Group wants Portland TV stations’ license renewals denied
Steve Safran December 26th, 2006
The Oregon Alliance to Reform Media (ARM) wants the FCC to deny license renewals for every commercial TV station in Portland. The group says the stations’ coverage of the 2004 elections did not meet the minimum FCC requirements. Oregon ARM points to a study that showed that, in the four weeks leading up to the elections, less than one percent of newscasts were devoted to coverage of state elections. While it’s unrealistic to expect the FCC to pull the licenses, the Oregon ARM makes a point - and I’m not trying to pick on Portland stations. I’ll bet the time given to local politics was similar in most markets. Local news doesn’t cover local news enough. I don’t buy that people don’t care about politics - they just don’t like the way TV covers (or doesn’t cover) politics. One of my guesses as to why? Viewers are tired of the predictable, counterproductive black-and-white, right-vs-left, horserace coverage TV gives to politics. The web has shown that people are passionate about politics. They want real, useful substantive information. I’m guessing more than one percent of the audience does, anyway.
5 Comments Add your own
1. Nick Geidner | December 26th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
Covering local and state politics is NEVER going to be profitiable for the local stations. NEVER. And most people watching don’t care about local politics and don’t find local political coverage interesting.
BUT, the local affiliates were entrusted with OUR airwaves with the agreement that they operate in the public interest, convenience and necessity. That includes coverage of local politics. I think the Oregon ARM makes a great argument.
I also agree with Steve. Political coverage needs to get away from the horserace coverage and really take a look at the issues. The horserace is just a way to try to boost ratings and sensationalize local politicals. Issue coverage is actually in the local interest, convenience and necessity.
2. Hussman | December 27th, 2006 at 6:22 am
Here in Iowa the race was nasty this year. The candidates didn’t necessarily want coverage this year, including a debate on our airwaves. We were forced to do a special show.
And I disagree that local politics is not profitable for TV stations. How much political dollars were spent at your station this year?
3. JIB | December 27th, 2006 at 9:51 am
Ah, the public interest. I keep forgetting that “WE” own the airwaves. I’ll remember that when we discuss all these court cases regarding the regulation of profanity on TV.
4. Nick Geidner | December 27th, 2006 at 7:38 pm
1) Those are political ads that are profitable, not political coverage. The stations coverage does not drive the ads. I think over the last number of years the ads have driven the political coverage. That is why we are seeing more and more horserace coverage than issues coverage. The ads are driving the news. The news is not creating the ads. Political coverage is not profitable; political ads are.
2) JIB - I don’t understand what your saying. We do own the airways and I think with actions liike what the Oregon ARM is doing is what reminds people of that. As for the regulation of profanity, either side of the argument is the same. Pro-regulation) We own the airwaves and it is our responsibility to protect kids. Anti-regulation) They are public airwaves so there shouldn’t be any censorship. The market place should make the decision by not watching.
So I don’t understand what you are saying.
5. lucy | January 19th, 2008 at 5:07 am
Wow, thanks for the excellent information!
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed