Paul objects to FCC proposal to make stations put political advertising information online

Many elements of the Tea Party have been outspoken in favor of government transparency, but for the U.S. senators most identified with the movement, that does not extend to making political television expenses more accessible to the public.

Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky (right), Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Mike Lee of Utah "have asked the Federal Communications Commission to reconsider its proposal to have TV stations put their political files online," reports John Eggerton of Multichannel News. They were joined by Roy Blunt of Missouri and John Boozman of Arkansas.

The political files, which show who buys the time, how much and when, must be made available for public inspection at a station or cable-company office during regular business hours. The FCC is expected to approve April 27 on a regulation that would require stations in major markets to put the information in an online database. "Broadcasters argue . . . that to maintain an online, real-time system would cost staff time and money better spent on local news and other public service," Eggerton writes.

OPINION: That money could also be spent on executive salaries, shareholder profits or some other thing besides public service. In their letter, the senators said the proposal would carry "heavy compliance costs," but as someone who has inspected many of these files at stations, and is familiar with how the same information is already maintained electronically, it's hard for me to imagine that the compliance costs would be very high. And putting them online would make them much more accessible to rural journalists. –Al Cross, director, Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues

UPDATE, April 9: Because of complaints from stations, "The proposal will give smaller stations two more years to start uploading new additions to their files about political ad spending. At the outset, only the affiliates of ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox in the top 50 TV markets will be required to do so," reports Brian Stelter of The New York Times. "The FCC says the initial uploading will cost less than $1,000 for a typical station, and will save the stations money over time by avoiding printing and storage costs. The uploaded files will be searchable — but only inside one file at a time." (Read more)

Corie Wright, senior policy counsel for Free Press, which supports online posting, told Eggerton, "It's baffling that these senators would want to hide public information in dusty filing cabinets when it could be made available to their constituents via the Internet. The public wants and needs to know who's trying to influence them over the public airwaves -- and the FCC appears to be doing the right thing by bringing this antiquated system into the 21st Century."

Eggerton notes, "Putting the political files online is part of a larger FCC effort to move station public files online and into a database managed by the FCC that is more easily searchable by the public." (Read more)

News outlets are less inclined to take legal action for open government, but citizens are becoming more active, national survey finds

"While a lack of resources has made news organizations increasingly less inclined to file freedom-of-information lawsuits, citizens have a growing interest in government transparency and are becoming more active in asserting their right to government information," the Media Law Resource Center and the National Freedom of Information Coalition report after an informal, online survey conducted Aug. 9-15. It confirmed continuation of a trend first noticed in 2009.

"If ordinary citizens are becoming more aware of their access rights, and more assertive regarding them, it is indeed a reason to be gratified," said Ken Bunting, executive director of NFOIC. "However, if news organizations are trending toward being less gung-ho in an area once regarded as a matter of responsibility and stewardship, there is the frightening potential that journalism could suffer, as could the health of our democracy." For the NFOIC release and links to the study documents, click here.

After the 2009 survey, the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation created the Knight FOI Fund to pay initial expenses and fees for open-government lawsuits that the fund considers worthwhile.

911 calls: Better a matter of journalism ethics than state legislation

As the bill to ban public airing of 911 calls in Kentucky heads for passage in the state Senate, perhaps today, it gets national notice from Princeton native Al Tompkins, group leader for broadcast and online journalism at The Poynter Institute and a member of the Kentucky Journalism Hall of Fame. "It's a bad idea," Tompkins says, and explains why. But he also takes the topic beyond the legislative and legal realms into the ethical, where we think it belongs.

First, the reasons it's a bad idea, with links to examples: Airing 911 calls can "provide important insight into criminal cases;" show how dispatchers give bad directions, make these and other errors and ignore repeated calls; and reveal how people abuse the service. "It is nowhere near as effective if we do not have actual access to the 911 calls," Tompkins says of the last example, and it can also apply to his earlier ones.

Supporters of the bill say they're motivated by compassion for victims and their privacy. Those are factors journalists should consider before broadcasting 911 calls or posting them on Web sites, Tompkins writes in today's "Al's Morning Meeting" on the Poynter site: "One reason we may be seeing this kind of legislative blowback is because of the misconception that journalists only use 911 calls to make stories more sensational. My Poynter colleague Bob Steele and I wrote ethical guidelines for when and how to use 911 calls on the air and online."

That process starts with questions: "Does using the call help better tell the story in a way that is not sensational? Can the 911 tape illuminate broader issues about the 911 system and its effectiveness? Can using the tape help critically examine the 911 system or help illustrate how effectively the system works? Other concerns include the age, mental capacity, community prominence and situational stress of the caller, and the potential impact on the caller and family." Tompkins and Steele offer many other questions and considerations. For their full set of guidelines, click here. A click on that link could help you make a better decision -- and perhaps, if this bill fails, avoid providing ammunition for similar measures in the future.