by Jim Hanas
hould radio and television stations feel obliged to accept political
ads?
It’s a question that has come up this primary election season as candidates for local offices look for ways to get their messages to the public. Legally, FCC licensees are only obligated to take ads from candidates in federal elections. For state and local races, stations can pick and choose the races for which they’ll accept ads or decide not to take any political ads at all. Should a station decide to take ads for state and local candidates, however, the law requires that the time be sold at the lowest available rate. And with an economy in full bloom, some advertisers are saying it’s becoming more difficult to find outlets that will take ads from candidates.
“Everybody’s selling all their inventory,” says Becky West, president of WestRogers, a local firm that handles advertising for both Shelby County mayor Jim Rout and Sheriff A.C. Gilless. “So they either didn’t want to deal with it or didn’t want to take the decrease in revenue.”
Rogers says she has seen more limits on political advertising in the last four or five years as the economy has boomed and demand for advertising time has increased.
All five area television stations ran at least some ads for candidates in this week’s primary elections. On the other hand, only four of Memphis’ top-10 rated radio stations – WRVR-FM “The River,” WLOK-AM, WGKX-FM “Kix 106,” and WOGY-FM “Froggy 94” – accepted ads for the elections, and only one in the top five did. The other stations in the top 10 all received at least some requests from political advertisers.
The reasons stations either limit political advertising or shy away from it altogether are plain enough. Political ads have to be sold for a fraction of the cost of other spots, and an open-door policy could eat up a considerable chunk of otherwise valuable time.
On the other hand, some argue that stations should take political ads, if not to fulfill their legislated mission to serve the public interest, then at least to be good corporate citizens. WREG-TV Channel 3 general manager Bob Eoff, for instance, sees taking the ads as an obligation and says his station hasn’t turned away political advertisers in at least three years. And he’s not alone in thinking broadcasters have a responsibility to take ads from candidates.
“I think media organizations have a moral and ethical responsibility to serve the public in their community,” says Jim Redmond, a broadcast news veteran and professor of journalism at the University of Memphis. “That certainly is the implication of the Communications Act of 1934 and its amendments. And while they may be able to get away with putting profit before service, I think that’s suspect … Stations should set aside time for the public affairs of the democracy to have an audience.”
The law has never required broadcasters to take ads for local and state candidates. According to Redmond, however, license renewal was a more rigorous process before the deregulation of the industry in the early ’80s. Then, there was an incentive for stations to take the ads in order to demonstrate that they were serving the needs of their communities.
Without that incentive, the bottom line truly becomes the bottom line, and in an economic climate where ad time is in ever-greater demand, chances are that even fewer stations will be accepting political ads in the future, perhaps even by this fall’s general election. Curt Peterson, vice president and general manager of WRVR and WOGY – two of the top-10 stations that did accept ads from primary candidates – says if demand continues to rise, his stations will soon join the ranks of those that did not.
“If the economy stays like it is, if the boom in advertising continues,” he says, “we won’t take any in the fall.”
That would leave only two stations in the top 10 and none in the top five willing to take political ads. It’s an odd paradox whereby the stations that reach the most people are out of play for publicizing the business of democracy. Or, as Redmond observes, it’s like allowing candidates to give a speech in The Pyramid, but only if no one is there.
So much for an informed electorate.
Strike That
The front page of Tuesday’s Commercial Appeal Metro section was missing something: bylines. All five stories on the page were unsigned, as were other stories throughout the paper, as many reporters had their names removed from their stories. Byline strikes are common in newspaper labor disputes and could be a sign that labor relations are deteriorating further at the CA.
The Memphis Newspaper Guild, which represents 450 of the daily’s employees, has had ongoing disputes with CA management and has not had a contract in more than two years. However, guild vice president Dan McQuade says the byline strike was not called by the guild and is simply a movement among employees expressing their dissatisfaction.
“This is not an activity sanctioned by the guild or its officers,” says McQuade. “This is something they’re doing on their own because they’re frustrated.”
The tag lines that identify reporters at the end of stories have
all been retained, however, which could serve to take the bite
out of the protest. CA managing editor Henry Stokes did not return
a request for comment. 