So broadcast television networks have a mandate from the FCC to serve the public interest with their broadcasts. That’s why we have nightly news, public service commericials late at night, and so on. Clearly they have to cover the war in Iraq.
But do they have to cover it wall-to-wall for hours on end? Does the FCC really require that they cancel all their other programming and go to 24-hour coverage of the war? To my knowledge it’s never been done before, we didn’t go wall-to-wall covering the first conflict in Iraq. The only time this has ever happened was 9-11, and we were under attack at the time. Has 9-11 set precedent that requires networks to give any subsequent conflict, even a relatively minor one tens of thousands of miles away, that sort of coverage?
IMHO, television networks could easily serve the public interest with the 30 minute newscast each night, break-in updates when something concrete and factual becomes available, live coverage of the press conferences, and news tickers. Constant coverage will be filled with useless speculation and doesn’t really do any good.
Yeah, I’d hate to miss Friends because of this. 
The Federal Communications Commission has never adopted a generic “serve the public” rule. The Commission has adopted specific rules about how much programming a licensed broadcaster must devote to educational programming, news, and so forth, but those rules generally dictate bare minimums that a broadcaster can easily satisfy.
How much coverage a network devotes to the war is its own choice based on its own priorities. The Federal Communications Commission is not driving those choices.
Before the 1996 revision of the Telecommunications Act, the 1934 Act, as amended, had stipulated that broadcast stations were to “serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity,” if I recall the phrase correctly.
I can’t find that wording in the intro to the broadcast section of the 1996 Act, but I don’t know if that statement of principle has been deep-sixed, or just moved.
But from 1981 on, the “public interest” provision had been interpreted completely in terms of market forces, so that didn’t require anything of broadcasters anymore, except that they do what they would do anyway to chase dollars.
So in answer to your question, RexDart, broadcasters will likely cover the war in whatever manner they feel is in their interest. IOW, if that’s what people in the 18-49 age bracket want to watch, then that’s what they’ll play, rather than lose such viewers to other channels or other news media.
There’s no rule that mandates wall-to-wall coverage, just as there’s no rule that prevented CBS from showing a football game the day Clinton was impeached.
Cartoon Network won’t have wall-to-wall coverage.
I do so love cable. I get enough reality when I read the papers.