FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has a serious PR problem on his hands following today’s release of a long-awaited 478-page report about the state of local journalism. Public interest advocates are livid over the absence of tough and sweeping proposals to improve TV and radio station newscasts. The Media Access Project, an activist law firm, blasted the report for lacking “meaningful recommendations.” And some are talking about trying to turn audience frustration over the lousy quality of local news into a high-profile political issue. Commissioner Michael Copps says he wants the FCC to hold at least three hearings over the next three months to see if the public agrees with report’s presumption that “they are being served by our present news and information infrastructure.” He adds that “there is real urgency here. … I cannot and will not leave these issues where they are.”
The report – Information Needs Of Communities: The Changing Media Landscape In A Broadband Age — was prepared by an FCC working group led by former journalist Steven Waldman. It says that local public-interest journalism has weakened as traditional newspapers and TV stations struggle to keep up with competition from Internet news sources.
But it doesn’t urge the FCC to make a major change in the area where it has the clearest ability to make a difference: its rules governing TV and radio broadcasters. They are are licensed by the agency and are required to serve the public interest. Activists had hoped to see recommendations requiring stations to devote additional time to news, and cover local issues seriously. Yet the report doesn’t insist that broadcasters do more. Indeed, it asks regulators to weaken existing rules that require stations to explain how their shows serve their communities — including children. In an effort to reduce paperwork, the staff would enable stations to stop creating a public file each quarter with information about its ownership and programming. Instead, the report says that ”over time” stations should provide information online based on a sample week of shows, not all of the programs. The study also shies from taking a position on a hot issue at the agency: Should the FCC make it easier for a single company to own a newspaper and TV station in the same community? “We are not persuaded that relaxing ownership rules would inevitably lead to more local news, information or reporting or that it would inevitably lead to less,” it says.
Elsewhere, the report calls for stronger efforts to promote broadband use, shifting government ad dollars to local media, and changing the tax rules to help non-profit news operations. “As the report identifies and celebrates the potential of new communications technologies, it also highlights important gaps that threaten to limit that potential and harm communities,” Genachowski says.


“And some are talking about trying to turn audience frustration over the lousy quality of local news into a high profile political issue.”
At least the “activists” are admitting that local new is lousy.
Anyone else think he looks a lot like Matt LeBlanc?
The only public interest we have now with respect to the electronic mass media is for the convenience and profit of colossal, publicly traded corporations. The vast wasteland that former FCC Chairman Newton Minnow first described half a century ago now extends across the universe and that is much more serious than a PR problem.
Yes, let’s have the federal government control the local news. That will be double plus good. These “public interest” groups are a joke. Their only interest is in statism.
“Statism?” Spoken like a true corporate shill.
But I’m one liberal who accepts that the greatest status quo presidency in America’s history is about to have his bought and paid for FCC Commissioners rubber stamp the report’s recommendations into law. Then Dean Singleton, whose political views are to the right of the John Birch Society, will be able to get his Media News Group a massive capital infusion to start buying up local television and radio stations.
Sarah Connor’s Terminator quote comes in mind: “There’s a war coming” between Fox News and a handful of hardcore conservative media empires that the FCC is about to birth. With my PI license, no doubt there will be a bidding contest for my wiretapping and computer hacking services in their mad rush to emulate Murdoch’s News of the World “news gathering activities” in England.
So much so that when it comes to wiretapping and computer hacking to get a news story, America will take it such Machiavellian depths that the world will once again stand back in gaping abject horror. You know, like they do now at the living hells we’ve created in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in so doing, bankrupted ourselves in the most inept war mongering of all time. (CBS’s Scott Pelley reported tonight that Al Qaeda only has 1,000 fighters in Iraq and only 100 in Afghanistan. Given Americans aren’t about to wake up and yell, “ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?” I’m jumping on the Republican, I mean the “democracy” bandwagon to make my fortune.)
My corporate shill friend, thanks for this post. You’ve given my life the direction it’s always lacked.
Yes, just turn on the boob tube right now and put your real name on it. That’s the biggest joke of all.
Right — let the marketplace rule! No need to have government-issued exclusive broadcast licenses, let the marketplace determine who uses broadcast spectrum! Let capitalism (and chaos) reign!
Do you argue that “statism” includes granting to the networks free, exclusive over-the-air broadcast licenses and to MSOs exclusive cable franchises? If not, you’re a hypocrite.
“Under fire”? I think not. How would Deadline like it if the government tried to regulate you next? Is “if it bleeds it leads” reporting and the latest clip from Charlie Sheen that much different when delivered over broadcast airwaves than over wireless broadband?
Viewers get the news they choose, just like Deadline readers choose insider gossip and industry intrigue over tepid trade paper reports. We don’t need government bureaucrats wasting our tax dollars to make imperious rulings about which editorial decisions serve the public interest.
The MAP’s response to this obscure government report is only a PR problem if anyone cares about MAP. They don’t. In an age of infinite news sources, no one cares about media cross-ownership, either. Last I looked, people cared more about the national debt, unemployment of 9.1%, and a dicky waver Congressman’s stubborn fight to remain employed.
http://www.fcc.gov/osp/inc-report/The_Information_Needs_of_Communities.pdf
What really sucks also is ACTA, google, etc is your friend.
I wish some would drive the business, and not crap the business.
Oh well!