Today in our society, television runs ramped. Long since fulfilling its own version of manifest destiny, the TV show has colonized homes from coast to coast, and has even now pushed its territory past the television itself. But I digress, this research report is not about the large and lumbering tide of television into our culture, but more about trying to understand the rules and regulations that television has come from. It is my hope through learning the history, regulations, and general practice of the FCC that I will also begin to understand how television has evolved under political policy in the 50s and 60s.    

The Communications Act of 1934 replaced Federal Radio Commission (FRC) with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The Act gave FCC the authority to regulate not only television but also radio communications, interstate telephone and telegraph communications. The purpose of this Act was to help organize broadcast communications so it might better serve the public. Their duties included assessing giving and suspension of broadcasting licenses, reforming and amending the Communications Act, and performing research concerning the broadcasting industry.

Before going any farther into the conduct of the FCC, it is important to understand that the board changes with each presidency, and the President also determines that FCC’s agenda. The President has the power to appoint five Commissioners. The five are approved by the Senate, and headed by a Chairman who is also appointed by the President. Within the Commissioners, no more then three can be members of the same party. Since the board of the FCC changes with each elected administration, the goals, policies and agendas of each FCC committee are undeniably political issues.

Many of the issues that come into question are issues of indecency. It is around this topic that many people get a skewed view of the FCC, and with our culture having such a sensitive (if not sometimes contradictory,) relationship to “free speech” laws. Ideally the way the FCC has been working not to actively censor broadcasted media, but to respond to it. Responding more to complaints, this often steers the cutting issues of what is to be suitable for television. The FCC determines obscene and or indecent programming by reviewing if it’s:

“Language or materials that depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities or organs.” (Whitley and Skall, PG 58.)

If the FCC is to find a production indecent, or if any other complaints are made, they may respond with warnings, fines, or in extreme cases: suspension of broadcasting licenses. When an informal complaint is made, first, the party in question can choose to appeal by a hearing with FCC. The issues if still unresolved, can then be taken the FCC’s Review board, which appeals to the Commission. If unresolved the issue can be taken as far as the federal court. Fundamentally, the FCC’s duty is not to the individual but to respond to the concerns of the community. Formal complaints often come in form of petitions requesting a specific action to be taken by the FCC against what is usually an accusation of a breach against federal law or policy. These petitions are often backed by factual evidence. Like informal complaints the accused party is given a set amount of time to respond or appose the petition, but unlike informal complaints the FCC does not actively inform the party of when the response it due. Finally the FCC can either deny the petition or call for further investigation.

Not limited to responding to the complaints of the community, the FCC can also choose to make rules on their own (by issuing a Notice of Inquiry,) or by request of the public. With a Notice of Inquiry, the FCC investigates public comment or the particular problem, while a public request for a rule often comes in form of a petition. The Commission then often seeks public comment on these petitions. The process then goes back and forth between seeking public opinion, inquiries of how the movement might effect past laws, investigations, and voting between the Commission, all of which during this time the rule is being edited and refined.

Unfortunately all this caution and bureaucracy still leaves the FCC from infallible in the reflection of history. In the late 1940, after World War 2, the FCC had licensed out a number of stations to various cities. Regrettably, the stations were being broadcasted on frequencies that were to close to one another resulting in interference. In response to the issue the FCC in October of 1948 decided to put a hold on the distribution of new broadcasting licenses. This “freeze” was only expected to last half a year, but due the time, in the anticipation of the leap into color television, the FCC did not drop the hold till 1952. With the advancements in technology at point, a greater range of signals could be broadcasted, opening up more slots for new stations. Nearly seventy stations could be added to the original fourteen. It was this rapid expansion that help allow Television to reach its “Golden Age,” but by the end of 1952, only five new stations were up and running.

Back, shortly after the hold of licenses in 1948, came an important rule of regulation call The Fairness Doctrine in 1949. The Fairness Doctrine stems from earlier regulations back when the FRC was in place. This updated policy was past in public interest, requiring broadcasters to provide equal balance on apposing controversial issues, and that the broadcasters must dedicate a significant amount of time to the discussion of these public concerns. It is arguable in the name of public trust, that this doctrine did more harm then good by forcing broadcasters to be less harsh in arguments or criticism, and leading the public to believe either side of the issue is being portrayed objectively and aptly. It wasn’t until the August of 1987 that The Fairness Doctrine was found to unconstitutional because of violating the First Amendment rights of the broadcasters.

In 1961, under the John F. Kennedy administration, Newton N. Minow was brought onto the FCC Commission, and given the seat of Chairman. Upon taking his position within the FCC, Minow gave a speech that caught the attention of the public and the broadcasters’ to such a degree that it stands tall and proudly amongst television history. The speech has been remembered as “The Vast Wasteland,” for Minow’s metaphor to the content and value of television in the age he had came to office in. The speech itself put enough unconformable attention on the past corruption of the FCC that it caused a forced resignation from two Commissioners (one of which was a past Chairman,) for backhanded dealings with broadcasters. This speech also brought attention to educational television, and within two years of the speech 32 million dollars was given to its development. It was the discontent with the content of television programming that Minow’s Vast Wasteland speech is remembered most by. This dissatisfaction of Minow leads to the FCC giving the promise of more vigorous reviews of programming concerning the issue of license renewal. It is arguable that this added pressure on broadcasters to the extent of creating a competitive approach to television production, which in turn helped raise the quality of TV programming. Minow’s speech rallied career-fearing broadcasters to devote more attention to public affairs programs, improved children’s programs, and at the same time a reduction of violent action shows. “The Vast Wasteland” not only directed to what Minow expected of the FCC and of the broadcasters, but was also directed to the public as well. Minow commands the audience to expect more and demand more from their television. Telling them to ask for programs to broaden their horizons of thinking, to give more in the ways of education and culture, and to remind themselves, the public, that they are part of a community.

A year later after the Vast Wasteland speech, the FCC expands its jurisdiction of regulating into the domains of Cable Television. By 1966 the FCC forced cable to carry local broadcasting programs.

While the FCC continues to make reforms, and regulation decisions up into modern day, the Communications Act of 1934 remains mostly intact until roughly sixty years after it passing. The Act is then reformed with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, in response to new technological advances and technological demands telephones. Today the FCC regulates telephone, broadcasts, cable, and wireless industries, and also reviews the mergers of communications companies. They also focus on designating the frequencies used in the radio spectrum that wireless telephone companies can use to meet the demands of broadcasting calls and Internet data. It is needless to say that the FCC had a profound effect on television, some gleaming moments like the reactions to the Vast Wasteland, to the failures of the Fairness Doctrine or corruption within the FCC itself. In the end I choose to look at the FCC as a glass half full despite its faults and slow bureaucratic system, because in the end it was a system devised to exist for the national community, to bringing order to this new and grown organism that has been known to us as television, and it is through learning about the FCC that I am able to better understand and appreciate the constraints and context of archived television a little bit better.