RELENTLESS RADIO

 

Author:	Jerry Williams
Published:	January, 2000

 

In the past few months we've seen two major, unrelated, disturbing issues surface. The first was a ruling by the FCC on the transfer of license of a non-commercial educational TV station in Pittsburgh. The second was the revelation by a TV station in Nashville of Michael English's admittance to a substance abuse recovery program. The one thing these two events do have in common is the way we reacted to them.  In a nutshell, the Commission, in approving the license transfer, attempted to clarify the definition of what constitutes educational content for the purposes of TV stations with a non-commercial educational license. In their clarification the Commission said that at least 50% of a station's programming had to be educational in nature. They then further defined some programming elements of a religious nature which might not qualify as educational. That's where the uproar began. The NRB was among the leaders of the fight to have the decision reversed. Dr. James Dobson and Chuck Colson both strongly addressed the issue on their radio programs. Several members of the U.S. House of Representatives introduced legislation to have the decision reversed and to keep the FCC from making rulings on program content without public hearings in the future. Part of the reason for all of the protest was that many critics saw this ruling as the first step toward limiting religious content on all airwaves, television and radio. The next obvious step, the critics reasoned, is to apply the same rules to non-commercial educational FM radio, a step which would have had far reaching consequences for the Christian radio industry, which has a significant portion of its station on the non-com end of the band. Now here's my concern with the way our industry reacted to this situation. It seems that very few of us actually bothered to read the original ruling by the FCC. (I have read the entire 40 page document, and you can find it, and related correspondence to and from the Commission, as well as the reversal, at the FCC website.) The application for the transfer of license was challenged on the basis that the new licensee (who had a commercial station outside of Pittsburgh that aired largely religious programs) was planning to fill their broadcast day with religious programming.  In approving the transfer, the Commission defended the right of the new licensee to carry religious programming on a non-commercial educational television station. Further, the Commission said that just because the content of programming is of a religious nature does not disqualify it as being educational. In seeking to bring more clarification to the ruling the Commission also stated that by the very definition of the non-commercial educational license, 50% of the programming carried by such television stations should be educational in nature. They also noted that these rules pertained specifically to television licenses and that non-commercial educational FM licenses were traditionally not held to such stringent rules. Where they got themselves into trouble was by going one step further and trying to give examples of religious programming that might be considered educational and that might not be considered educational. It was the inclusion of various examples of religious programming which might not be considered educational that set off the protest. Some commentators, who apparently hadn't bothered to read the ruling, claimed the FCC had ruled that non-commercial educational TV stations could air no religious programming. Others said they would be forced to air cooking or gardening shows to meet the 50% educational programming guideline. And so the protest campaign began. The FCC was inundated with letters, emails, and phone calls, including a strongly worded, if not downright rude, letter from one U.S. Representative. The FCC capitulated and rescinded that portion of the decision that sought to define more clearly what constituted educational programming as it regards non-commercial educational television licenses. And the NRB and others who had joined the fight claimed victory. But victory over what? The decision didn't disallow religious programming. It only stated that non-commercial educational television stations must ensure that 50% of their programming was educational in nature. Now, while I make no claim of possessing any legal expertise, it seems reasonable that any broadcaster holding a non-commercial educational license be required, by the very nature of the license they've been granted, to include some programming which is educational in nature. Did the FCC rule that religious programming was by its nature not educational? No, in fact they said the opposite, that religious programming could indeed also be educational in nature. They also stated that the traditional position of the FCC on programming elements had been and would continue to be to leave the judgment of what constitutes "educational" up to the good faith of individual licensees. Was this ruling a tactic on the part of the FCC to begin to limit religious programming? While Chairman Kennard and the rest of the current Commission have been guilty of questionable judgment on a wide variety of issues, and they certainly couldn't be called champions of religious freedom, this hardly seems likely in this instance. The ruling clearly stated that religious programming often does qualify as educational. And that if a particular program isn't educational in nature it is still permissible as long as enough of a station's programming is educational. So what was accomplished? At best the status quo was maintained through some passionate, if misinformed, action or overreaction. At worst some very clearly delineated protection of religious programming was unwittingly removed and the ire of the Commission was raised. Don't think for an instant that Kennard and the rest of the Commission will soon forget this action, or that they're above payback. If those who led the campaign to have this ruling overturned had taken a little time to read the original decision in its entire context, the reaction may not have been so militant. And while I'll grant that there was room to interpret the part of the ruling that used certain types of religious programming as examples of what might not qualify as educational as the establishment of a dangerous precedent, a more civil debate of that issue, in light of what the ruling actually sought to do, defend the definition of religious programming as educational, may have resulted in a similar conclusion without the harsh feelings towards the Commission being expressed. Now, how is that situation related to the latest news about Michael English? The morning after the story broke on Nashville's Channel 5, it became the subject of heated debate within the industry. A number of stations pulled the recently released Michael English single. Michael issued a statement, which did not address claims made by Channel 5 of a police investigation. Michael's pastor issued a statement of support. Claire Parr, of Curb Records, Michael's label, issued a somewhat rambling, often angry statement. Somewhere around 10 CRR reporting stations dropped the record. Another three who hadn't been playing it added it, and another handful continued to report and play it. So how is this similar to the reaction to the FCC ruling on educational/religious content? It seems that a number of us have reacted without benefit of all the facts. While this may ultimately be a more complex issue with any number of biblically defensible positions, and becomes even more convoluted by Michael's past, I would argue that some very decisive action was taken based on, at best, some incomplete information. The original report on Channel 5 was aired during a sweeps period, and, from what I've been able to gather, was presented in a somewhat sensationalistic manner. Since that report Channel 5 has backed off on the story. Michael is still undergoing treatment for his addiction to prescription medication. Was Channel 5's report false? Not entirely. Is Michael without responsibility in this situation? Not entirely. Were the stations who dropped the song, added the song, or continued playing the song wrong? Not entirely. What is troubling in this instance, as with reaction to the FCC issue, is how quick we are to react to a situation without taking the time to more fully investigate it. Thanks for your time, I hope to have something a little lighter to rant about next month.

 

copyright 1998-2004 RELENTLESS COMMUNICATIONS

Recommend RELENTLESS RADIO