With the demise of analog television fast approaching, over-the-air broadcasters have made a lot of noise lately in favor of educating America's television viewers about the digital transition.
This is welcome news, since many people--including myself--have a lot of questions about the future of terrestrial digital broadcasting.
Perhaps, as broadcasters gather for their annual meeting in Las Vegas, they might find time to put their heads together and provide a few answers to our burning questions.
My questions go beyond DTV tuners, reception, hook-ups, and how to get those retail store salesmen to tell customers the truth. In a nutshell, I want to know what you plan to give me in exchange for the use of my spectrum.
When I say "my spectrum," I mean the tiny sliver of the airwaves that I theoretically own with the rest of the citizens of the United States. In case you broadcasters forgot, we loaned that digital spectrum to you in exchange for some kind of public benefit.
Forgive me if I seem impertinent, but I'd really like to know--once and for all--what I'm receiving in this national "quid pro quo."
Before you answer, let's cut the whining I've heard lately. Don't tell me it is costing you dearly to convert to digital technology. You think this, we--the public--should go easy on you and not be too demanding. Oh please!
Some of us still remember the history as it occurred (not the version circulated by broadcast lobbyists in later years). You asked for digital television. Yep, you lobbied for it. Big time.
You warned it was essential for your survival. Then, when Congress believed your pleas, you took over two decades to implement today's highly compromised system.
So please, spare us the whining. Live with it. You got what you lobbied for. Any threats to your long term survival came from your own reluctance to take risks by investing in emerging technologies.
YEA, VERILY
Technology has always giveth and taketh away. But then you know that.
Back to the issue of what we get for our spectrum. Your warm and fuzzy concept of "public service" is too vague. It's time for some straight answers about why you deserve the public's resources.
Most of you shouldn't, at least with a straight face, say your news programming counts as public service. That might have been the case in the ancient past, but what have you done for me lately?
Remember, the FCC is currently investigating 77 televisions stations for airing fake news stories. And even after that investigation itself became news, 46 stations were again caught doing the same thing.
It's clear that too many of you still don't understand the difference between original, genuine news reporting and corporate or government-funded propaganda videos that pretend to be news.
We've also learned that bigger doesn't make better. Your consolidation of ownership certainly hasn't improved news. Research last year by the Center for Media and Democracy found that more than 80 percent of the stations found to be doing fake news are owned by large media conglomerates.
These include stations owned by News Corp., Tribune, Gannett, Disney, the Washington Post Co., Sinclair Broadcasting, Media General and Univision.
Though the FCC's big shoe hasn't yet dropped yet on fake news, the once most trusted newsman in America--former CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite--sees a worsening climate for news. It's a place where honest journalists face round after round of job cuts while under constant pressure to do more with less.
"TV news could raise the floor of knowledge--and the viewers' understanding of the world," Cronkite said last month in a speech at Columbia University in New York City. But not with the budgets or time allotments of today's television.
"Business people need to understand that ownership of a news company involves special, civic responsibilities," Cronkite said. "Consolidation and cost-cutting may be good for the bottom line in the short term, but it isn't necessarily good for the country or the health of the news business in the long-term.
"To my mind, what best would serve the country and the free press, is to encourage ownership by entities that are dedicated to public service," Cronkite continued. "Companies that invest for the long haul and will serve their communities rather than just ever-greater profits."
Gosh, that's exactly what broadcasters are supposed to do in exchange for their licenses. In the early days, many did just that. Their community service constituted the trade for free access to our commonly owned airwaves.
So why isn't news and information, arguably a local broadcast's most important product, no longer the highest priority? Beats me, especially since we are seeing premium programming of all types gradually shift to pay services.
Yet, in the name of cost cutting, many local broadcasters continue to downsize their news operations and, with it, any remaining pretense of journalistic quality. Television's vast wasteland grows more vast.
Any campaign to educate the public about digital television should also explain how terrestrial broadcasters fit in the era of multichannel media. Not only should we be told how to reliably receive a digital off-air signal, but why we would even want to.
Within the ranks of broadcasters, it's long past time for some serious soul searching and a restatement of business values. Not a recitation of the public service values of your grandfather's station, but ones that fit a modern era when information is everywhere and distribution of network signals is no longer a station's primary business.
Many of us are anxious to hear your plans for the future. We not only want to know why local off-air television stations still matter, but what's in it for us.
