FURCHTGOTT-ROTH SEEKS TO CLARIFY AND SEPARATE BIG
    GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST FROM THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE
                  DEBATE OVER THE DEBATES
  
          While Big Government is Interested in Limiting Viewing Choice to the Presidential
          Debates, the Public Interest is Served by Diverse Viewing Choices.
  
       Some in Washington believe that diversity of programming is good except when
  politicians debate. The suggestion that all broadcasters must provide live television
  coverage of presidential debates is equivalent to the suggestion that all Americans must
  have no choice of alternative television programming during the debates.  Millions of
  Americans chose, for example, to watch baseball on NBC or entertainment programming
  on Fox or on countless cable networks rather than watch the presidential debate.  Other
  Americans simply chose not to watch television at all.  This is, of course, their choice to
  make, and it is the concomitant right of broadcasters to meet those market choices.  It is
  not the responsibility of the FCC to compel Americans to watch television, nor should it
  be our responsibility to limit their programming choices to the debates when tens of
  millions would prefer to watch any number of other legitimate programs.
  
          While Big Government May Be Interested in Lobbying for New Legislative
          Obligations on Broadcasters, the Public Interest is in Having the FCC
          Implement the Law as Written.  
  
  Some FCC officials have recently called on Congress to change the law governing
  the transition to digital television.  The American people hired the Commission to
  implement and enforce the law as written, not to lobby Congress to have it changed. 
  What confidence can the American public have in a law if those responsible for enforcing
  the law publicly complain that Congress erred in writing it?  Or if those charged with
  implementing the law attempt to use the government pulpit to coerce parties to follow the
  law they believe Congress should have written?   Congress has no shortage of expert
  information from competing interest groups, and that information is all the more
  compelling when the FCC is implementing the law as written.
  
          While Big Government May See the Digital Television Transition as an Opportunity
          to Extract New Concessions from Broadcasters, the Public Interest
          Supports Tailoring Existing Public Interest Obligations to the Reality of
          the Current Multitude of Voices in the Marketplace.
  
  Decades ago, in the 1940s and 50s, when broadcasters were literally the only show
  in town, the FCC believed it could address any societal ill by placing new public interest
  obligations on the broadcast industry.  The legitimate basis for such regulation, if it ever
  existed, has long since evaporated.  Today, the public receives print, audio, and video
  information from a variety of sources. Tomorrow, the public will have even more choices. 
  Public interest obligations that apply to one industry alone will do little more than divert
  audiences to other media, and simultaneously drive business interests away from that
  media.  Calls for additional public interest obligations are based on a 20th century view of
  regulation by micro-management, more appropriate for a museum of well-intentioned-but-
  failed ideas than for a modern regulatory authority.   
  
                           #####
                              
  If you have any questions regarding this release, or Commissioner Furchtgott-
  Roth's views, please contact Bryan Tramont at 202-418-2006 or BTramont@FCC.gov.