User Submitted Blog Post: You can run 'commercials' on public radio too

The fallout continues from Charles McGrath's essay "Is PBS Still Necessary?", published in the New York Times on February 17th. Public television's Newshour has, understandably, paid close attention to the piece, inviting its fans to post response comments on its Web site. Here's one I'll bet the PBS suits especially like:

I find the comment of the New York Times writer [McGrath] , "Jim Lehrer, 73, has been with “NewsHour” since 1975, so long that some of his early viewers are now in assisted living," to be both condescending, and a cynical attempt to lead readers to a discriminatory judgment. This article (Is PBS Still Necessary?) is contemptible and beneath the 'dignity' of the New York Times. The News Hour with Jim Lehrer is the best news program on television.

To be fair to the poster's feelings, McGrath no doubt intended to be provocative when writing the essay, eg. his left-handed dismissal of accusations of left-wing bias:

"Scanning the PBS lineup, in fact, it’s hard to detect much of a bias toward anything at all, except possibly mustiness. Except for 'Antiques Roadshow,' all the prime-time stalwarts — 'The NewsHour,' 'Nova,' 'Nature,' 'Masterpiece' — are into their third or fourth decade, and they look it. . . . Since corporate sponsors were allowed to extend their 'credit' announcements to 30 seconds, commercials in all but name have been a regular feature on public television, and that’s not to mention pledge programs, the fund-raising equivalent of water-boarding."

McGrath says he likes public radio better, arguing that "by not trolling after ratings, it has managed to stay distinctive: it does what nothing else on radio does and sticks to its core: news and public affairs and the oddball weekly show like 'Car Talk' and 'A Prairie Home Companion'." But it should be noted that, like public television, public radio broadcasts spots that are, for all practical purposes, commercials. They just have to stay within certain bounds

Section 399B(b)(2) of the Communications Act makes the bounds policy clear: "No public broadcast station may make its facilities available to any person for the broadcasting of any advertisement." The statute defines "advertisement" as a message or program that is broadcast in exchange for remuneration and that promotes

• "any service, facility, or product offered by any person who is engaged in such offering for profit"
• or advocates the views of a given person on some matter of public interest
• or takes a stand on a candidate for public office

The FCC enforces these rules, sometimes. Here are two relatively recent cases:

In 2004 the hammer came down on Christian non-commercial station WCVZ(FM) in South Zanesville, Ohio. A year earlier the station received remuneration to run announcements on behalf of a station underwriter. The underwriter, Barnes Advertising, promoted the station on local billboards in exchange for the on-air notices.

The Commission took particular exception to the spots because they tried to distinguish the advertised service from the competition "by directly stating or implying that they offer superior service or products." The announcements also urged listeners to patronize the business, a major naughty to the FCC.

Plus the agency estimated that WCVZ ran the spots over 3,000 times over a 15 month period, "indicating an utter failure of licensee practice and policy concerning its underwriting compliance responsibilities," the FCC's December 6, 2004 Notice of Apparent Liability concluded.

The Commission fined WCVZ $20,000 for the violations.

More recently, a party complained about illegal advertising on low power non-profit FM station KFLO in Jonesboro, Arkansas. KFLO had filed for an FCC construction permit, and the complainant asked that the permit be blocked.

The FCC reviewed the complaint and found valid some of the concerns. Announcements on behalf of three companies — S&T, C.J. Watkins Construction, and EchoQuest — included references that encouraged business patronage, referred to prices, and portrayed the underwriter "in a comparative and qualitative manner." To wit:

"The C.J. Watkins Construction Company announcement impermissibly induces patronage of the underwriter's business by advertising that 'all completed work comes with a full warranty.' Finally, the Echoquest announcement extols the 'The Fresh Air' as an 'advanced air system' which utilizes 'state-of-the-art technology to create a more efficient way to keep you free of smoke and odor'."

But the FCC's November 2005 decision on the matter commended KFLO management for quickly rectifying the problem by removing the offending ads and taking further steps to ensure future compliance. The Commission let the station off with an admonishment, and authorized the construction permit to go ahead.

In addition, the FCC noted that most of KFLO's underwriting spots stayed within acceptable limits. "Specifically, the announcements briefly describe their underwriters' products or services in generic, value-neutral terms, and list business addresses and telephone numbers, consistent with the identification-only purpose of underwriting announcements," the Commission wrote.

When did these sort of non-commercial commercials become acceptable? Quite a while ago, actually. In March of 1984 the FCC relaxed its non-commercial policies regarding public radio stations to "enhance the scope of donor and underwriting acknowledgements," as the agency put it. Stations could now include on-air thank yous that include:

• slogans and logos that "identify and do not promote"
• the location of the underwriter
• "value neutral" descriptions of products and services
• brands and product services and trade names

It appears that, for the FCC, the three big violations of Section 399B are announcements that include pricing information (eg, "Just 49.99! Buy now!"), calls to action ("Come on down and take a test drive!"), and special inducements to buy ("Subprime loans available for a limited time only!").

On their advisory page, the FCC lists the following underwriting notice as objectionable:

"Production [of the program] has been made possible by grants from: A&J Luxury Limo Service. For a fabulous night on the town, spoil yourself or a client with a relaxing and comfortable evening in one of A&J's luxurious limousines featuring a retractable moon roof, color television, stereo, cellular telephone, intercom and wet bar. For the perfect way to enjoy a perfect and safe evening, call us at 360-8444."

This acknowledgement clearly violates the "call to action" prohibition and probably goes over the line on the "inducement" no-no. But I'll bet that a program director wouldn't get into any trouble if they just shortened the blurb to "Production [of the program] has been made possible by grants from: A&J Luxury Service, bringing posh transportation to the Anytown community since 1977 . . . "

So don't blame 'enhanced underwriting,' as it is called, for public television's lack of success, if far more popular public radio runs them too thanks to lenient government policies. But feel free to blame these FCC approved advertisements, as do I, for blurring the distinction between public and commercial media, making public broadcasting ever more vulnerable to charges of irrelevance.