In August 2017, the FCC received six complaints filed against two Atlanta TV stations by a pair of non-profit, non-partisan politically focused organizations for a political file oversight at its two Atlanta TV stations.
Specifically, the stations were singled out for failing to include in their respective online political files “certain information about requests to purchase political advertising time for non-candidate issue advertisements.”
Media Bureau Chief Michelle Carey on Tuesday issued an Order intended to resolve the matter.
What’s the penalty? None, financially.
Rather, Carey issued an admonishment to both Meredith Corp. and to Cox Media Group via its “Georgia Television LLC” for the “willful and repeated violation of section 315(e)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended” at WPCH-17 and ABC affiliated WSB-2, respectively.
It resolves a matter brought to the Commission’s attention by watchdog groups Issue One and Campaign Legal Center.
As their allegations in all six complaints were substantially similar, Carey considered them jointly.
WPCH-17 was found to have political files that “inadequately disclosed information” about the election in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District and omitted other information about candidate Karen Handel and the issue of lower taxes.
Meredith argued that it was required to disclose in its political file only the name of the candidate, the election or the national legislative issue of public importance to which the ads referred. Carey disagrees.
“[A] licensee does not have the discretion to selectively disclose political matters of national
importance referenced in political advertisements,” she said. “Rather, a licensee must disclose all candidates, elections and legislative issues of public importance referenced in such ads.”
Because the misconduct in this instance predated the guidance provided by the Commission in its Political File Clarification Order, the Media Bureau would have excused it — if Meredith had properly identified in its political files even one political matter of national importance referenced in the subject ads.
But, Carey ruled, “Meredith did not sufficiently identify in its political files any political matters of national importance for the ads in question, including the 2017 election that was referenced in all three ads, the name of the federal candidate referenced in the House Majority ad, and the issue of taxes referenced in the NRCC ad.”
Meredith was particularly castigated by Carey, who added, “The act of placing documents in a particular subfolder identified as ‘U.S. House Race’ does not provide the kind detailed information that section 315 of the Act requires to disclose the election at issue. Stations bear the responsibility of maintaining political files that provide meaningful disclosure. This requires that they make clear, affirmative representations in their political files about each ad that references a political matter of national importance. While the instant case
involved a single race in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District, many stations serve areas that encompass multiple congressional districts. It is not enough therefore for a station to leave it up to the public to figure out which election may be the subject of a political ad based merely upon the name of the subfolder into which documents for that ad have been placed. We also do not believe that a handwritten note in a station’s political file referring to ‘GA CD-6’ adequately identifies for members of the public that the ad communicated a political matter of national importance involving the election in Georgia’s 6th
Congressional District. While some politically-oriented individuals and groups may recognize that the term ‘GA CD-6’ means ‘Georgia’s 6th Congressional District,’ stations should not assume that such a notation provides clear and meaningful disclosure to members of the general public.”
The situation regarding WSB-2 and Cox is less detailed.
But, it mirrors that of Meredith Corp. and WPCH-17, and Carey offered a similar admonishment.
“Had Georgia Television properly identified in its political files even one political matter
of national importance referenced in each of the subject ads, we would excuse such misconduct in this instance on the basis that it occurred prior to the date on which the Commission provided guidance in its Political File Clarification Order,” she concluded.
