[BC] Public File proceeding

[Mike Erickson]

On 6/13/06, Larry Fuss <lfuss2 at cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Information needed to file a license renewal wouldn't necessarily have to
> be
> in a Public File.  Keeping stuff in a certain format and in a certain
> place
> just to satisfy the Public File requirements, is a waste of resources.  As
> noted previously, nobody from the public ever shows up to look at it.  It
> is
> nothing but a paperwork exercise.


When you have to prove they haven't been serving the public interest over
the last few years... and looking to see they have NO issues and programming
lists.  That's not something you find online.


>
> > Usually it's an employee looking to trim the fat...
>
> As someone else pointed out, it's time that could be spent WITH the
> public,
> rather than doing paperwork.


At some remote handing out bumper stickers?

> If a radio or TV station took the time and has a public file which meets
> the
> requirements and is up to date, more than likely they are accountable for
> things that matter over a situation where nobody keeps a public file.
>
> That's a stretch.  I've seen stations with immaculate Public Files that
> had
> otherwise lousy operations.  And I've seen really great radio stations
> that
> had incredibly sloppy public files.  One has nothing to do with the other.


Most of the stations that have immaculate public files are stations that do
a good job serving the community.

One job I took back in 2001, the public file was the first thing I saw, it
was a mess.  Turns out, there was no local issues programming, looking
further, there were large gaps in EAS compliance, the remote control was
malfunctioning, yet they still maintained unattended operation and the
studios were a mess.  It took a few months to get it all together.  Now,
that station has an immaculate public file and is in total compliance (they
just passed an FCC inspection in late May).


>
> > Hey, that's what you signed up for when you purchased the station.  The
> public file is nothing new.
>
> Right, but there's no reason why something that is practically useless
> can't
> be done away with.  Or should we hold onto it "because that's the way
> we've
> always done it?"  That's what it sounds like you are saying.


We should hold onto it because it is one of the few things that holds
broadcasters accountable.  If you see it that way or not.  Yes, some
broadcasters keep it well organized out of fear, but I would rather have
that than no file and broadcasters did whatever they want.  The honor system
doesn't work with dishonorable people... and there are more than a few of
those in this industry.

=Mike Erickson=