Selling Candidates And Selling Airtime   

Some local stations are critiquing political ads, and others may be raising their rates to air them.

Political advertising on television is getting more attention this election year than ever before. And the reason is fraught with disturbing questions about journalistic integrity, station economics and government control of the airwaves.

It began in the wake of the 1988 presidential campaign when the media – local television news in particular – were criticized for not doing enough to expose the distortions and negativism of political ads. Some stations – and CNN – now analyze political ads but the practice is not widespread.

Meanwhile, candidates for state and national offices continue to complain about price-gouging by local stations, alleging they have been charged more for their commercials than legally allowed. When the Federal Communications Commission conducted a surprise audit of five major television markets in July 1990, it uncovered so many incidents of apparent overcharging during 1990 campaigns that some opportunistic members of Congress are calling for a law granting free airtime to anyone running for office.

The audit resulted in fines for several stations and sparked dozens of state lawsuits – including ones filed by successful gubernatorial candidates in Florida, Georgia and California – alleging intentional overcharging. Florida Gov. Lawton Chiles even wants the FCC to revoke the licenses of the CBS- and NBC-owned stations in Miami.

Pressured by a distressed broadcast industry, the FCC last December claimed exclusive jurisdiction in the overcharging controversy, forcing candidates to take their grievances directly to the FCC rather than to state courts. The FCC said it would determine liability, rebates and sanctions; candidates and states are fighting the agency's decision in federal court.

There is also disagreement over whether stations should be required to air political ads during newscasts. In December, the FCC reaffirmed a 1978 ruling giving stations the option to carry or reject such commercials. Most stations have refused to run political ads during newscasts, fearing it could undercut the credibility of their news reporting. But economic reality is changing that environment. By the time this year's New Hampshire primary and Super Tuesday were over, viewers were seeing some newscasts loaded with candidate ads.

"We don't see why a station wouldn't allow them," says Tom Bonnar, station manager of WMUR of Manchester, New Hampshire. "Certainly, a news program has the audience that is appropriate for political advertising."

"If we can make money that gets us through one of the worst recessions ever, I see nothing wrong," says the station's news director and former political reporter, Jack Heath.

WMUR, New Hampshire's only network affiliate, made $750,000 on political ads this year, some days airing 40 to 48 political spots during its early evening news hour. However, none of the three Boston affiliates, which blanket southern New Hampshire, carry political ads in their newscasts.

"We place them immediately before and after but never inside the news," says Stan Hopkins, news director at WBZ. WCVB News Director Emily Rooney says her station has "a longstanding policy" against airing ads between news segments "because it suggests candidates can buy their way into news."

Rooney's station, along with KRON in San Francisco, KVUE in Austin, WFAA and KDFW in Dallas and a few others, dissects candidates' commercials as part of its news coverage.

A year ago KDFW changed its policy and began permitting political advertising during newscasts, usually in the middle of a lengthy commercial segment. "The prime argument against running political spots in newscasts is that it supposedly blurs the line between objective journalism and advertising," says KDFW General Manager Jeff Rosser, "but I believe news viewers are sophisticated enough to distinguish the difference between a 30-second commercial and news content."

Rosser has a unique perspective. He was news director of two Boston TV stations before becoming general manager of a Birming- ham, Alabama, station that is now being sued for alleged overcharges during his tenure. His Dallas station was one of two hit with the heaviest fine by the FCC – $25,000 – after the unannounced 1990 audit. KDFW paid the fine for overcharging but Rosser believes it was unwarranted.

"We were fined specifically for not making rebates in a timely fashion," he says. "We..discovered we owed candidates $35,000 out of $2 million in advertising. Mistakes happen and we didn't intentionally attempt to cheat anyone."

Some observers believe the FCC crackdown, the lawsuits and the pending legislation on political ad rates may be an attempt to intimidate stations into acceding to politicians' long-sought desires for free airtime.

Perhaps, too, the brouhaha may constrain stations from implementing or continuing the critiques of political ads during newscasts. Wouldn't that make candidates happy? l