Several Groups Urge FCC Probe of Music Industry Complaint
Several music and consumer groups asked the FCC to investigate a complaint by an industry group that radio stations declined to air ads supporting the Performance Rights Act (PRA), which broadcasters allegedly used the airwaves to oppose. The comments came Tuesday on a June petition for declaratory ruling by MusicFirst, on which the commission seeks comment (CD Aug 11 p7). The American Federation of Musicians, American Association of Independent Music, Free Press, Music Industry Lawyers Group, National Consumers League and Parents Television Council were among those seeking an FCC probe.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The petition was opposed by the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council -- saying the commission would do better to promote ownership diversity than start a probe -- plus a group of nine radio companies and the NAB. The Aug. 7 public notice seeking feedback on the MusicFirst petition “is repugnant to the public interest,” because the FCC is “taking sides with respect to a change in Federal law against an industry which it regulates,” said a filing by Appalachian Broadcasting, Georgia-Carolina Radiocasting, Sutton Radiocasting and others. “Rather than simply stating its position to Congress, the FCC is implicitly threatening the radio industry for taking an opposite position with respect to the pending PRA legislation.”
MusicFirst’s “carefully crafted public relations document masquerading as a legal pleading” seeks to “recruit the Commission as a participant to its lobbying and public relations strategy in support of the PRA” as legislative debate on it becomes more contentious, said the NAB. “It asks the Commission to declare that the ‘public interest’ requires radio stations to air MusicFIRST’s pro-PRA advertisements and to suspend broadcasters’ efforts opposing the PRA.” That would have the commission “sail into uncharted (and wholly unconstitutional) waters -- turning broadcast stations into common carriers,” the group said. When WTOP(FM) Washington told MusicFirst it would air its ads for the same price as NAB spots opposing the Act, the offer was turned down, NAB said.
Free Press said radio stations can criticize the proposed bill on-air but MusicFirst’s allegations suggest some broadcasters didn’t meet the public interest. “What is at issue is the extent … to which broadcasters may exert their considerable control of the airwaves to take coordinated anticompetitive action to punish their political opponents and to limit the public’s access to information on an issue of national importance.” The Parents Television Council said “there is evidence that broadcasters have refused to provide access to the public airwaves under their control to the petitioners who desired to run advertisements for appropriate payment because providing such access could negatively affect the broadcaster’s own financial interest at the detriment of the public interest.”
Though the Music Industry Lawyers Group respects broadcasters’ First Amendment rights, their “intimidation is designed to suppress speech that is not even being made on their radio stations.” That’s because musicians are “targeted” for their advocacy at public meetings and in Congress, said the group of about a dozen attorneys. If proven to have occurred, retaliation or threats put radio’s interests above the public, said a joint filing by the American Federation of Musicians and National Consumers League. It asked the commission to consider asking Congress to shorten radio license terms to allow for “a more thorough review of these types of activities.”
The American Association of Independent Music, “greatly concerned” by broadcasters’ actions as described by MusicFirst, said the radio industry has raised “serious questions about their commitment to their public interest obligations.” That industry seems “to have no concern about abusing the public asset granted to them to thwart the free speech of others,” the association added. MusicFirst didn’t file comments but will make a reply, said a spokesman.