Channels, Spring 2017

Page 16 Long • Promoting Public Interest conduct the contest substantially as announced or advertised over the air or on the Internet. No contest description shall be false, misleading or deceptive with respect to any material term (47 C.F.R. 73.1216 (2015)). Broadcasters who do not abide by these rules fail in their responsibility to serve the public by allowing accessibility to information. Broadcasters create accessibility by “Periodic disclosures broadcast on the station” and “[w]ritten disclosures on the station's Internet Web site, the licensee's Web site, or if neither the individual station nor the licensee has its own Web site, any Internet Web site that is publicly accessible” (47 C.F.R. 73.1216 (2015)). Further, broadcasters must make sure that all information is included, thus the need for “detailed” promotions and contests. Returning to the definition of public interest by exploring accessibility, the Commission has made clear the public interest must be served through equal access to contest and promotional information with requirements to broadcast all contest rules on-air or written on a website. The website disclosure option was not available until 2015 ( Amendment of Section 73.1216 of the Commission’s Rules Related to Broadcast Licensee-Conducted Contests , 2015). Even when web-based information was provided but was not yet an option for disclosing material terms, if stations failed to disclose all terms through “periodic broadcasts,” then the Commission faulted them for not serving the public interest (47 C.F.R. 73.1216 (2015)). AMFM included a brief mention of a contest as a part of a promotional spot about their rewards program, and the FCC labeled it as a broadcast of a contest susceptible to section 73.1216 ( AMFM Broadcasting License, LLC , 2009, p. 1529). The station announced winners of their rewards program before the advertised ending of the contest in the commercial. Though the contest was vaguely referenced in the rewards program commercial, the FCC found the station’s argument “unavailing” ( AMFM Broadcasting License, LLC , 2009, p. 1532). The Commission has repeatedly argued for clear direction by disclosing all contest rules. Clear Channel Communications, Inc. (now iHeartMedia) paid $22,000 for its Los Angeles stations when a contest was held on the station’s websites. Those stations ran advertising about the contest but directed listeners to the website and did not broadcast the contest rules. Thus, according to previous Commission policy, the stations did not properly disclose the rules, again, because websites were not permitted as discloser platforms until 2015. The Commission stated to Clear Channel that “we caution that the imposition of even higher forfeitures may result in the future if such misconduct persists” ( Clear Channel Communications, Inc. , 2012, p. 348). The precedent of equal access through proper communication channels has not changed although websites are now available as a discloser platform for material terms.