logo
logo
Sign in

New FCC Ruling Sparks Controversy

avatar
Muhammad Nasir Aziz
New FCC Ruling Sparks Controversy

In the wake of a somewhat controversial FCC ruling this week, we see some interesting questions about media freedom arise. BLAKE & WANG P.A entertainment law firms los angeles dives deep into this thorny new problem.

Voting to disclose

The FCC vote will require stations to adequately label programming which has been sponsored by a foreign government. This is, in part, a reaction to the increasing awareness that consumers and the U.S media are being presented such programming with no disclosure of the foreign interests presented. Stations must now disclose government sponsorship, foreign political party sponsorship, instances where agents act on behalf of the same entities, and programing from U.S-based foreign media outlets.

The new rule passed with a 4-0 vote, indicative perhaps of the pressures felt as Russian and Chinese propaganda movements (and interference in U.S politics) become more subtle and yet more widespread. In turn, we’ve seen a panic over the knock-on effects on national security and democracy both.

Of course, foreign governments never have been able to directly hold broadcast licenses- merely lease time on stations, act supporters say is growing. All the same, this is a controversial step forward. 

Boosting transparency?

The move intends to boost media transparency and remain in compliance with the law, in an era where echo chambers and bias-tampering have become hot talking points. There is to be a standardized format and language used, and the disclosure will need to take place at the beginning and end of the broadcast.

Yet is it that simple? The National Association of Broadcasters has called it to drift towards “old world regulation at its worst,” and it’s not hard to see where their thoughts lie. This ruling, in effect, forces stations to disclose if they have dealings with foreign governments. It will also affect satellite providers, who often build foreign programming channels into their bouquets, many of which have some degree of international governmental sponsorship. Plus, of course, a key question- what about the internet?

The NAB also claims to have tried to make sure that the rules are followed only by those to whom they are relevant, without burden on sources that do not air this sort of content, but feel that they failed to at least some degree. 

The other issue at hand- redundancy

It’s easy to see the two sides here. One claims it’s a simple process to ‘merely ask’ if such sponsorship exists and apply a notice, others claim it risks offsetting foreign governmental interference with local governmental data harvesting, both of which have the potential for illicit uses and abuse. 

Yet there is a third, possibly unconsidered, angle to the debate- who watches broadcast anyway? We are clearly deep into the era of streaming as king, and the internet is by far the largest disseminator of ‘false news’ and entertainment alike. Yet this ruling can do almost nothing to approach this growing arena of entertainment and media without a drastic reshaping of the very nature of the net itself- which is unlikely to happen based only on an FCC ruling, albeit a possibly dangerous precedent at play.

So where does this leave us? While the impact is not likely to be a huge one, it does open the door to some uncomfortable questions that will need to be asked and answered as we forge ahead into the digital media generation. BLAKE & WANG P.A Entertainment Attorney Los Angeles will be watching this one with considerable interest.

Brandon Blake- Managing Partner Blake & Wang P.A.

 

collect
0
avatar
Muhammad Nasir Aziz
guide
Zupyak is the world’s largest content marketing community, with over 400 000 members and 3 million articles. Explore and get your content discovered.
Read more