3
Fall 2007 Bulletin
Cable Companies Fined for Airing Paid-for Punditry
Armstrong Williams’ Programs Continue to Raise Controversy
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has proposed fines totaling $76,000 against two cable companies for failing to disclose that segments they aired featuring conservative pundit Armstrong Williams had been sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education.
According to a notice of apparent liability and forfeiture issued by the FCC on Oct. 18, 2007, Sonshine Family Television, Inc. of Bethlehem, Pa. and Sinclair Broadcasting Group, Inc. of Baltimore violated sponsorship-identification rules when they aired 10 shows in 2004 in which Williams talked about President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq., without disclosing the nature of the programs’ sponsorship. The rules on sponsorship identification are codified at § 317(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and § 73.1212(a) of the FCC’s rules. (For more on the FCC sponsorship-identification rules, see “FCC Fines ‘Fake News’” on page 16 of this issue of the Silha Bulletin.)
The FCC notice says Sonshine Family Television is liable for a total fine of $40,000 for 10 airings of five individual episodes of “The Right Side with Armstrong Williams” on its licensee station, WBPH-TV of Bethlehem, Pa. Sinclair Broadcast Group’s proposed fine is $36,000 for airing a single episode of “America’s Black Forum” on nine licensee stations, from Milwaukee to Tallahasee, Fla., in September of 2004.
According to the FCC notice of apparent liability, Sonshine Family Television told the FCC its agreement with Williams “called for payment of a nominal fee of $100” to the station for each broadcast, and therefore should not be considered sponsorship. The FCC countered that the small fee did not excuse the broadcaster from informing viewers that the program was sponsored, as both the Communications Act of 1934 and FCC rules “expressly provide that broadcast stations must identify the sponsor of material whenever they accept ‘money, service or other valuable consideration’ to air the material.”
Meanwhile, Sinclair Broadcast Group argued that “it simply did not know, and had no reason to know, that [‘America’s Black Forum’] required any identification,” according to the notice of apparent liability. The FCC responded that although Sinclair was not paid to air the program, § 73.1212(d) of the FCC rules states that broadcast stations must identify the sponsor of any materials or services furnished for use in connection with “any political broadcast matter or any broadcast matter involving the discussion of a controversial issue of public importance ... .” The fact that “America’s Black Forum” was political in nature, said the FCC, meant it required sponsorship identification.
Williams himself was criticized in early 2005 when it was revealed that he had signed a $240,000 contract with the Department of Education to promote No Child Left Behind on his syndicated television news and commentary shows and in newspaper columns. Williams did not disclose the arrangement to the distributor of his shows and columns. (For more on the Armstrong Williams ethics scandal, see “Problems in Media Ethics: Commentator’s Promotion of NCLB Leads to Questions of Ethics” in the Fall 2004 Silha Bulletin and “Pundit Williams Settles with Justice Department” in the Fall 2006 Silha Bulletin.)
Some have said the FCC has signaled a crackdown on stations that air sponsored news content without clearly identifying it as such. In a joint statement released after the FCC issued its notice, commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein said the action “places the industry on notice that the commission will act to ensure the public is protected from special interest groups who attempt to trick the public.”
- Patrick File, Silha Fellow and Bulletin Editor
University of Minnesota | College of Liberal Arts | School of Journalism and Mass Communication
