Do the airwaves belong to the people or the broadcasters?

[rjung]

From this article:

Robert Millman of Glenville just wanted a voice, a venue to spout off his ideas.

His plan? Place seven radio ads – tackling everything from the national defecit to the war in Iraq – on the air for a two-day campaign beginning Jan. 2 on radio station WGY, 810-AM. And it would be entirely self-funded, costing about $700.

But after recording and producing the spots himself, Millman received word on Tuesday from an advertising representative at WGY that the station wouldn’t approve of his ads.

A spokesman for the Clear Channel-owned WGY said the station had no comment. And when asked for a copy of WGY’s ad policies, he said he could not meet the request. He would not say why the ads were turned away.

You can listen to the ads here. Needless to say, they violate no rules on indecency or language or anything else; the ads appear to be rejected only because someone at WGY and/or Clear Channel dislike their anti-Bush messages.

Putting aside how this is another example that the “liberal media” is a myth, who is in the right here? As I see it, there are two positions possible:

1. The radio station is a private corporation, and thus can choose whatever the heck it wants to broadcast.

2. The airwaves are the property of the American people. The FCC licenses bandwidth, but they are a public resource. Since an average citizen can’t very well build his own tower to broadcast his message, the station is violating their public trust.

Or, as Mr. Millman writes,

I believe this article raises the question of who controls the public air-waves. The FCC censures indecent speech on the air because the broadcast air waves are public property and it is for the public good to censure certain language. By the same reasoning it follows that certain speech must be allowed for the public good. I keep hearing it is a market economy. If this is a market economy, then I have a right to buy commercial air time in the market and place I choose.

What do you say, folks? Corporate censorship by Clear Channel, or an air-headed citizen who presumed he had a right that he doesn’t have?

[Paladud]

Why would you assume he has an absolute right to purchase that ad time? How would you feel if Lyndon LaRouche could run campaign ads against the wishes of the owners of the medium he was using as long as he could pony up the dough?

[Dahnlor]

I’m no expert on the matter, but there seems to be a simple, factual answer to the question:

The airwaves are “owned” by the “people” (ie. The Government), hence we have FCC regulations.

However, the broadcasts themselves are owned by the broadcasters. As such, they have discretion on what they do and do not put on the air, and cannot be compelled to broadcast, say, advertisements with which they don’t want to be associated. Their only restrictions are the aforementioned FCC regulations.

So, the direct answer to your question is: both.

D

[Insomniactress]

Hmmm. Who indeed owns airwaves?

[manhattan]

Both, of course. Clear Channel did censor his message, and he doesn’t have the right for them to decide otherwise.

In the United States, indeed in virtually all countries, the electromagnetic spectrum for distances longer than trivial are considered to be the property of the State. Indeed, treaties to which the US is party make States legally responsible for uses orginating in each State.

And the United States, like virtually every free country, licenses out that portion of the EM spectrum used for radio transmissions to private companies with relatively little restriction on the use. Licensees agree to certain broadcast standards as to obscenity. They agree to “serve the local community” within a very broad definition (“we play country music in case someone in the community wants to listen to it and are part of the Emergency Broadcast System” pretty much does it). And there are about a billion technical requirements to make sure the licensee isn’t interfering with other signals, bleeding over into other markets where it’s not allowed, making people’s fillings play “Frankie and Johnny,” stuff like that.

There is not a legal requrement that licensees take any and all advertising, or even that they be “fair” about what they choose to take, except to the extent federal campaign law covers stations during campaigns.

All of this is the result of the collected decisions of our elected officials. Mr. Millman’s recourse is to a) buy a radio station, b) find other media willing to take his message (I’ve heard great things about the internets) or c) convince a bunch of legislators that the correct thing to do with the State-owned EM spectrum dedicated to commercial radio is to allocate it to licensees who agree to some kind of “fairness” when accepting the commercials they depend on to make a buck.

[Monocracy]

i think you can compare it to land ownership. While you can own private property, the government has ultimate control over the land. So the government (the people) have ultimate control of the airwaves, but it used by the private sector however they choose to use it, as long as they comply with federal laws and regulations.

In my opinion, because the airwaves are such a limted resource, i think the government should spend less time monitoring content, and more resources on limiting monopolies and oligarchies within the radio industry. Let the radio really become a tool of the people, and not an extension of corporations.

[Odesio]

@rjung

Putting aside how this is another example that the “liberal media” is a myth, who is in the right here? As I see it, there are two positions possible:

Aren’t there more positions possible then the two you proposed? Legally speaking the airwaves are certainly owned by the people and not by the radio stations. However radio stations pay a fee to broadcast over certain frequencies. For the most part they’re free choose the content of their programs as well as who they wish to engage as sponsers. A radio station is not obligated to allow anyone who wants to advertise to advertise just like a radio station is not obligated to air someone’s song.

I heard similiar arguements about censorship when some ABC affiliates refused to show Ellen’s coming out episode.

Marc

[rjung]

@Paladud

Why would you assume he has an absolute right to purchase that ad time? How would you feel if Lyndon LaRouche could run campaign ads against the wishes of the owners of the medium he was using as long as he could pony up the dough?

I wouldn’t have any problems with it.

[manhattan]

@MGibson

However radio stations pay a fee to broadcast over certain frequencies.

Just to make things clear, in the US payments for commercial radio licenses are de minimus. They are not auctioned like some telecommunicatino spectrum was over the past few years and license applications (including renewals) run from under a hundred dollars to the small-single-digit thousands depending on the circumstances.

[ParentalAdvisory]

@rjung

From this article:

You can listen to the ads here.

Slight hijack:

4. RIGHT TO VOTE

Is there a problem here? Has someone over the age of 18 been denied the right to vote in this country? (Considering all the registration requirements have been fulfilled through legitimate sources.) Just wondering what his gripe is on the right to vote issue.

I guess my contribution. Considering the “people”, AKA - The Government, regulates the airwaves, and that it is impossible for most people to even run a radio station to get their message out, I feel that the people, not the “people”, should get a chance at the airwaves with whatever topic they wish. Otherwise, it’s a one-way street for those with an angenda (both Government and Businesses) to get their message out. While those without airwave resources, are unable to get their message out. Leaving the Government and Corporations to brainwash society (I’m reaching here, but say it didn’t happen when Marijuana was outlawed through Media resources). But then again, if we give this guy a shot at it, then everyone is going to want to do it too. Basically flooding the airwaves with nothing but chaotic messages. But hey, there are two knobs on the radio…

[Odesio]

@manhattan

Just to make things clear, in the US payments for commercial radio licenses are de minimus. They are not auctioned like some telecommunicatino spectrum was over the past few years and license applications (including renewals) run from under a hundred dollars to the small-single-digit thousands depending on the circumstances.

I understand that but I don’t see why it matters how much or how little they pay?

Marc

[manhattan]

Little, if any. I’m just making it clear that commercial radio spectrum is not a large revenue source for the government – they don’t care if the licensees have 10 dollars or a billion, and the market works things out in terms of who owns and listens to the stations and what gets played or not played on them. (Exception: The government reserves some stations for colleges, commercial-free radio, etc.)

[Polycarp]

First, “the people” own the airwaves – this is made clear in the legislation that established the F.C.C. Stations receive licenses to use them, on condition that they provide certain minimal services to the community (much of this was discussed already; MsRobin and a few other Dopers work in broadcast media and can comment on what exactly those minimal services are).

Within the restrictions placed on content by the F.C.C., broadcasters are free to carry whatever suits them – if you want to spend the money to establish a radio station which broadcasts nothing but Vivaldi or a TV station that is 24/7 Star Trek reruns, nothing but money to buy equipment and hire technicians and getting a license is stopping you.

That includes (with the exception of political candidates, discussed above) the right to accept or refuse advertisements from any source.

What may make this particular issue important is the large number of stations owned and operated by Clear Channels – several hundred, covering major players in most major media markets. It’s arguable that for Clear Channels to take a particular socio-political stance, it’s tantamount to denying the right of access to the airwaves for a given group opposed to that stance. (But there are competing media with roughly equal market share in most markets, so that argument is rather weak.)

[Martin_Hyde]

The airwaves definitely are held in trust by the United States government for the people. That doesn’t mean individual citizens have an absolute right to decide how they are used. Just like the military is a military manned and operated by the Federal government but ostensibly there as a creature of the public, to protect the people from military threats. Just because “defense” is seen as a common good by the U.S. doesn’t mean Joe America gets to decide, influence, or even involve himself (save by voting) how the military is ran.

As it stands right now no defined or even reasonably implied rights found in the Constitution are being violated by Clear Channel. The only way that can change is if we vote people into office who promise to change the regulations in such a manner as to force broadcasters to do these things.

[Bricker]

Tell him to save his money and buy a radio station. The people that already did so are now enjoying the benefits of owning one.

rjung, of course, stands firmly for the principle that people are entitled to use what they don’t own in any way they please. Somehow I feel like his position would be different if I came by to borrow his car, even if I pointed out how much the government pays for the roadways I plan to drive it on.

In any event, manhattan’s answer is right on the money, as usual.

[Polycarp]

@Bricker

Tell him to save his money and buy a radio station. The people that already did so are now enjoying the benefits of owning one.

rjung, of course, stands firmly for the principle that people are entitled to use what they don’t own in any way they please. Somehow I feel like his position would be different if I came by to borrow his car, even if I pointed out how much the government pays for the roadways I plan to drive it on.

In any event, manhattan’s answer is right on the money, as usual.

Nah, if I understand rjung right, the argument is that people are entitled to purchase a commodity (ad air time, in this case) without reference to their political views. And given that the airwaves are public property, licensed to various broadcasters, it would seem that you too “stand firmly for the principle that people (Clear Channels) are entitled to use what they don’t own in any way they please.”

Under current rules, it doesn’t matter how many stations Clear Channel owns or what standards they put on the ads they will accept – they’re privileged to do what they list. But can you see an argument that they ought to be accountable to the public which licenses them to use what’s ultimately their property?

[Bricker]

@Polycarp

Nah, if I understand rjung right, the argument is that people are entitled to purchase a commodity (ad air time, in this case) without reference to their political views. And given that the airwaves are public property, licensed to various broadcasters, it would seem that you too “stand firmly for the principle that people (Clear Channels) are entitled to use what they don’t own in any way they please.”

No, but I can get behind the principle that people are entitled to use what they don’t own in any way they please, as long as the owner has licensed that use.

Under current rules, it doesn’t matter how many stations Clear Channel owns or what standards they put on the ads they will accept – they’re privileged to do what they list. But can you see an argument that they ought to be accountable to the public which licenses them to use what’s ultimately their property?

I can see such an argument, but I reject it, except to the extent of agreeing that licenses should be auctioned to sell them at their market value. But I don’t support the idea that a license should compel the licensee to air particular ads. If the market is not being served, the aggrieved persons may simply outbid the license holder at renewal time, and then air what they please.

[John_Mace]

@Polycarp

Under current rules, it doesn’t matter how many stations Clear Channel owns or what standards they put on the ads they will accept – they’re privileged to do what they list. But can you see an argument that they ought to be accountable to the public which licenses them to use what’s ultimately their property?

If we make the (very reasonable) assumption that a station will receive more bids to purchase ad time that it can utilize, what method do you propose be used by the station owners to select which commercials will be aired and which will not?

[mhendo]

@John Mace

If we make the (very reasonable) assumption that a station will receive more bids to purchase ad time that it can utilize, what method do you propose be used by the station owners to select which commercials will be aired and which will not?

Why not a simple market solution? Assuming that there are more bids than there are minutes of available airtime, the station should sell the time to the person willing to pay the highest price.

Note that the individual discussed in the OP was not asking the stations in question to air his ads as a public service. As far as i can tell, he was willing to pay the market price to air his commercials. Clear Channel did not, as far as we know, deny his request because he did not have the requisite amount of money. And presumably, if they had denied his request because all the slots were full, they would have said so. As it is, they won’t even give a reason for their refusal.

It’s obvious that the answer to the OP’s question has already been found: the airwaves themselves are the property of the state, but the licensees are allowed to refuse advertising they don’t want to take. This much is clearly true under the current system. Personally, i tend to think that the licensees should be under a slightly greater obligation in terms of their duties to the public. In the arena of advertising, i think they should be obliged to take any advertisement that:

a) does not contravene FCC guidelines

and

b) is offered at the media outlet’s current rate of payment for the timeslot.

If these conditions are met, and two parties both want the same slot, they could bid against one another. If they were not willing to engage in a bidding war, the spot could go to the first advertiser to make a market-priced offer.

Of course, the practicalities of administering such a system wood be very difficult, because a station that didn’t want to air a particular ad could just arbitrarily bump the price of entry, or claim that some other advertiser had already booked the time-slot.

All issues of legality and property rights aside, i actually think that media outlets who really believe in freedom of expression should take ads from anyone. That’s why i had no problem with those student newspapers who took David Horowitz’s ads opposing slave reparations and were so roundly lambasted by liberals and leftists for doing so.

I subscribe to The Nation magazine, and over the past couple of years they have regularly run ads for the FOX News Channel. Quite a few subscribers were furious at this, and some cancelled their subscriptions. Personally, i was quite happy for the magazine to take FOX’s money while continuing to editorialize about what a dishonest and biased news service FOX is.

[mhendo]

@mhendo

…practicalities of administering such a system wood be very difficult…

“Wood”? WTF? Excuse my homophonic error.