Dingell Asks FCC to Probe Networks’ Use of Military Analysts
Two prominent Democratic lawmakers asked the FCC to probe networks’ use of military analysts to see if the analysts properly disclose ties with the Defense Department and companies that do billions of dollars in business with it. The probe was sought in a letter released late Tuesday by House Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell of Michigan, and Connecticut’s Rosa DeLauro, chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, the FDA and Related Agencies. The letter, sent to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, expressed “deep concern” about an April 20 New York Times report on the practices of 75 retired officers who appeared as “analysts” on cable and broadcast network news shows.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
The analysts may have violated Section 507 of the Communications Act by accepting “valuable consideration” from the military for talking on TV about certain subjects, the letter said. FCC rules also require stations to pass along disclosures of such ties when broadcasters are made aware of them, they wrote. A journalism professor and two lawyers opposing media consolidation said the practices described in the Times article raise ethical and perhaps legal concerns, especially for the ex-officers. The lawmakers said their acceptance of Defense Department-sponsored trips to Iraq, with airfare paid for by the department, may have violated sponsorship identification rules.
“While we deem the DoD’s policy unethical and perhaps illegal, we also question whether the analysts and the networks are potentially culpable” under the Act and FCC rules, the letter said. It appears the experts “were granted special access to senior civilian and military leaders directly involved in determining how war funding should be spent,” they wrote, which could make them feel “compelled, and at times eager, to convey specific Defense Department talking points… It could appear that some of these analysts were indirectly paid for fostering the Pentagon’s views.” Officials at CBS and NBC didn’t return messages to comment. Officials at ABC and the FCC declined to comment.
A Pentagon spokesman said the Defense Department temporarily ended the work with military analysts and is examining the program because of concerns from members of Congress and others. “We take that concern seriously,” he said. “All Defense Department public affairs programs need to withstand public scrutiny.”
The networks followed sound practices by always disclosing to viewers that the experts were retired officers, said Radio-Television News Directors Association President Barbara Cochran. “The viewer is not in any doubt about the fact that these folks often used to work at the Pentagon, and often on the air they'll say ‘I've been talking to some of my former colleagues,'” Cochran said in an interview. “That fills the bill for what the network [can] do to disclose” such connections, she added.
A journalism professor said such relationships should have been disclosed by the military experts to broadcast and cable networks and print media who interviewed them. “There is a huge problem here,” said Hofstra University’s Bob Papper. “We are at our best when we're the most transparent, and this is clearly a violation of transparency.” Media Access Project President Andrew Schwartzman said getting payments in exchange for speaking to the media, as the Department of Education did for Armstrong Williams, violates the commission’s payola rules.
“However, the military transports people all the time -- it’s the only way to get around Iraq -- so there’s obviously some very fine line,” said Schwartzman. “There is a limit on how much regulatory action is suitable here, and the FCC should investigate, but it should be careful.”
Free Press General Counsel Marvin Ammori said he wants an FCC investigation of the networks. “It’s worth an investment to look into whether or not they were turning a blind eye to any consideration they were receiving,” he said. FCC Commissioner Michael Copps also supports a probe, he said in a written statement issued late Tuesday. He warned against a “military-industrial-media complex… spinning the news through a program of favored insiders.”