FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NEWS MEDIA CONTACT:

February 15, 2005 Eric Bash (202) 418-2300

Email: eric.bash@fcc.gov

**STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN**

**ON NORMAN LEAR CENTER REPORT**

**ON LOCAL TV STATION COVERAGE OF 2004 CAMPAIGNS**

We owe a debt of gratitude to Marty Kaplan of the Norman Lear Center and
the USC Annenberg School for Communication for providing us with another
critical study on how local television stations cover campaigns in the
weeks preceding Election Day.

Judging by this study, many broadcasters are failing to fulfill their
responsibility to help their viewers participate in an educated way in
our democracy. This adds to the growing pile of studies showing TV
offers only the most cursory coverage of local elections. This should be
an embarrassment for broadcasters who pride themselves on localism.

The Lear Center studies are exceedingly important because roughly half
of the American public relies on broadcast and network newscasts as
their principal source of campaign information and news. This latest
report takes an important step by including data on a few
Spanish-language stations in several of these markets.

It appears many station managers subscribe to the philosophy "if it
bleeds, it leads," and "politics is ratings poison." Viewers are left
with a distorted picture of their own communities, and are left
ill-prepared to make choices that will shape their future.

Kaplan's studies are among the very best, and they are having a real
impact on policy deliberations at the FCC. If broadcasters take issue
with the findings, they have a responsibility to counter with their own
systematic studies. The deafening silence leads one to wonder if they
don't do the studies because they are afraid of what they might find.

We hear a lot of talk about promoting democracy abroad. Clearly, we also
have work to do on the quality of our democracy here in the U.S. In
2004, broadcasters took in \$1.6 billion in political ads, but gave back
only a pittance of real news coverage about the candidates who were
filling their coffers. Senator John McCain has shown tireless leadership
in fighting for campaign reform. But unless the broadcasters heed his
call to do better coverage on their own, the public is getting
shortchanged by those who are using their airwaves for profit but
apparently giving little back.

There are some bright spots, and some broadcasters are clearly doing
much better than others. The study identifies a number of political
programs that local television stations aired outside of newscasts. For
example, a number of stations aired debates among candidates or about
ballot initiatives, and hour or half-hour long shows about the races or
different propositions.

This study cries out for the need for stronger public interest
obligations to make [all]{.underline} broadcasters reach a higher level
of accountability.

Senator McCain, Chairman Powell and I last year called for better
coverage at the 2004 election. Apparently, many broadcasters did not
heed the call. While voluntary measures are preferable, results like
these underscore the need for the government to make sure the public
gets more back in exchange for the free use of their airwaves.

\- FCC -