[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 104 (Tuesday, September 7, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8820-S8822]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    NETWORK COVERAGE OF CONVENTIONS

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the two political 
conventions. My speech will not be about the politics of the 
conventions but about the coverage of the conventions.
  Senator Lott and I have worked all of this year and the major part of 
last year on an issue dealing with the concentration of broadcast 
ownership in a rule that was crafted by the Federal Communications 
Commission that would allow even greater concentration in broadcast 
ownership. That rule would have allowed in the larger cities for one 
company to purchase three television stations, eight radio stations, 
the cable system, and the largest newspaper, and that would be fine.
  Many Republicans and Democrats don't think that is fine. We think the 
concentration of ownership of media

[[Page S8821]]

properties will mean that fewer and fewer Americans, probably fewer 
than a handful of Americans, will determine what the rest of the 
American people see, hear, and read. We don't think that is helpful.
  A Federal court has overturned the rule the FCC developed and sent it 
back to them, saying ``redo it.'' Senator Lott and I and others hope 
the FCC will do this the right way. The right way would be to promote 
more economic opportunity and broader ownership, not concentrated 
ownership in radio and television and newspapers.
  This relates to the coverage of the Republican and Democratic 
Conventions. I thought it was interesting this year that the coverage 
of the two political conventions was so spartan as to almost be 
nonexistent with respect to the major networks.
  Michael Copps, a commissioner at the FCC, wrote an op-ed piece on the 
subject. I ask unanimous consent to print it in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Aug. 30, 2004]

                         Show Me the Convention

                         (By Michael J. Copps)

       As a Democratic commissioner on the Federal Communications 
     Commission, I may not agree with many positions taken by 
     speakers this week at the Republican National Convention. 
     Even so, I believe our broadcast media owe us more coverage 
     of an event that remains an important component of the 
     presidential campaign. Yet tonight, if people around the 
     country tune in to the commercial broadcast TV networks, most 
     will not see any live convention coverage. That's not right.
       Let's remember that American citizens own the public 
     airwaves, not TV executives. We give broadcasters the right 
     to use these airwaves for free in exchange for their 
     agreement to broadcast in the public interest. They earn huge 
     profits using this public resource. During this campaign 
     season broadcasters will receive nearly $1.5 billion from 
     political advertising.
       What do we get in return for granting TV stations free use 
     of our airwaves? Unfortunately, when it comes to coverage of 
     issues important to our nation, the answer is less and less. 
     Coverage of the 2000 presidential election on the network 
     evening news dropped by a third compared to reporting on the 
     1996 election. During the last election cycle we heard 
     directly from presidential candidates for an average of 9 
     seconds a night on the news. Local races? Forget it. In 
     2002--the most recent midterm elections--more than half of 
     local newscasts contained no campaign coverage at all. Local 
     coverage has diminished to the point that campaign ads 
     outnumber campaign stories by four to one. What coverage 
     there is focuses inordinately on polls and handicapping the 
     horse race.
       TV executives tell us that the convention and campaign 
     coverage provided by the cable channels is sufficient. I 
     don't think so. Around 35 million Americans don't get cable, 
     often because they cannot afford it. To put it in 
     perspective, that's more than the combined populations of 
     Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Furthermore, 
     broadcasters legally undertake to serve the public interest 
     themselves in exchange for free spectrum--their licenses 
     don't allow them to pass the buck to cable. Remember also 
     that the vast majority of cable channels are national, not 
     local. So don't look for local campaign coverage on cable, 
     except in the few towns where local cable news exists. Most 
     Americans still must look to their local broadcaster for news 
     of local campaigns and issues.
       The F.C.C. is doing nothing to help as the situation 
     deteriorates. It has weakened almost every explicit duty 
     stations once had for serving the public interest, like 
     ensuring that stations cover local issues and offer viewers a 
     diversity of opinion. Just as bad, the commission eliminated 
     protections against media consolidation last year, even 
     though critics warned that this would result in even less 
     local coverage. Luckily a federal court rejected this 
     decision, so we have another chance to save these rules.
       The F.C.C. has also failed to set guidelines for how 
     broadcasters will meet their public interest responsibilities 
     when digital TV and multicasting become more widespread. To 
     make matters worse, the F.C.C. now practically rubber-stamps 
     TV license renewals, usually without auditing station records 
     to determine whether licensees are fulfilling their public 
     interest responsibilities or checking with communities to 
     ensure that stations are meeting local needs.
       Whether we are Democrats, Republicans or independents, we 
     all can agree that democracy depends on well-informed 
     citizens. So as you flip through the channels tonight while 
     the convention is largely ignored, consider whether TV 
     broadcasters, sustained by free access to the public airwaves 
     in exchange for programming in the public interest, are 
     holding up their end of the deal.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. Copps makes the point that we give broadcasters the 
right to use the airwaves in exchange for their agreement to broadcast 
in the public interest. They don't own the airwaves. They are licensed 
to use them in exchange for broadcasting in the public interest. They 
also earn substantial money in broadcasting properties from advertising 
during television campaigns. It is expected they will earn nearly $1.5 
billion from political advertising.
  What do we get in return? We get almost no coverage any longer, very 
spartan coverage of the two political conventions. Television and other 
executives say: That is because people can watch the conventions on 
cable television. Well, there are more channels. There is cable. But 35 
million Americans don't get cable television.
  Let me take a look at what has happened, as Mr. Copps describes it in 
his piece. On Monday, August 30, the Republican Convention was held in 
New York. This is a Monday evening. None of the networks decided they 
would cover the Republican Convention. It is strange for me to be 
protesting that, but nonetheless I think the networks have a 
responsibility and should have had a responsibility to provide 
extensive coverage of both political conventions. So on Monday night, 
they did not show the American people the speech by Senator McCain, our 
colleague. Incidentally, I think that speech should have been heard by 
the American people. They didn't air the speech by Rudy Giuliani. The 
American people should have heard that speech. Why is it they couldn't 
have done that?
  Let me show you what they were airing on Monday evening. They had 
``Access Hollywood.'' That was important. Then they went to ``Fear 
Factor.'' That is where you sometimes tune in and you see people eating 
a bowl of maggots or whatever other disgusting thing happens on ``Fear 
Factor.'' I have seen it as I have used the remote control to change 
the channels. ``Complex Malibu,'' they aired--eight couples begin the 
competition by working on a master bedroom--and NFL preseason, and the 
``Last Comic Standing.''
  The American people couldn't get the Republican Convention that 
evening because this is what was aired on television. This was a Monday 
evening, the first evening of the convention.
  What about the Democratic Convention? The networks decided they 
wouldn't broadcast on Tuesday evening of the Democratic Convention. 
They broadcast three nights, 1 hour each evening for three nights. On 
Tuesday evening, July 27, the keynote speaker Barak Obama spoke, Teresa 
Heinz spoke. The American people didn't get to listen to those 
speeches. They should have been able to.
  Here is what was going on. They aired that evening ``Trading Spouses, 
Meet Your New Mommy,'' ``Wheel of Fortune,'' ``Last Comic Standing,'' 
``Quintuplets,'' ``The Amazing Race,'' eight teams travel from 
Argentina to St. Petersburg, Russia. The networks were too busy. They 
didn't want to put on 2 hours a night for four nights, or four hours a 
night, they used to do that.
  Some people say the conventions are staged. Really? Well, there are a 
lot of stories at the conventions. But those stories are not covered 
these days by the major broadcast networks. Why? Because they are only 
broadcasting 1 hour a night, three nights; 3 hours, total 6 hours, for 
both the Republican and the Democratic National Conventions; 6 hours 
every 4 years. How does that relate to the obligation to serve in the 
public interest? How does that relate to what Senator Lott and I and 
others have been talking about, how a few people decide what the 
American people read or hear? How many people do you think made the 
decision we will only offer 3 hours to the American people of the 
Republican National Convention on the major networks? How many people 
do you think made the decision we will only offer 3 hours of the 
Democratic Convention?
  I think both the Republican Convention and the Democratic Convention 
were shortchanged. Why do I say that? Because the fact is, we make 
decisions in the political process. Our major national conventions are 
a significant part of the process. The dialog, the discussion, the 
debate in those conventions is a significant part of showing and 
telling the American people what these political parties are about. I

[[Page S8822]]

know we get plenty of television in politics. But most of it is 30-
second incendiary, negative ads talking about who is the worst rather 
than who is the best. Very few of them have any ideas or talk about 
issues.
  The question is, as Commissioner Copps points out in his editorial 
published in the New York Times, are the networks serving this 
country's interests by deciding they shall air only 3 hours every 4 
years of a major political convention?
  In 1976, the three major television networks provided more than 50 
hours of television convention coverage. In 1996, 20 years later, that 
had dropped to 12 hours. This year it dropped to 6 hours.
  The New York Daily News said that before cable and satellite, ABC, 
CBS, and NBC turned over their prime time to the conventions as a 
matter of civic duty.
  It is interesting to me that these conventions are staged so tightly. 
One of the reasons they are created as tightly as they are with respect 
to agenda is to fit into the very short time period the networks now 
offer for the coverage of the conventions.
  Mr. President, the issue of broadcast ownership and the concentration 
of broadcast ownership remains at the FCC. The question is, what will 
they do with these rules and how will the rules affect what people see 
and hear in the future? How does concentration of economic ownership in 
broadcast properties affect what we saw this year, the coverage of only 
3 hours of the Republican and Democratic Conventions? I have described 
significant speakers the American people did not have an opportunity to 
see or hear. Someone made a decision it wasn't worth it. This is what 
Senator Lott and I and others have been concerned about for a long 
while--about the concentration of ownership in broadcast properties.
  Again, I am not against big in every circumstance. I don't think big 
is always bad or small is always beautiful. But in broadcast 
properties--radio, television, and newspapers--I think broad-based 
economic ownership best serves this democracy. I think when we see more 
and more concentration, where you have fewer and fewer people--in some 
cases a handful--deciding what the American people will see, hear, and 
read, frankly, I think that is unhealthy. One sign of that is what they 
decided to air at a time when they decided the two political 
conventions by the national Republican party and the national 
Democratic party were unworthy. I think it goes without saying that 
they have shortchanged the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
California is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon 
completion of my remarks Senator Harkin be recognized for up to 20 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________