Jessell at Large

NAB Needs to Get on Board with Obama

The Obama transition team wants broadcasters and cable operators to help pay for DTV transition call centers to handle the inevitable questions and complaints from viewers following the Feb. 17 switch-over. While they may object on principle, the NAB should acquiesce. It will help in the transition and it will buy badly needed goodwill with the administration and the next FCC chairman in the coming policy battles.
TVNewsCheck,

You can't blame the incoming Obama administration for trying to head off a DTV transition fiasco in February. The last thing the new president wants is millions of Americans squawking that the new Islamo-Socialist government is taking away their TV. What's next, they'll wonder. Their guns?

So, I guess you can't blame the Obama transition team for inviting TV industry lobbyists to its Washington offices last Friday to press them for more help in managing the anticipated flood of complaints and questions in the wake of the Feb. 17 cut off.

Story continues after the ad

But it is presumptuous, isn't it? After all, as even Obama acknowledged at his first post-election press conference, he is not yet the president and he has not yet placed his people at the executive branch agencies and departments, let alone the independent agencies like the FCC.

And from what we can gather, one-time cable and cell phone lobbyist Tom Wheeler, who chaired the meeting, was a bit heavy handed, making it clear that he wanted money from the broadcasters and the cable operators for call centers.

Anticipating objections, Wheeler reportedly argued that broadcasters can't refuse because they use billions of "free" spectrum and cable operators can't because they are picking up new subs as consumers give up on their antennas.

Perhaps Wheeler hasn't been paying attention to what broadcasters and cable operators have done. They have given over countless hours of air time for PSAs and other DTV educational efforts -- time whose value must run into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Recognizing that a smooth transition is in its own self interest, the NAB has also poured several million dollars into its DTV awareness efforts, including a five-person DTV office, a four-person "road show" that has logged 95,000 road miles carrying the DTV message to community events across the country and a speakers' bureau that can deliver a DTV expert to any Rotary or Lions Club meeting on short notice.

But it appears that the Obama folks have already concluded that all that isn't enough. No recitation of broadcasters' in-kind and cash contributions to the cause to date is likely to change that.

So, broadcasters need to dig deep into their reserve fund to come up with extra cash to fund calls centers or whatever else the Obama people believe is needed.

It will help in the transition and it will buy badly needed goodwill with the administration and the next FCC chairman in the coming policy battles.

With retransmission consent reform on the 2009 agenda, I don't think broadcasters want to be outspent here by cable.

Broadcasters have a reputation among Washington Democrats of being takers. They take spectrum and they take other government benefits like must carry, but they give little back. It's a grossly unfair perception, but it's there and it's deeply ingrained.

Stepping up with more cash for the DTV transition could be part of a broader campaign to scrub broadcasters' image among the people who matter for at least the next four years.

The NAB has accumulated a large reserve fund, piling up the big profits of its spring convention year after year. Using several million to ease the DTV transition and to win favor with Obama administration makes sense.

Given the current state of the economy, I can think of no better investment.

P.S. A discouraging aspect of this matter is the secrecy surrounding it. Nobody from the administration would talk about the meeting, and the industry sources that did were fearful of being identified.

Every administration comes in promising, to one degree or another, openness in its dealings as a guarantee of good, honest government. Inevitably, the press and the public are disappointed. Government's natural inclination is to try to do everything it can out of public view. That's why we have journalism.

But, come on. DTV? This is not a matter of national security. Why can't the Obama team talk candidly about its meeting with the TV reps? Maybe Wheeler and company are embarrassed. Presumption and heavy-handedness, after all, are not attractive qualities.

Harry A. Jessell is editor of TVNewsCheck. You may contact him at 973-701-1067 or at hajessell@newscheckmedia.com.

Edit Article

Comments (4) -

Robert Thompson posted over 3 years ago
|
Jessell's revelation that the Obama's folks (who my entire family worked to elect) were not transparent in the recent DTV meeting is profoundly disturbing. I just sent an e-mail to a PERSON-WHO-CAN-CHANGE THAT. I hope he gets through to Wheeler that a cloak of secrecy is not a great start.
Frank Zappala posted over 3 years ago
|
Though it is easy to respond to this on an emotional level, and think only in terms of being offended and feeling obligated to "bribe" the next administration into making us there favorite nephew, This however, does not allow us to assess the real "opportunity" here. Let;s think in terms of leadership here. Not money for call centers, -- we will estaablish them and run them blunting the need for federal expenditure. Spend more time on helpling the incoming administration understand the "economic Value" of the broadcasting industry. Jobs in media Jobs generated by broadcasters economic activity. Then lets remember what this adaminstration has as its stated mission "Together -Yes We Can!!" Can anybody do a better job of bringlng people together than the broadcast media? Lets not acept the "taker" label, not just by giving money, but by showing leadiership.
don james posted over 3 years ago
|
Obama people probably are reluctant to talk to TV reps because the TV reps are, in the vast majority, and especially in their representatives, a reactive, small-minded batch -- just like all special interest groups. They would never do anything other than their narrow concerns seemed to dictate. It's just stupid as usual. Anyone who wants to take a fair minded look at the big picture is liable to be hated for it. And the arguments are too small to be worth considering, except from a distance, when it comes to special interests. TV types have already made it plain that anything approaching decency would be viewed as threatening to them. Hardly any wonder that sane people, looking for real solutions for the sake of the country as a whole, would try to avoid dialogue with the usual myopic special TV interest brats. Sorry if this comment was overly mild.
Arthur Greenwald posted over 3 years ago
|
Wait! Did I read this wrong or did my editor Harry Jessell just declare a more conservative political position than my own? While I agree that broadcasters should make every effort to cooperate with the incoming administration, writing a big check for "a call center" is an unreasonable response to a half-baked demand. What call center, to be set up where, to be staffed and trained by whom? A more sensible request and response would be to urge broadcasters to join with other LOCAL community service providers to set up their own LOCAL call centers, capable of answering LOCAL concerns with specific LOCAL information. Let the broadcasters determine the most effective (and economical) way to achieve this.

Today's Top Stories

Classifieds

The Market

Symbol Last Change (%)
Nasdaq 2905.66 +45.98 (+1.61%)
NYSE 8060.43 +115.00 (+1.45%)
S&P 500 1344.90 +19.36 (+1.46%)
Updated 02/04 4:02a ET Quotes delayed at least 20 mins.
Source: Financial Content

Ratings

Overnights, adults 18-49 for February 3, 2012
  • 1.
    3.9/11
  • 2.
    3.5/9
  • 3.
    2.5/7
  • 4.
    1.5/4
  • 5.
    1.5/4
  • 6.
    0.9/2
Source: Nielsen
Reviews
Opinions
Features
  • Robert Lloyd

    Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele, veterans of Fox's sketch comedy MADtv, have a new series of their own, Comedy Central's Key & Peele. It is a genial, at times almost genteel, half-hour in which the pair's obvious niceness shines through even their more pugnacious characters. (Key's version of road rage is to shout, "Selfish!") In a roundabout way, that's the point. The sketches are consistently smart and smartly acted and flow easily from ordinary premises to weird conclusions.

  • Hank Stuever

    Discovery's Bering Sea Gold doesn’t seem at first like it has crossed any new reality TV frontier, relying on elements and structure familiar to the form. Enticingly (to the network), it combines the ocean and the gold and the cold and the reactive testosterone among bad-tempered desperados. To which I am surprised to cry: Eureka, they’ve found it! Bering Sea Gold is a testament to how thoroughly absorbing the genre can still be, when it’s done right.

  • Neil Genzlinger

    All Star Dealers, Discovery Channel's sports-memorabilia addition to the bloated auction/pawnshop/storage locker subgenre of reality television, should have been a winner, with endless stories to draw on and a built-in fan base. But rather than find its own formula, it was content to borrow from existing shows, and it borrowed all the wrong things.

  • Joanne Ostrow

    Kiefer Sutherland displays his softer side in Fox's Touch, a touchy-feely drama merging paranormal, spiritual and sweetly familial elements. shows off his acting chops, long forgotten, in scene after scene. It's heavier lifting than usual for the actor who was often reduced to caricature in 24. Sutherland is all about vulnerability in a show whose goal is nothing short of proving the interconnectedness of human life. We'll see if audiences can tolerate the notion of profound interrelatedness as weekly entertainment.

  • Tim Goodman

    Let's jump right to the most obvious of all sentiments when it comes to HBO's new horse racing/gambling series Luck: Do not bet against David Milch in this one. Like a lot of HBO series, Luck will require patience. It's telling a dense story with nuanced characters and it doesn't feel the need to rush in, like a network series, and hammer home the main themes. But each episode is more enriching, more engrossing than the last and there's Hoffman's superb turn at the forefront, even though his story unfolds with the least rush. Luck is a smart and ambitious series that looks to truly pay off in the home stretch.

  • Mike Hale

    The timing of FX's animated series Unsupervised is unfortunate. A kind of reversed Beavis and Butt-Head — in which the teenage heroes, while losers in just about every way, are also social strivers yearning for suburban domesticity and dispensing Oprah Winfrey-style affirmations — it has the bad luck of coming along three months after the original was revived by MTV. The new show looks awfully pale by comparison.

This advertisement will close automatically in  second(s). You will see this ad no more than once a day. Skip ad