Some people love the commercials on television and radio. Some find them an annoying distraction, especially political advertising in this election year. Fortunately for the latter, public broadcasting offers a respite from political ads.
But no good thing lasts forever. A U.S. appellate court panel has ruled that public broadcasting stations may accept paid political advertising and paid public issue advertising. It overturned provisions of a 1990 law that imposed the ban.
A San Francisco public television station had brought the case, complaining that the ban violated its First Amendment right of free speech.
The split 2-1 decision came at a sensitive time for two reasons. First, public radio and television stations in Maine and across the country face shrinking revenues as state and federal funding has been reduced and may before long disappear altogether. Second, political advertising money is suddenly almost unlimited, with the growth of newly permitted super PACs added onto already huge ordinary ads.
Public stations, with their strained budgets and with all that money begging for customers, may find political advertising a fierce temptation.
How will this affect the Maine Public Broadcasting Network? Its president, Mark Vogelzang, said that “it’s too early to say anything.” He noted that the decision applies only to the Ninth Circuit, which covers mainly certain western states and does not apply to Maine. He points out that even if the ban is lifted for Maine, accepting political advertising will be up to MPBN’s discretion.
MPBN board chairman Hank Schmelzer said, “The decision strikes down a law that has has helped for almost 60 years prevent the politicalization of public broadcasting. Suffice it to say, it’s a big issue that could completely change the nature of public broadcasting. We are following developments closely at this point.”
The law that the appeals court has partly overturned prohibits public radio and television stations from broadcasting advertisements for goods and services on behalf of for-profit entities, advertisements regarding issues of public importance or interest, and political advertisements.
Maine’s public broadcasting audience may sometimes think that the stations already accept paid advertising. They do not, but the accept brief and closely regulated descriptions of organizations that sponsor programs and supply much of the stations’ revenue.
The decision left in place the ban on advertisements for for-profit goods and services. It may be months before the Justice Department decides whether to seek a rehearing by the three-judge panel or a review of the case by the full circuit court or whether to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.
Unless the appeal process ultimately upholds the full ban on commercial advertising on public stations, the appellate court’s decision remains a threat to public broadcasting as we know it.
Count on the Far Right to jump on this as another tool for attacking public broadcasting. It is never happy to see Americans unite in any collective efforts that might compete with private profiteering. Remember how Reagan’s deregulation of the telecoms was supposed to bring us lower prices and greater access? Now radio and TV may just not be worth tuning into without constant interruptions by the most inane commercials and puerile political “messages”.
I can imagine a JCPenny ad that would fit if the Republican/MHPC/ALEC/Tea Party retains control of the Legislature in Augusta. That extremely annoying commercial that showed people screaming, over and over again.
Can MPBN find time to run political ads when they can’t find time to run local public service announcements?
Why are people horrified by the notion of public TV carrying issue ads when its documentary and public affairs programming already accept underwriting from foundations that have an ideological axe to grind?
The BDN, you see, wants to maintain control of the political message. Political advertising costs them this control. It is really as simple as that.
Time to grow up and share the sandbox, BDN.
Looks like a fairly reported editorial, brought up both sides of the issue. The decision 9a tough one) will be up to MPBN. That hardly represents control by the BDN.
I am still amazed at the people that stamp and stammer about the BDN’s biases. For two reasons. I very often see both sides being well represented, but if you feel this paper is too biased for your own liking why read it? Why not check out one of the other news outlets on the internet? The paper is here to make money. When enough people leave due to a bias eventually they will change their model.
But the right cannot use a bias defense when confronted with facts that disagree with their world belief if they did not claim the BDN is biased.