A Lame Plan from a Likely Lame Duck

Last week, I advised broadcasters not to be drawn into negotiating with FCC Chairman Kevin Martin on new localism rules. I didn't know exactly what Martin had in mind. I just figured that it could lead nowhere good.

Now, I know one idea Martin is cooking up and I am reassured that my earlier advice was sound.

As we reported on Wednesday, Martin wants TV stations to fund state news bureaus manned by recent J-school graduates. These bureaus, essentially residency programs for the grads, would provide routine coverage of state government as well as investigative reports.

Despite our best efforts, I don't know much more than that. Neither reporter Kim McAvoy nor I could find anybody to fully describe it.

An adherent to the Dick Cheney philosophy of media relations, Martin wasn't talking and neither was the staffer he has on the project, Heather Dixon.

Martin has briefed officials of the North Carolina and Texas state broadcasters associations, but they were reluctant to talk, apparently fearful of retribution by Martin.

Only Stan Statham of the California Broadcasters Association went on the record, but he could not add to the outline of the proposal that we already had.

I don't understand all the secrecy. Isn't this entire effort being made in the name of truth seeking and openness?

In any event, I'll start by giving Martin points for trying.

Instead of pushing the same old discredited localism ideas that have been haunting broadcasting for decades -- programming quotas, ascertainment and such -- Martin has come up with an idea that could, in theory, yield some programming that could actually enhance the service that stations provide.

The trouble is, the proposal still puts the FCC where it doesn't belong: in the middle of TV stations' decisionmaking on news and programming.

Any news dollar a station spends on an FCC-approved independent news bureau is one less dollar spent on something else, perhaps another local producer or reporter. The FCC is, in effect, directing stations' news priorities.

An unintended consequence of shifting resources to state issues may be the loss of local coverage -- hardly the aim of the FCC's localism proceeding.

Many broadcasters don't want to get involved with independent news organizations, especially on investigative reports. They are tricky business. Reputations are at stake, not only of the subjects of the investigations, but of the media that produce and distribute the findings. Libel and other legal issues inevitably surround them.

My assumption is that all the stations in a state would be called on to fund the bureaus. If so, that means they would have to share the output of the bureaus. So, none will get a competitive advantage for its money, just an opportunity to report the same story every else is. Not too exciting.

I presume that stations would not be obliged to carry stories. That would be a clear affront to their First Amendment right to decide what goes on their air.

But what if a station simply doesn't like what the bureaus are producing? Is it still obligated to pay? Can it opt out? And, if it does, what would be the consequences? Would it have to accept other localism duties?

Finally, who is going to oversee and manage the bureaus? Who decides what they cover, what they investigate?

There are just too many questions.

It's not just the FCC of which broadcasters must be wary. Some of these J-school types have shown that they are no friends of local TV journalism.

Several members of the Carnegie-Knight Initiative on the Future of Journalism Education, the group that Martin approached with his proposal last month, wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times last December that declared local TV news inadequate and endorsed the FCC using its regulatory power to squeeze more news out of stations.

The op-ed drips with condescension.

"We do not believe that the market can be absolutely trusted to provide the local newsgathering that the American system needs to function at its best," the academics wrote.

If you're a news director and you don't feel insulted by that sentence, substitute your call letters for "the market."

As I said it my column just after the op-ed appeared, the eight authors embarrassed themselves and their universities in joining with the government in its effort to dictate broadcast programming.

Before I'd do business with any of them, I'd demand a retraction of the op-ed and an apology.

No. I would want more than that. I would want whoever the ringleader is to do penance.

Here's my suggestion: Make him go to the National Archives in Washington, lie prostrate in front of the Bill of Rights, and repeat 100 times, "I will not advocate for government regulation of media."

I may never know why Martin decided to push localism of all things in what is looking increasingly like his last months in office.