Kirkland & Ellis executive committee in the mid-1980s. Emily described other partners at the firm as ‘wolves in wolves’ clothing’—meaning,
presumably, that they lacked the decency or even wherewithal to hide their ambitions or aggression. A good thing, perhaps, when it comes to counsel! Less so when it comes to nominally public-minded regulation … Yet again, when it comes to broadcast, the Commission has forgotten its shearling coat—it is a wolf in wolf’s clothing. And when it comes to wolves, best not to answer the door. I dissent.”
TO VIEW THIS NPRM IN FULL, PLEASE CLICK HERE: FCC-24-1A1
