The Federal Communications Commission's Mass Media Bureau in April 1998 renewed the licenses of four Denver television stations and rejected petitions to deny the license renewals that alleged the news presented by the stations was too violent. Although the Commission noted a "legitimate public concern" with respect to violent programming, it rejected the petitions after citing First Amendment concerns.

   Petitions to deny license renewal applications for the CBS, ABC, NBC, and WBN affiliates in Denver were filed in February 1998 by an organization called the Rocky Mountain Media Watch. Claiming that "the FCC has a clear responsibility to act to protect citizens from this unhealthy diet of information," the petitions presented the FCC with content analyses of the newscasts of the four challenged stations. Media Watch alleged multiple transgressions that were said to constitute "toxic TV news syndrome." Specifically, the petitions asserted that an excessive percentage of the news was devoted to stories about crime, disasters, war, and terrorism that did not present "an accurate mirror of reality."

   This disproportionate attention to violent topics, according to the petitions, caused the stations to devote insufficient attention to preferred news topics including the environment, local elections, arts, science, education, poverty, AIDS, and children's issues. Media Watch also asserted that the newscasts were unbalanced with respect to gender and racial diversity because "[w]omen and minorities are still under-represented on newscasts as authorities, experts, and leaders." The petitions further claimed that the stations devoted too much time to commercial messages, soft news, and sports.

Suggested Remedies

Although the petitions opposed renewal of the television licenses, Media Watch also suggested various other remedies as conditions for renewal, such as: (1) requiring PSAs during local newscasts alerting the public about TV news's unbalanced and unhealthy diet of information and its potentially harmful side effects; (2) requiring daily programming to teach "media literacy" during prime time; (3) mandatory education and training for the news staff regarding media violence and its effects; and (4) requiring stations to develop a plan, disclosed to the public, for improving local TV news coverage of local elections.

   Such measures, according to the petitions, would not intrude on any First Amendment rights. They stated: "FCC action is not a question of censorship; no one wants the government to regulate news content or interfere with broadcasters' First Amendment guarantees. The issue is beyond bad journalism...."

   Instead, the demands were characterized by Media Watch as a simple extension of established "public interest" concepts. The petitions noted that "the V-chip and rating system for TV programming are a clear acknowledgment by our society of the chronic harmful effects of distorted television imagery, especially violence." Petitions also noted that the public interest purposes of the Fairness Doctrine "remain self-evident," even if the doctrine is no longer enforced.

FCC Rejection

   The FCC rejected the petitions to deny in a letter ruling from the Video Services Division of the Mass Media Bureau that cited the First Amendment protections of broadcasters. It stated:

With certain limited exceptions not applicable here, licensees are afforded broad discretion in the scheduling, selection and presentation of programs aired on their stations, and Section 326 of the Communications Act and the First Amendment of the Constitution prohibit any Commission actions which would improperly interfere with the programming decisions of licensees. Because journalistic or editorial discretion in the presentation of news and public information is the core concept of the First Amendment's Free Press guarantee, licensees are entitled to the widest latitude of journalistic discretion in this regard.

   Although the decision categorically rejected a request for official oversight of local editorial decisions, it may not represent the last word on the subject of news programming and violence. First, the renewal decision was reached by a division of the Mass Media Bureau, not even by the bureau chief. The Commission is not bound by matters decided on delegated authority and could reject the bureau's reasoning if it chose to do so. Second, the ruling noted that violence in television programming "is a legitimate public concern" and referred to the V-chip requirements of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In this regard, researchers from the National Television Violence Study announced research findings in August 1998 that local news programs can lead to "elevated fears among children." They suggested that V-chip ratings requirements should be extended to cover news broadcasts. As a result, the Commission may be called upon to revisit this issue in the future.