Copyright 2000 The Kansas City Star Co.
THE KANSAS
CITY STAR
January 31, 2000, Monday METROPOLITAN EDITION
SECTION: OPINION; Pg. B6
LENGTH: 449 words
HEADLINE:
FCC goes too far
BODY:
The Federal Communications
Commission has stirred the ire of
religious broadcasters by issuing what it
calls a rules
clarification. There is no doubt it was poorly handled, even
if the
threat to religious broadcasting seems minimal.
The matter arose in a TV license-swap case in
Pittsburgh. In the
process, the FCC told a religious broadcaster that if it
wanted a
license to operate a noncommercial TV station, it would have to
devote at least 50 percent of its regularly scheduled air time to
educational programming. So far so good.
But then the FCC, in a
split decision among commissioners,
defined what it meant by educational
programming in a way, said FCC
Chairman William E. Kennard, that "simply
clarifies long-standing
FCC policy "
Such
programming, said the FCC, cannot be "primarily devoted to
religious
exhortation, proselytizing or statements of personally held
religious views
and beliefs." It was a curious addendum that struck
many religious
broadcasters as hostile to free speech.
The FCC erred by sliding this
kind of important definition into a
small section called "additional
guidance" in a long ruling. But it
seems like an overreaction for Rep.
Michael Oxley, an Ohio
Republican, to announce he will introduce legislation
overturning the
FCC ruling because, he says, "the FCC has no business
suppressing
the expression of religious belief."
Well, let's all
take a deep breath. First, only a handful of
religious broadcasters control
noncommercial TV licenses to which the
definition applies. No such
restrictions exist on commercial TV,
where most religious programming
occurs. Beyond this, there are no
such restrictions on the other 50 percent
of programming on
noncommercial TV. Religious broadcasters, if they want,
can fill that
time with nothing but sermons by televangelists.
Still, the government's power can be coercive. And the FCC needs
to
take a step back and rethink whether its definition of what
constitutes
educational programming should focus so much on religion,
especially when
religious freedom is such a bedrock value of our
nation.
The FCC's
ham-handed ruling undoubtedly will produce demagogic
speeches in Congress
and broad denunciations of the government by
others. A better idea would be
for calm minds to meet and produce
clear rules - especially in light of the
recent decision by
Cornerstone Television, the religious broadcast company
that wanted
the Pittsburgh station, to decline to pursue the license because
the
new rules "seriously jeopardized our ability to carry out our
mission of broadcasting Christian educational programming."
LOAD-DATE: February 1, 2000 
