|
When it comes to "fake" news, the FCC means
business!
Who knew the feds cared so much about
the declining state of broadcast journalism?
In a move that
could also potentially have serious repercussions for radio, the FCC
has written stern letters to 77 television firms regarding the use
of video press releases produced by commercial and governmental
interests, according to news reports.
When they air video
clips unedited and without disclosing that they were produced by
third parties, have television news programs violated standards of
journalistic integrity, or even the law? While there may be a gray
area on that first point, when it comes to legal considerations, the
FCC is making it clear that breaking its rules can be very
expensive.
But how many television station owners knew that
flouting what surely must be a little-known policy could result in
fines of $32,000 per incident and potentially even the revocation of
a license to operate?
According to the Washington
Post, the FCC's current position on fake news was strongly
influenced by two recent events. Getting the ball rolling last year
were revelations that the Bush Administration was sending video
releases to stations to promote government programs. Apparently,
some stations aired the footage as straight news.
In
addition, after a study conducted by the Center for Media and
Democracy and released in April showed major outlets owned by CBS,
ABC and others guilty of using fluff releases for commercial
products as legitimate reporting, the FCC ramped up its focus on the
controversy. In fact, the 77 outlets to which it has sent letters
are the same as those cited in the research, the paper reports.
From the Post's story:
The survey's "fake news" spots, as the center calls
them, were produced by corporations, such as Panasonic Corp. and
General Motors Corp. and trade groups, such as the American Dental
Association and the Flower Promotion Organization.
None of
the releases in the study were paid for by the federal government.
In January, for example, three television stations -- in
Virginia, California and South Carolina -- aired a video by Robin
Raskin from the Consumer Electronics Show. Raskin is an author and
former technology magazine editor who also consults for several
technology companies. In the report, a satellite media tour
transmitted to several TV stations, she promoted gadgets made by
Nokia, Motorola Inc., Texas Instruments Inc. and Swiffer, owned by
Proctor & Gamble Co. The spot was paid for by the four
companies. Only one of the three stations told viewers at the end of
the segment that "this interview with Robin was provided by vendors
at the consumer trade show," the Center for Media and Democracy's
survey found.
This is
where the issue gets tricky: while some news shows are guilty of
airing unedited versions of video press releases as bona fide news
stories, many others use edited excerpts as background for
"original" stories that closely mirror the PR flack- generated
content. Even if that’s still a bit on the lazy (or fluffy) side,
it's certainly more of a gray area. In those instances, should
stations be fined?
For radio, the implications are huge: now
part of the FCC's primary content focus, will our medium be the next
to face major scrutiny? After all, our own practices aren't much
better.
Monitor any radio newscast and you'll hear similar
types of fake "reports", based on press releases that come through
the fax machine and media kits (often complete with audio) that
arrive in the post, or via email. Ever wonder why they sound so
well-produced?
From where these stories originate, it's no
real mystery.
From my observations, fake news of a
commercial nature is far more common than what is supplied by
government agencies. More often than not, material from the latter
is destined for a radio station's PSA lineup.
But if the
mega-coffee chain has a new drink to promote, watch out,
particularly if corporate representatives stopped by that day to
fill the breakroom with goodies. As we all know, that happens
frequently in this business.
Beyond the complexities of how
to comply with the FCC's mandates, there are thorny questions of
whether the federal agency has any business policing content this
way. While most agree it has at least some role regarding obscene
language over public airwaves (although that’s still a controversial
subject), now we're talking about actual oversight of news content.
In a country with a supposedly free press, should Washington
have that kind of power over programming? Don't get me wrong, fake
news is disgusting, that's why I don't watch local morning
television shows. Do you?
But there must be a better
approach than imposing fines at the federal level. Why can't the FCC
first appeal to the industry to clean itself up? While it might be
easy to blame Democrat commissioners for this ill-advised policy,
the truth is that it has had bipartisan support.
There must
be a cure for horrible news coverage, but I can't believe it could
ever come from inside the Beltway. And worst of all, the FCC's
policy seems to potentially open the door for even greater
interference in news programming judgment, which greatly undermines
the American tradition of a free press.
A Tulsa
talker has put his station in a tough position.
When
jocks and hosts get into hot water in the local community, what's a
station to do?
The easy answer is that it depends on the
transgression. If the personality is alleged to have committed a
serious crime and there's a strong indication that he or she is
guilty, a suspension is usually appropriate, pending the outcome of
a trial. In some cases, outright termination could be necessary,
depending on the severity of the situation.
If it's a
political controversy, smart station managers will play it up for
the publicity, if they have any promotional sense. In particularly
sensitive situations, however, this may not be wise and the incident
is better off being downplayed.
In the case of a Tulsa talk
host, however, something different is at stake: credibility.
That's because KFAQ 1170 AM morning talker Michael DelGiorno
has apparently been caught red-handed in a severe case of hypocrisy.
According to the Tulsa World, DelGiorno, a frequent on-air
critic of Indian casinos, was allegedly caught stealing chips from a
table after a losing bet.
In addition, some of his earlier
behavior at another Indian casino was seen as abusive, according to
their report.
As a result, he's been banished from a local
tribal casino for five years. When asked by the paper about the
incidents, DelGiorno gave fuzzy answers that may have done further
damage to his credibility.
While this might seem an
open-and-shut case of the kind of person you don't want hosting
shows at your station, it's not so simple: the paper and casino may
also be up to no good.
How so? For one thing, the alleged
incidents occurred nearly a year ago, with the banishment action
dating to September, 2005. So why is it news now? And why are the
documents suddenly available for all to read?
Something
about that element of the story seems fishy.
That's where I
wonder if a political element has come into play: has DelGiorno
recently said something on the air that annoyed Creek or Cherokee
tribal leaders? Or does someone else have it in for the talker?
Take note of the Tulsa World's reporting:
Responding to a request by the
Tulsa World, the Creek Nation released the report Monday and allowed
a Tulsa World reporter to view a casino surveillance tape.
An incident report dated Aug. 29, 2005, from the Creek
Nation Casino at 81st Street and Riverside Drive states: "A patron
ID as Michael Howard Del Giorno sitting at a blackjack table was
caught on tape by surveillance pulling his bet. . . . Michael was
then advised of the incident in which he advised he didn't realize
he had done that. A 30-day ban was issued along with a request for a
permanent ban."
The tape shows DelGiorno sitting at a
blackjack table with what appears to be about $30 worth of poker
chips placed as an ante. DelGiorno looks at the cards he is dealt
and then lays additional chips down.
DelGiorno and a player
to his left push all of their chips and cards in to the dealer after
losing the hand.
The tape then shows DelGiorno taking
several chips back from the dealer's pile, briefly placing them in
the ante circle, then taking them off the table and leaving.
The Creek Nation Office of Public Gaming held a hearing
Sept. 20 and issued an order banishing DelGiorno from the tribe's
casinos for five years, the maximum allowed under the tribe's code,
records show.
DelGiorno did not appear at the hearing,
according to a letter to him from the tribe.
About three
hours before the incident at the Creek Nation casino, DelGiorno had
been told to leave the Cherokee Casino in Catoosa. A report of that
incident was obtained by the Tulsa World last week.
The
incident report, dated Aug. 29, 2005, states that DelGiorno and
another man who were playing poker began cussing at the dealer
because they were losing. The men also made sexually inappropriate
remarks to a male dealer about a nearby female dealer, the report
says.
So here's a chance for you to play armchair
program director: what should be DelGiorno's fate? Keep in mind, he
was not convicted of a crime in a court of law. Instead, he was
banished from a tribal casino for allegedly inappropriate behavior.
At the same time, his presence at the gambling halls
directly contradicts a great deal of his on-air rhetoric. And, if
the allegations are true, he could be considered a cheating liar.
What would you do? So that we can add it to the comments
section, please send us your feedback.
By Brian Maloney
Brian@insideradio.com
Comment on this story: CLICK
HERE.
Back To Home Page
| |
