Media Regulation: Crash Course Government and Politics #45

Summary

In this Crash Course episode, Craig discusses the complex relationship between government and media regulation in the U.S., highlighting the historical context of press freedom and the evolution of broadcast media oversight by the FCC. He examines the impact of the Fairness Doctrine, the repeal of which led to less controversial programming, and touches on the challenges of internet regulation. The episode underscores the importance of media diversity and the public's access to information for informed political decision-making.

Takeaways

• 📰 The U.S. government does regulate media, contrary to the belief that it's entirely free-market driven.
• 🚫 There are restrictions on what can be broadcasted or printed, such as harmful or untrue content.
• 📜 The First Amendment protects the freedom of the press, resulting in minimal regulation of print media.
• 🚫 Prior restraint, or censorship before publication, is not allowed according to Near v. Minnesota.
• 📖 The New York Times v. Sullivan case established a high bar for public figures to win libel suits, protecting the press.
• 📻 Broadcast media is more tightly regulated than print, with the government controlling airwaves through licensing.
• 📡 The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) oversees broadcast licensing and public interest requirements.
• 🗳️ The Fairness Doctrine, repealed in 1987, required equal time for opposing views on public issues but is now defunct.
• 🔞 The FCC regulates obscenity, indecency, and profanity on broadcast media, especially during family viewing hours.
• 🌐 The internet is largely self-regulating due to its rapid pace of change, with Congress struggling to keep up with legislation.
• 🏢 Media ownership regulations, such as those in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, have raised concerns about media monopolization and diversity.
• 🌐 Net neutrality is a complex issue, with debates focusing on whether ISPs should be able to charge differential rates for bandwidth use.

Q & A

What is the primary focus of the video script provided?

The primary focus of the video script is the interaction between the media and the government, with an emphasis on how the government regulates the media in the United States.

What is the significance of the First Amendment in relation to the media?

The First Amendment is significant because it protects the freedom of the press, allowing for minimal government regulation on what can be published, thus enabling the media to provide information necessary for informed political decisions.

What does the term 'prior restraint' refer to in the context of media regulation?

Prior restraint refers to the government's attempt to prevent or censor the publication of certain information before it is disseminated to the public, which is generally not allowed in the United States due to the First Amendment.

What was the outcome of the Pentagon Papers case in terms of government regulation of the media?

The Pentagon Papers case (New York Times v. US) made it difficult for the government to use national security as a justification for preventing the publication of sensitive or embarrassing material.

How does the Supreme Court's decision in New York Times v. Sullivan affect libel lawsuits against the press?

The decision in New York Times v. Sullivan established a high standard for public figures to win libel lawsuits, requiring them to prove that the published information was both false and disseminated with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth.

What is the role of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in regulating broadcast media?

The FCC is responsible for granting and renewing broadcast licenses, ensuring that broadcasters operate in the public interest, and enforcing rules regarding content, including obscenity, indecency, and profanity.

What was the Fairness Doctrine, and why was it repealed?

The Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to give equal time to opposing views on public issues. It was repealed in 1983 due to the Reagan administration's push for deregulation and the belief that the doctrine discouraged controversial programming.

What is the difference between broadcast media and cable channels in terms of FCC regulations?

FCC regulations, particularly those concerning obscenity, indecency, and profanity, apply only to broadcast media and not to most basic cable channels, allowing for more explicit content on cable.

What was the purpose of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and what were its effects on media regulation?

The 1996 Telecommunications Act aimed to regulate the internet and other communication services. It also attempted to deregulate the cable industry, allowing for cross-ownership of media outlets, which has raised concerns about media monopolization and diversity.

What is the concept of net neutrality, and why is it a regulatory issue?

Net neutrality is the principle that internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, without favoring or blocking particular products or websites. It is a regulatory issue because it involves debates over whether ISPs should be allowed to charge differential rates for data usage.

What are some of the concerns raised by media mergers and the potential monopolization of media?

Concerns about media mergers and monopolization include the potential for a lack of diversity in news coverage and viewpoints, as well as the influence of a few large corporations on the information available to the public.

Outlines

00:00

📰 Government Regulation of Media

The script introduces the topic of government regulation of media, particularly focusing on the interaction between the media and the government. Craig, the host, challenges the misconception that the government does not regulate media in a free-market society. He emphasizes the existence of government agencies that set limits to ensure access to information. The discussion begins with a review of the history of media regulation in the US, highlighting the First Amendment's protection of the press and the minimal government control over print media. Key court cases like Near v. Minnesota and New York Times v. US are mentioned, illustrating the difficulty of censoring the press. The script also touches on libel laws and the high bar set by the Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan for public figures to win defamation suits.

05:02

📺 Broadcast Media Regulation and Net Neutrality

This paragraph delves into the government's more significant role in regulating broadcast media, starting with the control of airwaves through licensing by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The script explains the historical Fairness Doctrine, which required equal time for opposing views on public issues, and its repeal in 1983. It also covers the Equal Time Rule and the Right of Rebuttal for political candidates. The FCC's regulation of obscenity, indecency, and profanity on broadcast media is mentioned, along with the famous FCC v. Pacifica Broadcasting case involving George Carlin's 'Seven Words' routine. The script contrasts this with the self-regulation of the internet, discussing the unsuccessful attempts by Congress to regulate online content and the role of intellectual property lawsuits in shaping the internet. The paragraph concludes with a discussion on media ownership and net neutrality, emphasizing the importance of diverse viewpoints in media and the public function of the press as recognized in the First Amendment.

Keywords

💡Media Regulation

Media regulation refers to the rules and policies put in place by the government to control and oversee the content and operations of various media outlets. In the video, it is discussed as a necessary measure to ensure access to information and to prevent harmful or untrue content from being disseminated. An example from the script is the government's regulation of broadcast media through licensing and the establishment of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

💡First Amendment

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects freedom of speech and of the press. In the context of the video, it is highlighted as a key factor limiting government regulation of print media, as seen in the Near v. Minnesota case which prohibited prior restraint on publications. The video also mentions how the First Amendment shapes the legal landscape for media regulation, particularly in contrast to broadcast and internet media.

💡Libel Laws

Libel laws are legal statutes that allow individuals to take legal action against media outlets for publishing false and damaging information about them. The video explains that while libel laws can be used to regulate print media to some extent, the Supreme Court's decision in New York Times v. Sullivan raised the bar for public figures to successfully sue for libel, thus providing substantial protection to the press.

💡Broadcast Spectrum

The broadcast spectrum refers to the range of radio frequencies used for transmitting broadcast signals. The script explains that it is a limited public resource, and the government regulates access to it through licensing. This is a primary method of government control over broadcast media, as it allows the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to enforce conditions on broadcasters.

💡Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

The FCC is an independent agency of the U.S. government responsible for regulating interstate and international communications by wire and radio in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories. The video discusses the FCC's role in licensing broadcasters, enforcing regulations, and ensuring that broadcasts operate in the public interest.

💡Fairness Doctrine

The Fairness Doctrine was a former FCC rule that required broadcasters to present both sides of controversial issues of public importance. The video script mentions that it was repealed in 1983, illustrating the historical shift in how broadcast media is regulated and the impact on the diversity of viewpoints presented on air.

💡Obscenity and Indecency

Obscenity and indecency refer to content that may be inappropriate for certain audiences, particularly during times when children are likely to be watching or listening. The video explains that the FCC has regulations to prevent such content from being broadcast during family viewing times, as established in the FCC v. Pacifica Broadcasting case.

💡Telecommunications Act of 1996

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was landmark legislation that aimed to open up the market for telecommunications services. The video script points out that it included attempts to regulate the internet, which were later struck down by the Supreme Court, and also affected media ownership rules, contributing to concerns about media consolidation.

💡Net Neutrality

Net neutrality is the principle that internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products, websites, or platforms. The video discusses the debate over whether the FCC should regulate the internet like a public utility, highlighting the importance of equal access to information and the potential impact on media diversity.

💡Media Ownership

Media ownership refers to the control and concentration of media outlets within a market. The video script discusses how regulations, such as those in the 1996 Telecommunications Law, have allowed for greater consolidation in media ownership, leading to concerns about a lack of diversity in news coverage and media content.

💡Public Interest

Public interest is a guiding principle in media regulation that emphasizes the need for media to serve the broader needs and welfare of the public. The video explains that the FCC requires broadcasters to demonstrate that their operations are in the public interest, which is a key factor in the granting and renewal of broadcast licenses.

Highlights

The government does regulate the media, contrary to the belief that the free market is the only determinant of published content.

There are restrictions on what can be broadcasted or printed, such as harmful or untrue content.

The First Amendment protects the freedom of the press, limiting government regulation of print media.

Prior restraint, or censorship before publication, is not allowed according to Near v. Minnesota.

The Pentagon Papers case (New York Times v. US) made it difficult for the government to prevent publication on national security grounds.

Libel laws allow individuals to sue for false statements, but public figures have a high bar to meet for such lawsuits.

Print media is largely free from government regulation, reflecting a shift towards market-driven regulation.

Broadcast media is more heavily regulated due to its wide reach and control of the airwaves through licensing.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) manages most government regulation of broadcasters.

The Fairness Doctrine required equal time for opposing views on public issues but was repealed in 1983.

The Equal Time Rule and Right of Rebuttal ensure political candidates are not discriminated against in broadcasting.

The FCC regulates obscenity, indecency, and profanity on broadcast media, but not on most basic cable channels.

The 1996 Telecommunications Act aimed to regulate broadcasters and the internet, but faced Supreme Court challenges.

The internet is largely self-regulating due to its rapid pace of change and Congress's recognition of its unique nature.

Attempts to regulate the internet through the Child Online Protection Act and Communications Decency Act were unsuccessful.

Intellectual property lawsuits have been an effective way to regulate the internet, as seen in the Napster case.

Media ownership regulations, such as those in the 1996 Telecommunications Law, have led to concerns about media monopolization.

Net neutrality is a complex issue involving whether ISPs should be able to charge differential rates for bandwidth use.

Media regulation involves multiple actors, including private companies, media organizations, and government agencies like the FCC.

Debate over net neutrality and media ownership highlights the importance of access and diversity in media for informed public decision-making.

Transcripts

Hello. I'm Craig, and this is Crash Course Government and Politics. Today I'm gonna talk

a little bit about the media. Specifically, the way the media interacts with the government

itself, and more specifically, the way the government regulates the media. Some of you

might be saying, "Craig, get real, the government doesn't regulate the media. We live in a free-market

capitalist society and the only real regulation on what gets published or broadcast is determined

by consumers, Craig." Right Clone: Right on.

Craig: Except that there are things you can't say on television or print in a newspaper

either because they're harmful or untrue, and there are a number of government agencies

that exist to place limits on the media and to make sure that we have access to information.

Left Clone: Right on! Craig: Don't you mean left on? [laughs]

But wait, so you guys both agree then? Clones: No.

Craig: Oh, I guess I misunderstood.

[Theme Music]

Let's start our discussion of government regulation of the media with a little review. The oldest

form of media in the US is print, so you might think that it has been the most regulated,

but you'll remember from our episode on the freedom of the press that this isn't really

the case because of the pesky first amendment.

The freedom of the press was written into the Bill of Rights because the framers wisely

recognized that without a free press, Americans would be less able to have the information

they needed to make good political decisions, which they do all the time. They also make

bad political decisions, too. They just make a lot of decisions.

So there are very few government regulations on what can and can't appear in the newspaper.

Near v. Minnesota basically said that there could be no censorship in the form of prior restraint.

In New York Times v. US, the Pentagon Papers case made it difficult for the government to use

national security as an excuse to prevent publication of sensitive, or in that case, embarrassing material.

There are still libel laws that allow individuals to sue newspapers and magazines when they

print something that they don't like. But as far as public figures are concerned, the

Supreme Court's decision in New York Times v. Sullivan makes it pretty hard to censor

the press by suing for libel. So I can say anything I want about public figures. Public figures are dumb.

In order to win this type of lawsuit, the plaintiff must show that the article, or advertisement,

was both untrue and published with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth,

which is a very, very high bar. What this means in practice is that the first amendment

pretty much protects print media from government regulation. Although as we saw in the last

episode, the number of Americans getting their information from print is shrinking. So maybe

the markets are doing the regulation after all. Although I don't think people are buying

fewer newspapers as a way of regulating their content. They probably just don't want the

papers cluttering up their house and they don't wanna get that ink on their hands, you

know, the black ink the rubs off.

The government is taking a larger role in TV and radio, possibly because it reaches

the largest numbers. Broadcast media is the most tightly regulated among the information sources.

The first and probably least transparent way that the government regulates broadcast media

is through control of the airwaves, which is done through licensing. Broadcast spectrum

is a limited resource and is technically owned by the public, so if you want to broadcast,

you need to purchase a license from the federal government. This gives you the right to operate

your television or radio station under certain well-defined conditions. These licenses must

be renewed every five years and they almost always are. The licenses are granted and most

of the government regulation of broadcasters is managed by the Federal Communications Commission,

the FCC. It was founded in 1934 to oversee a chaotic radio industry and it soon expanded

to include television. As part of its mission, the FCC required that in order for a station

to be granted a license, it had to show that it was operating in the public interest. In

terms of politics, this meant that the FCC has come up with some rules regarding what

gets broadcast. Every channel has to have a CSI.

The first rule, dating back to 1949, is called the Fairness Doctrine. This requires broadcasters

to give equal time to each side of a public issue. So if a station airs a program criticizing

a war, say the one in Vietnam or the one in Iraq, it has to air another program of equal

length that supports the war. What this meant in practice was that stations shied away from

controversial programming, even though the Fairness Doctrine was never rigidly enforced.

The lack of enforcement and generally non-controversial nature of commercial broadcasting

didn't stop Ronald Reagan's administration from pushing for the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1983.

Congress voted to reinstate it in 1987 when Democrats took control, but Reagan said

"uh-uh," and he vetoed the legislation. As a result, the Fairness Doctrine is pretty much dead.

Other rules related to the Fairness Doctrine are the Equal Time Rule, which requires that

broadcasters not discriminate in selling time to political candidates, and the Right of

Rebuttal, which ensures a political candidate will have the opportunity to respond to a

personal attack if it gets aired. These rules do not apply to eagles, however. Yeah, you stay down.

There's another important FCC rule that deals with media ownership, but I'm gonna

talk about that later because the FCC didn't tell me I can't.

The FCC also regulates what can be broadcast, but these rules doesn't relate to politics

so much as obscenity, indecency, or profanity showing up on radio or television.

Sometimes these FCC rulings and fines become Supreme Court cases as people raise concerns

about whether they deny our precious, precious free speech. One of the most famous cases

in this area, FCC v. Pacifica Broadcasting, dealt with comedian George Carlin's Seven

Words routine, which I will not be repeating because Crash Course is a family-friendly educational channel.

This case established that it's okay for the FCC to require that certain language and images not be

broadcast during family times, which is before 10 PM.

The FCC also hands out fines for f-bombs and wardrobe malfunctions to keep us safe and virtuous.

I should point out here that these FCC rules only apply to broadcast media and not most

basic cable channels, which is why there's so many naked people in Game of Thrones.

I don't know if that's why there is, but that's why they can do it.

Congress also tried to regulate broadcasters by passing legislation, as it tried to do

with the 1996 Telecommuncations Act. This act was best known for its failed attempts

to regulate the internet, but it had other more interesting effects, too. As with any

congressional legislation, this act was subject to Supreme Court judicial review. The court

did strike down part of the law, Title V, which was called the Communications Decency Act

and was meant to regulate online pornography, because its definition of obscenity was overbroad,

and the court said that it violated the first amendment.

Speaking of the internet, unlike print and broadcast media, it's largely self-regulating.

This is possibly because Congress has recognized that it changes so quickly that most laws

and regulations will be out of date by the time they're finally written. But this hasn't

stopped them from trying. After the court struck down the Communications Decency Act,

Congress tried again with the Child Online Protection Act in 1998, and they failed.

This one didn't make it all the way to the Supreme Court, but lower federal courts enjoined the

government from enforcing it in 2007.

A more effective way to regulate the internet has been through lawsuits, especially those

around intellectual property. As viewers of our IP series know, this is super complicated,

but basically people can use the courts to restrict the internet. A good example of this

was the Napster case, where courts ruled against the file-sharing company and it was shut down.

It takes individuals, and Metallica, and corporations to bring these suits, but they use the government

to shape the internet to meet their interests, so it can be seen as government regulation.

Speaking of corporations, this is a good place to bring up a couple of very complicated

regulatory issues involving the internet, television and newspapers.

The first one has to do with media ownership. Let's go to the Thought Bubble.

Part of the 1996 Telecommunications Law, Title III to be more exact, dealt with the regulation

of cable television. Actually, it was a deregulation of the cable industry, allowing for companies

that own newspapers and radio and television stations to also own cable companies. This

kind of cross-ownership was supposed to lower barriers to entry into the cable business,

and it was clarified by the 2003 FCC ruling that allows a single company to own and operate

the leading newspaper, television and cable companies in a single market. This has led

to concerns about monopolization of the media as more and more companies merge. And it's

hard to argue that this isn't happening. So the number of companies that provide media

content and access has been shrinking precipitously in the past 30 years, which is probably why

the FCC and Congress scrutinize media mergers so closely. Critics point out that these kinds

of super-mergers can lead to a lack of diversity in media. This can lead to fewer points of

view represented in our news coverage and our stories.

Net neutrality has also been a big issue, you've probably head about it. The question

revolves around whether the FCC should pass rules that allow internet service providers

to charge differential rates to companies that use their bandwidth. For example, internet

service providers sometimes sell faster or better service to large companies like Netflix

at the expense of smaller competitors or individuals who don't pay as much.

Thanks, Thought Bubble. The net neutrality issue is a really complex regulatory question,

but the debate over it, which takes place in Congress, on television, on the internet,

and even through the FCC's website, where anyone's allowed to make public comments on

proposed rules, has been fascinating and it points out a number of key issues involving

government regulation of the media.

First, it shows that a lot of media regulation involves a number of actors. In this case,

George Clooney. No, no, no, not those kinds of actors. Private media companies, media

organizations themselves and executive agencies like the FCC. It also points out that the

overarching regulatory structure is built by Congress but that the real key actors are the

regulatory rule makers and enforcers of the executive branch. And George Clooney. He has aged so well.

Even more important though, are the questions that lie behind the debate. When we think

about regulation, what comes to mind is regulation of content or censorship, but with net neutrality

rules as with FCC cross-ownership rules, what we're really looking at is regulation of access

and how much media will be available at a given price. Those who argue that the internet

should be regulated like a public utility rather than just another set of corporations

that take their cues from the market are getting at something. The media is different from

other corporate entities because it serves a public function, something that the framers

realized when they wrote freedom of the press into the first amendment. Without a robust

media, Americans may have less access to information that they need to make smarter political choices.

Of course, all the access we have doesn't mean that we necessarily will make smarter

choices, but in this case, being able to hear more points of view is better than only hearing a few.

That's why we're skeptical of censorship and why many people wanna keep the internet as open as possible.

Thanks for watching, I'll see you next time.

Crash Course Government and Politics is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios. Support

for Crash Course US Government comes from Voqal. Voqal supports nonprofits that use

technology and media to advance social equity. Learn more about their mission and initiatives

at voqal.org. Crash Course is made with the help of all these monstrous jerks. That's

not libel, they're public figures. Go ahead, try and sue me. Thanks for watching.