WASHINGTON, D.C. — There’s an urgent need to “modernize” the FCC’s “outdated” broadcast ownership rules.
While those words could have easily come from former Chairman Ajit Pai, they were delivered at a Wednesday luncheon by the President/CEO of the National Association of Broadcasters.
NAB President/CEO Curtis LeGeyt make the comments at the first of a series of keynote speeches hosted by The Media Institute.
In particular, LeGeyt emphasized that local radio and television stations are vital to democracy, providing trusted journalism, life-saving emergency information and community-focused content that no other platform can replicate.
However, LeGeyt warned that the future of local broadcasting is at risk due to decades-old regulatory restrictions that prevent stations from competing on a level playing field with Big Tech.
A DEFENSE OF THE TV JOURNALIST
“I feel incredibly fortunate to represent America’s broadcasters,” LeGeyt said at the start of his luncheon address. “They are beacons of our democracy. Every day, they exercise their First Amendment right to report, inform and help citizens understand the issues that affect their daily lives. And let’s just address the elephant in the room here — this is a challenging time to be a broadcast journalist. It’s not easy to report on the deluge of information (and misinformation on social media) that is shaping our world. Especially in cutting through polarized rhetoric to find the truth. And yet, there has never been a more critical time to arm Americans with the facts and let them make their own decisions.
“To fulfill this mission, our newsrooms must be able to report without fear or favor,” LeGeyt continued. “This isn’t just a constitutionally protected right – it is fundamental to serving our communities. And it’s a right we’ve had to defend time and time again since our country’s founding.”
Efforts to limit the ability of broadcasters to report the facts hinders the public’s right to know and chills free speech, LeGeyt noted. “Americans deserve the full and fair reporting that broadcasters provide and NAB strongly defends our members’ First Amendment rights and their vital role in maintaining an informed public. Our democracy relies on journalists’ ability to report the news without the risk of government retribution. In a media environment flooded with social media misinformation and cable news politicization, this role has never been more important.”
With this backdrop, LeGeyt said he is “incredibly proud of the hard work being done” by local newsrooms across the U.S. “Many other media companies and platforms make important contributions to the economy, yet, no other industry can do what local broadcasters do,” he said. “We provide an essential public service that is freely-available and accessible to everyone. In an age when newspapers continue to shutter at an average of more than two a week, and media companies are not just national, but global, only local broadcasters are committed to the needs of the communities we serve using our First Amendment rights to inform the public. No Big Tech algorithm will ever replicate this vital service.”
Although LeGeyt feels fortunate “to wake up each day knowing the work of our members is a fundamental bedrock of American democracy, at the same time I am worried. The government’s failure to adapt its regulations to a changing media landscape has pushed local broadcasting to a precipice; one that looks eerily familiar to the neglect that led to newspapers’ demise.”
And, LeGeyt adds, “the alarm is so significant that last year, then FCC Commissioner and now Chairman Brendan Carr implored his colleagues and Congress to act because, in his words, broadcasters are at a ‘break glass moment.’ Chairman Carr was signaling that if we don’t act quickly, the future of local broadcasting is at great risk, and I agree.”
SIDE BY SIDE, WITH DIFFERENT REGULATIONS
For years, the FCC has treated TV and radio broadcasting “as though it exists in isolation,” LeGeyt said, “ignoring the rise of cable, satellite, streaming and social media platforms that dominate today’s media consumption. These new competitors are not bound by the same public interest obligations as local stations, nor do they face the same regulatory burdens.”
Thus, broadcasters “are restrained by regulations,” as “Big Tech” only grows, creating an uneven playing field.
“Times have changed…drastically,” he said. “And these regulations…broad, strict regulations that were imposed before the internet even existed…must also change to keep up with the times.”
While the NAB welcomes competition on a level playing field “that incents us to up our game,” entities such as YouTube and TikTok “aren’t on the ground reporting around the clock when wildfires race through neighborhoods or hurricanes destroy entire towns,” LeGeyt remarked. “Big Tech is interested in clicks…not public service, and it is past time for our stations to have a fair chance to compete to enable them to keep doing what they do best – being there when it matters most. The FCC must – and can – act quickly to address this imbalance. But we don’t have time to slow-roll these changes.”
What does LeGeyt suggest the Carr Commission do?
First, he tackles the FCC-imposed cap on the national reach of any one television broadcaster, presently at 39%. Noting that OTT platforms such as Prime Video and Netflix have no such limit, LeGeyt says, “The FCC should first eliminate this national audience cap that undermines broadcasters’ ability to compete with these global behemoths.”
Second, the FCC “must modernize local TV and radio ownership rules,” LeGeyt pleads in suggesting the “Top Four” rule for broadcast television stations be erased.
For local radio, LeGeyt says, “Outdated rules limit the number of stations a company can provide to each community, depending on the size of that market. This severely limits consumer choice, as well as investment in local radio stations, hindering our ability to innovate, grow and provide more choices for listeners. But streaming services, like Spotify, SiriusXM, Amazon and Apple, have no limits. They can offer as many channels as they like. The trade-off: it will cost you a subscription fee. Meanwhile, a local radio group, which offers a product that is locally-focused and freely-available to all, is restricted in its ability to offer more than five FM stations in many markets.
“These national and local ownership rules were crafted to promote competition, but in practice they give Big Tech a free pass to dominate and serve audiences with content based on algorithms that reinforce our biases and divide us rather than bring us together,” LeGeyt continued. “In contrast, local stations deliver content that is meant to serve our collective community. Yet, we are competing with both arms tied behind our backs. The consequences of this are alarming.”
‘VITAL JOURNALISM’ AT STAKE
Without government action to enable broadcasters to better compete, what could we lose?
LeGeyt answers his question by pointing first to “vital journalism,” with the demise of the daily newspaper leaving a growing void in local news, “one that broadcasters are working hard to fill despite regulatory roadblocks.”
That’s why, in LeGeyt’s view, allowing broadcasters to compete will give local stations the ability to invest in journalists, valued content, weather technology and newsrooms.
“We are doing our part to serve our communities at the very time they need us most,” he concluded. “We look forward to working with the FCC and Congress to do their part to ensure local broadcasters can be unshackled from the outdated rules that have held us back for so long. The time to act is now.”
