Dem FCC member requests investigation into Arbitron
From the Wall Street Journal:
A Democratic Federal Communications Commission member called Tuesday for the agency to launch a formal investigation of Arbitron Inc.’s new electronic radio-ratings system, raising the odds that the agency will look into the matter this year or early next year.
An FCC investigation would add significant pressure on Arbitron, which is already being investigated by the attorneys general in New York and New Jersey about the ratings system.
Minority broadcasters and interest groups say Arbitron’s Portable People Meter system significantly undercounts minority listenership.
Jonathan Adelstein, a Democratic FCC commissioner, asked current FCC Chairman Kevin Martin to open a formal investigation into the Arbitron system. “We have heard from numerous broadcasters and advocates for diversity that the continued deployment of [Arbitron’s new system] in new markets without accreditation from Media Ratings Council constitutes a clear and present danger to media diversity,” Mr. Adelstein wrote in a letter released Tuesday afternoon.
A spokeswoman for Mr. Martin said he had no comment on the request.
“Arbitron does not believe that the FCC has jurisdiction over the company,” a company spokesman said. The commission “lacks the authority to launch an investigation.”
The company says it developed the new system in consultation with the radio industry and the ratings-measurement company delayed rolling out the system in nine markets to address concerns.
Will this be another argument the FCC uses to bring back censorship via the “Fairness Doctrine” and “localism” rules? You bet it is. This is the next volley in an attempt to bring back “fairness” and “local” chilling influence on privately owned radio stations.
Why would this FCC member care about this, except to promote regulations on “fairness” and “localism”? Wouldn’t the marketplace — namely, radio stations and advertisers — be the best parties to determine the validity of Arbitron’s ratings system? They’re the ones footing the bill and making programming and advertising choices, not the FCC… unless the FCC soon gives itself and local advocacy boards the power to regulate content.
Arbitron does have quite the large share of the radio ratings market. However, as I argued in a previous post, anti-trust actions are the proper tool to deal with monopoly situations, not content regulation.
Notice also that the FCC member uses the key phrase “clear and present danger”. This phrase is from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes opinion in the foundational US Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States (1919). “Clear and present danger” is the test used by the Court to determine when the federal government can restrict free speech (although the test has been modified by the Court over the years).
In this case however, I believe the FCC commissioner is setting up the legal argument for reinstating censorship via the “Fairness Doctrine” and “localism” rules.
As Ronald Reagan said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”
Beware FCC commissioners bearing help.