Contact
FCC-required political ad data disclosures won’t be searchable
Photo by AMagill/flickr.com
This article was produced by the independent, nonprofit news organization ProPublica.
The Federal Communications Commission voted 2-1 this morning to require broadcasters to post political ad data on the Web, making it easier for the public to see how as much as $3.2 billion will be spent on TV advertising in this election.
The files, which detail the times ads aired, how much they cost and whether stations rejected ad buy requests from campaigns, among other things, are currently available only on paper at each station.
The FCC rejected an industry push to water down the measure. But the adopted rule also has serious limits. For example, the data will not be searchable or uploaded in a common format.
The rule will first apply to affiliates of the four major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox) in the top 50 TV markets. All other stations will have until July 2014 to comply.
“(L) arge areas of some swing states, like Virginia, Missouri, Wisconsin and Michigan, could see an influx of advertising in markets outside of the top 50,” the Sunlight Foundation noted in an analysis today.
(ProPublica has invited readers and other journalists around the country to retrieve the paper political ad files so we can post them online for all to see. We’ll continue to collect files from key markets not covered by the ruling. Sign up if you would like to contribute. )
Then there’s the crucial question of the format in which the files will be available. FCC spokeswoman Janice Wise told ProPublica that the commission is not creating a searchable database of the political ad files.
“We’ll accept whatever (file) format they provide,” she said in an email.
That will make it much more difficult to analyze the information.
Wise said there are no specific plans to make the database searchable.
By opting to allow stations to submit political data in any format, the commission departed from a recommendation made last year in an FCC working group report. The report called for the political ad files to be put online and that “as much data as possible (be) in a standardized, machine-readable format” that “could also enhance the usefulness and accessibility of the data.”
Also unclear is how the broadcast industry, which vigorously lobbied against the rule, will react.
“(W)e will be seeking guidance from our Board of Directors regarding our options,” the National Association of Broadcasters said in a statement decrying the vote.
In March, the industry group submitted a supplemental statement to the commission raising “serious questions about the FCC’s authority” to require stations to put political ad data online.
“That was written as a legal memorandum, which is code for ‘we’ve lawyered up, and we’re ready to sue over this,’” says Andrew Schwartzman, a longtime FCC watcher at the Media Access Project.
The broadcasters’ group declined to comment beyond its statement.
On a Thursday earnings call for Belo Corp., one of the companies that has been fighting the disclosure measure, CEO Dunia Shive suggested that broadcasters would continue to fight the new disclosure rule.
“I don’t think the conversation is over with respect to being able to continue talking about if we will ultimately have to include ad rates online,” she said, Broadcasting & Cable reported.
Belo spokesman R. Paul Fry told ProPublica that the company merely “want(s) to continue the dialogue on this subject.”
The FCC also said today it would review the new rule after a year to see whether any changes need to be made before all stations are required to come into compliance in July 2014.
Wise, the FCC spokeswoman, said stations in the top 50 markets will have to start posting files 30 days after the Office of Management and Budget approves the rule. She said the FCC does not expect approval to take long.
11 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Yes, Dr. J, it does matter. As usual, your blanket assertion that I “would attack the category regardless of specifics, Big Business Evil, etc.” categorically proves that you have absolutely no idea what I (or other liberals) actually believe. You have distorted and distilled nuance into sound-bites, and have frankly taken the intellectually-lazy way out; it’s far easier to believe that all groups on one side of the political spectrum or within a particular field of expertise have the same motivations and credibility than it is to realize that they all have very specific goals. It’s also far easier to believe that the typically-short-on-funds (to say nothing of low-efficacy) environmental lobby is still somehow managing to give donations to politicians at anything remotely resembling the levels that their opposition is, despite multiple people having provided you with evidence to the contrary. These are ridiculous assertions, and easily disproven ones; for example, the “green” technologies that you are constantly dismissing out-of-hand? The majority of companies developing them aren’t new companies trying to compete with traditional energy companies; they are the traditional energy companies, doing what business does; expanding. Unlike you, they are not lacking in foresight, and they donate to both sides of the aisle for varying reasons. The fact that you are thinking that knowledge of specifics is only relevant in terms of retribution or other negative purposes or that a Federal agency failing to provide ease-of-access to the American people for information that it is their right to have is no big deal makes me wonder at your own motivation.
IP, I don’t need to know exactly the enviro-lobby organization or union that supports and pays for various left wing Democrats. I also don’t need to know exactly what amount of money they pour into their campaigns. The same goes for the right wing corporate supporters. Does it really matter to you if it is GE, ExxonMobil, BP, Microsoft, etc. that is paying for their own self interests, which is obvious? You would attack the category regardless of specifics, Big Business Evil, etc. The categories or political buyers is clear and is reported anyway without this FCC rule, and is such a small number of people and organizations, it is easy to guess if you see what any candidate is spouting as his “position” and “policy” on most any issue, or who the ad is attacking. I know the left wing thinks “exposing” these things for right wing candidates makes a difference and “shocks” their minions into action, but I doubt it. Specifics might be good if you want to organize a boycott or other retribution to punish those who disagree with you, but that is hardly ever effective and thus a waste of time.
“…we already know the answer to the question of who is funding the various candidates.”
This is the second time you’ve made this assertion, Dr. J, and I find it rather bizarre; for starters, no matter how hard you try, the world really isn’t as dichotomous and simplistic as you make it out to be; for another, are you honestly telling us that you automatically know the specific individuals and organizations paying for every single piece of political advertising you see, and in what amounts? This is a truly impressive – indeed, a nigh-on prophetic – talent, one you could easily market on late-night TV alongside ads for telephone psychics.
Thanks stever, I suspected as much, especially after I looked at this info on their clean, non-agenda driven stuff:
http://www.propublica.org/investigations/
Dr J, ProPublica is one of those non partisan independent groups. Largely funded by the same people who started the Center for American Progress. So its all nice clean nonagenda driven stuff.
And as to this “article” (and the one preceding it here), it is nothing but an ever so thinly veiled advertisement for raising money for ProPublica, whoever that is, that Heath is running for free.
Thanks for your long, but effective answer, I am not as knowledgeable as you about the FCC and broadcasters responsibilities, that is why I asked the question. I was merely speaking as a citizen envisioning how such a thing could bring improved quality and utility to my life. OK, so far we have the fact that broadcasters would have to pay for this, not us taxpayers, that is reassuring at least. Sorry, but in science I know of numerous databases that are not searchable, perhaps the word means something different to you than to me based on my experiences. Perhaps I should call mine “records”, but they consist of data that many times is in digital form, but are not organized in such a way as to be searchable by a computer key word, as in Google, but I digress. You still have not answered what great utility this searchable data would be to us citizens. When your answer is: ”.but the answers are obvious to anyone who wants to see them.” I have to say I can’t see them, so enlighten me as to the significant improvements in our lives and knowledge this searchable function would be since we already know the answer to the question of who is funding the various candidates.
@ Dr. J: The question I would ask is who would pay for all this (taxpayers vs. broadcasters), and I would also like to know how much it costs, for a proper cost/benefit analysis since the benefits seem very slim indeed.
1. The broadcasters who have licenses to use the public airwaves have several reporting requirements in the public interest. This is one of them.
2. In my opinion, the public has given these licenses away on the cheap.
3. Note that without Government Regulation, none of these licenses would be worth a plug nickel. In an unfettered market the big dog with the big transmitter would rule the day. Remember some of the high power radio stations that used to transmit into the US from Mexico?
4. So pay attention, here, Dr. J. The broadcasters already have to collect and report this data. That is a separate argument. What they have done is they have actually spent additional time and money to make the required report difficult to read and use. More unnecessary market friction. It actually costs the broadcasters more (in the short run) to obscure the data.
@ Dr. J:So what would you do if the database was searchable?
Dr. J., a database that is not searchable is not a data base. I could go on, but the answers are obvious to anyone who wants to see them.
As ever, Michael J. Flynn
I don’t see the big deal here. We all know who is paying for the liberals vs. the conservatives political ads (unless you have been living under a rock the last 50 years), there is no big secret, it’s the same special interests who have been paying them for decades in all areas of political campaigns. So what would you do if the database was searchable? Expose the business special interests for funding the conservatives and the enviro-lobby and unions funding the liberals? Big Deal. The question I would ask is who would pay for all this (taxpayers vs. broadcasters), and I would also like to know how much it costs, for a proper cost/benefit analysis since the benefits seem very slim indeed.
Totally agree with Mitch. Good progress Too bad it’s not searchable. This will keep some researchers busy (who will pay them?) putting this on websites and making it searchable. But good progress.
I don’t accept the Court decision, though. I think that with one more sensible Supreme Court Justice the Citizens United decision can be reversed.
This is one of those defining moments. We Democrats want transparency. The other side does not. (The vote: 2 Democrats for, 1 Republican against.)
I am resigned to the money is free speech argument (I don’t agree with it, but let’s move on). I can accept that we’ve gone away from the Fairness Doctrine where the little guy at least had a chance (a fair chance) to respond in kind when some rich guy Swift Boated him.
But, please tell me, if your argument is so convincing, why are you afraid to sign your name to it? I say put up or shut up. The argument about ad rates is baloney. Anybody who is a player knows what the ad rates are. Of course, we all know that the radio and TV industry have a notorious history of payola, where the published rates really don’t necessarily mean anything. But, again, the players know what to pay to play.
So, let’s hear from the other side (the Republican side). What logical reason is there for taking the trouble to put electronic data on to paper and then to charge up to 50 cents a page to copy said paper? This attack on the Free Market is called Market Friction. That’s where you put up artificial barriers to the logical consideration of alternatives, or the access to the most obvious logical alternatives because they are denied to the logical consumer by fees, obstruction, and other methods of market friction (market fiction).
Not afraid to sign my name and stand by my ideals, Michael J. Flynn