Wheeler’s Office Working On New Draft for CIN Studies, FCC Official Says

A House Communications Subcommittee aide said the study was put on hold while the commission works on a response to a December letter (CD Dec 11 p11) from Republicans including subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden of Oregon and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton of Michigan questioning the need for the study. The letter referred to the CIN study as a first step toward “Fairness Doctrine 2.0,” a reference to the rule -- defunct since 1987 -- that required broadcasters to give equal time to opposing viewpoints. The same comparison was made in Pai’s op-ed, which supporters of the study called out as uncollegial. “Every time the FCC does its job of examining the media industry, someone screams fairness doctrine,” said public interest attorney Andy Schwartzman.

Although initiated by former Chairman Julius Genachowski, the CIN studies have been strongly supported by Commissioner Mignon Clyburn and a field test of the project was implemented during her interim chairmanship. One FCC official said it was “unusual” for a sitting commissioner to attack another’s project as openly as Pai did. Pai’s op-ed was “uncharacteristically demagogic,” Schwartzman said. “Commissioner Pai was simply expressing his view about an important issue,” said a spokesman for Pai’s office. “Commissioners will disagree on issues from time to time, but they maintain warm personal relations.”

The CIN studies are intended to assess how broadcasters are meeting the information needs of underserved populations, including news, emergency information and other programming, said advocates for the studies. A field test for the study is planned for Columbia, S.C., and expected to be completed by this summer (CD Nov 5 p11). That area is where Clyburn had lived, and worked as a South Carolina Public Service commissioner before coming to the FCC, noted fans and foes of the CIN.

Pai needed to weigh in on the CIN studies through an op-ed because commissioners have yet to be given a formal opportunity to comment on the studies, said TechFreedom President Berin Szoka in an interview. “This has been pushed by two past chairmen [Genachowski and Clyburn] who never gave commissioners a chance to weigh in on this,” said Szoka. “The real story here is the process failure.”

Comparing the fairness doctrine to the CIN studies is “confusing a regulatory effort with a data gathering one,” said United Church of Christ policy adviser Cheryl Leanza, who has advocated in favor of the CIN studies. “This is data analysis, they're going to look at what the community needs,” Leanza said. “Don’t we want the FCC to understand the environment they operate in?” Gathering information before making rules is “just good governance,” said Howard University Professor of Communications Carolyn Byerly, who helped design the CIN studies. She said that similarities between the December letter from House Republicans and Pai’s lead her to believe “there’s a set of talking points out there."

"Comparing anything to the fairness doctrine is an easy way to gin up the troops,” said Daily Bridge Media CEO Stephen Waldman, who as an FCC official under Genachowski wrote a report on the future of media that was also compared to the doctrine. “No one is talking about the fairness doctrine but conservatives,” said Byerly, saying she’s unaware of any advocacy for doctrine-like policies among supporters of the CIN studies. There doesn’t have to be an overt plan to dictate coverage to newsrooms for the CIN studies to affect coverage, said Szoka, echoing Pai’s op-ed. Because of the FCC’s regulatory power over broadcasters, the mere act of a commission-sanctioned study asking questions about coverage could have a chilling effect, Szoka said. “The government being in the role of observer, actively collecting information will necessarily change how editorial judgment is exercised.” -- Monty Tayloe (mtayloe@warren-news.com)