D Rice

k

I did my research. Where is yours? You probably won't even read it.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...40/ai_64160617

While broadcasters will face "new challenges" whichever party wins White House in Nov. as NAB TV Chmn. Ben Tucker of Fisher Bcstg. put it they are likely to be much more "challenging" if Gore-Lieberman ticket is successful, according to just about all TV executives who would speak. To buttress their position, they cited new Democratic platform planks that would restore fairness doctrine, mandate free time for political candidates and insist on more self-restraint by industry on violent and sexually explicit programming. They also pointed to well-documented views of Vice President Gore and his running mate, Sen. Lieberman (D-Conn.). "Lieberman has been on these issues for a long time and I don't see him changing," said veteran Washington lobbyist.

Lieberman is perhaps best known in communications circles for his attacks on what he has regarded as indecent content, especially on TV. "He's not what I would call a raving civil libertarian," said Progress & Freedom Foundation Pres. Jeffrey Eisenach. Notably, Lieberman has long fought for V-chip and other content controls, and more recently urged FCC to consider "resurrecting" old broadcast industry code of conduct. He complained about "gross inflation of sex and vulgarity on free, over-the-air television."

One lobbyist predicted Lieberman's constant criticisms of offensive TV programming could become issue in Presidential campaign. Indeed, Lieberman appears to be intensifying his crusade against "glut of sex and violence on prime-time TV" since his selection as Gore's running mate early last week. In article headlined "Crude, Rude and Lewd" scheduled to run in upcoming issue of Blueprint, Lieberman urges parents to call FCC and complain about offensive programming. At same time, Parents TV Council, which has Lieberman on board, applauded his selection as Vice Presidential candidate. Chmn. Brent Bozell said choice showed Gore "has joined the fight to clean up television."

Under Gore Administration, lobbyists predicted FCC would be much more regulatory minded. Gore himself repeatedly has called for free broadcast time for candidates as part of licensee's public interest obligation. Gore also lent his name to Gore Commission on DTV, which concluded that broadcasters should meet public interest obligations in return for receiving free digital spectrum from govt.

Then there's Democratic FCC Comr. Tristani, who reportedly decided not to return to her native N.M. to run for Congress at urging of Clinton Administration. Many in Washington expect her to be named FCC chmn. if Gore is elected, although lobbyist told us "that's not a done deal."

Last month Tristani spoke out against violent TV programming, warning that it "has a harmful and noxious impact on our children. Entertainment violence is polluting the minds of our children. We don't need 50 years of studies like we had on smoking to know that entertainment violence has a toxic effect." She called on "entertainment industry, and particularly the broadcasting industry, to stop violating the minds of our children."

In her statement, responding to study by several health groups, Tristani said she would ask FCC Chmn. Kennard to schedule hearing on televised "violence and the public interest obligations of broadcasters." Turning to radio, Tristani repeatedly has urged stricter radio ownership rules.

Proposed Democratic platform states that "the very first piece of legislation that a President Al Gore" will send to Congress is political campaign reform as proposed in McCain-Feingold bill "and he will fight for it until it becomes the law of the land. Then he will go even further much further. He will insist on tough new lobbying reform, publicly guaranteed TV time for debates... and a crackdown on special issue ads." On issue of TV content, proposed platform states: "The entertainment industry must accept more responsibility and exercise more self restraint" by strictly enforcing movie ratings and "by determining whether the ratings systems are allowing too many children to be exposed to too much violence and cruelty."

NAB's biggest concern if Bush-Cheney GOP ticket won would be effort to relax 35% TV ownership cap, we're told move that, on other hand, would make Big 4 TV networks very happy. Assn.'s opposition to raising cap has been cited by NBC and Fox as major reason for their withdrawal from NAB. However, broadcasters tell us they expect FCC under Bush Administration would be much more friendly than if Democrats were to retain control of White House

citing Lieberman's views on programming as one reason. But, in either scenario, "our issues just aren't of major importance to either candidate," broadcast lobbyist told us.

On plus side for TV industry, said Disney-ABC chief lobbyist Preston Padden, is that "assuring protection for intellectual property on cyberspace appears to be on the radar screens of both candidates." Proposed Democratic platform has full paragraph on copyright protection on Internet, suggesting that last-min. lobbying by Hollywood studios and other copyright holders paid off. "We must ensure that sound patent and copyright laws motivate our inventors and creators," it said, and "we must work to build support for strong intellectual property laws among the community of nations, including in trade agreements." Prospective platform promises to "take all steps necessary to ensure effective enforcement of those laws at home and abroad to ensure that others do not steal intellectual property through piracy and other forms of theft."

Similarly, recently adopted Republican platform promised to "protect the technology industry from modern-day pirates at home and abroad: both those who violate copyright and those who loot by litigation."

Both parties included extensive Internet focus in their platforms, with Democrats pledging to "launch a new crusade... to move toward full Internet access in every home, for every family, all across the United States," while Republicans backed Internet filtering bills. Both parties supported privacy protections without backing specific measures, and weighed in on other Internet issues such as security.