Copyright 2000 Globe Newspaper Company
The Boston
Globe
June 21, 2000, Wednesday ,THIRD EDITION
SECTION: NATIONAL/FOREIGN; Pg. A3
LENGTH: 668 words
HEADLINE:
CHANGES ARE VOTED FOR PUBLIC TELEVISION BILL GIVES AIR TIME TO RELIGIOUS GROUPS
BYLINE: By Anne E. Kornblut, Globe Staff
BODY:
WASHINGTON - In a move that would allow
religious groups a greater role in public television, the US House voted
yesterday to abolish requirements that public broadcasters air a certain amount
of educational programming.
The religious broadcasting bill, backed by
the Christian Coalition, stirred a wave of protest among many House Democrats
and public broadcasters who fear it could fundamentally alter the nature of
taxpayer-funded television.
Massachusetts
Representative Edward J. Markey, a Democrat of Malden, warned that the
legislation could lead to the "most significant change in public television in
history," blurring the line between church and state.
But House
Republicans see the legislation, which passed 264-159, as a triumph for free
speech. The bill would forbid the Federal Communications Commission from
regulating the content of public radio and television stations. It also would
broaden the scope of who qualifies for a free television license, making
religious programming an acceptable format for public television license
applicants.
The 10 members of the Massachusetts delegation, all
Democrats, voted against the bill. Fifty-six Democrats and one independent voted
for the legislation, while six Republicans and one independent voted against it.
A similar version of the bill is pending in the Senate, where its
chances are uncertain. President Clinton is expected to veto the legislation if
it reaches the White House.
Coming the day after a Supreme Court
decision banning school prayer at high school sporting events, yesterday's vote
was received warmly by House Republican leaders, many of whom have long sought
to reduce funding for public broadcasting.
"The court may have banned
prayer yet again, but the House has defended religion on the airwaves," said
Representative J.C. Watts, a Republican of Oklahoma.
Nonprofit groups
qualify for a public broadcasting license if they promise their programs will
have one of three functions: educational, instructional, or cultural.
Yesterday's bill would add a fourth category: religious.
The
debate grew out of a case last year in Pittsburgh, in which a
religious group tried to obtain a noncommercial
broadcasting license. The FCC, responding to public concerns,
issued a directive clarifying existing broadcasting rules. Rather than requiring
organizations to have "primarily" educational programming - a vague requirement
that is rarely regulated - the FCC said licensees had to prove they were
devoting half of their programming to educational, instructional, or cultural
shows.
That directive prompted complaints from conservatives and
religious broadcasters, who argued that church services and Bible study
discussions should be deemed educational. The FCC withdrew the order. But
congressional Republicans, fearful that the FCC might act on religious
broadcasting again, moved ahead with the legislation.
"We will not have
government intervention" in religious broadcasting, said Representative Chip
Pickering, the Republican of Mississippi who sponsored the bill. "We will find a
value for the religious voice in the public square."
"From now on, the
commission will not try to dictate the content of religious broadcasting," said
Representative Billy Tauzin, a Republican of Louisiana.
There are 181
noncommercial public television licenses in the country, including WGBH-TV on
Channel 2 in Boston. Of those public television broadcasters, about 15 have a
religious theme or are part of a larger organization with a religious
affiliation.
Most religious broadcasters pay for commercial licenses,
which allow the licensee to play advertisements and raise money. There are about
245 religious television broadcasters in the United States, according to the
FCC.
Markey said that because religious broadcasters may buy commercial
licenses, their speech is not stifled. When it comes to public television
licenses, however, he argued that all broadcasters should be held to a certain
standard.
LOAD-DATE: June 21, 2000
