L.A. TV Stations On Notice Of License Challenges Over "Redskins" // Directed to Respond by 10/10

WASHINGTON - Sept. 22, 2014 - PRLog -- The grounds, nearly identical to those in a similar license renewal challenge now pending before the agency, is that the repeated and unnecessary use of the word "€œRedskins,"€ which has been held to be a racial slur derogatory to American Indians in several official legal proceedings, is contrary to the legal requirement that the stations operate in the "€œpublic interest, convenience, and necessity."

The legal petitions assert that such repeated uses of the R-word - which Indians say is as derogatory to them as the N-word is to African Americans - is a far more serious, as well as deliberate, violation of federal broadcasting law than a momentary glimpse of a woman's nipple at a Superbowl show, the rare and unexpected use of nasty words in a completely non-sexual context (so called "fleeting expletives"), the playing of songs which some believe might tend to encourage drug use, and other situations where the FCC has or is trying to punish broadcasters.

A former chairman of the FCC, two former FCC commissioners, and almost a dozen other broadcasting law experts have concluded that repeated and unnecessary use of the R-word is contrary to federal broadcast law, and would be grounds to revoke or fail to renew the broadcast license of any station which repeatedly and unnecessarily uses the word on the air.

Indeed, former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt went so far as to declare that "Redskins" owner Dan Snyder is unfit to hold a broadcast license.

The current Chairman of the FCC, Tom Wheeler, has told Broadcasting & Cable that he himself finds the word "Redskins" €"offensive and derogatory"€ and that it "should go," while FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel has said she knows the racist word is offensive to many people, and she herself has concerns about its use on the public's airwaves.

While Chairman Wheeler said that he hoped voluntary action by broadcasters would make official action regarding the €"Redskins"€ word by the FCC unnecessary, that may be unlikely. Then, because the agency must hold a hearing on license challenges which raise serious issues, it is likely that the agency will be forced to take some official action, with at least two members having already expressed serious concerns.

Public interest law professor John Banzhaf, whose legal actions at the FCC forced stations to provide hundreds of millions of dollars worth of free time for antismoking messages in the 1960s, and who has been called "The Man Behind the Ban on Cigarette Commercials," has concluded that the word "Redskins" constitutes "profanity" - a word whose broad definition includes "swearing" and "swear words" - which by law may not be broadcast during prime time.

He said the word also constitutes "hate speech" - just like the word €"N*gg*r"€ which is virtually never used on the air - based upon a large number of studies showing that use of the word leads to physical and other harm to American Indian children as well as to adults.

"€œNo broadcaster today would permit the unnecessary use of racial slurs on the air, like '€˜nappy hair,'€™ a '€˜chink in the armor'€™ of an Asian athlete, etc."€ argues Banzhaf, and Paula Dean, Donald Sterling, Danny Ferry, Bruce Levenson, and others show that racist comments will no longer tolerated, even if they don't necessarily use a racial slur and don'€™t even appear on the air.

The stations whose licenses may be challenged - KCBS (Ch 2, CBS), KNBC (Ch 4, NBC), KABC (Ch 7, ABC) and KTTV, Ch 11, FOX) were given formal legal notice and asked to respond in writing by Friday, October 10th.

When Banzhaf helped put together a license renewal challenge likewise based upon allegations of racism against TV broadcasters in DC who refused to use African Americans on the air in significant roles as reporters and otherwise, several stations responded immediately, and agreed to begin featuring black reporters on the air for the first time.

Even lawyers who oppose using federal broadcast law and FCC license challenges to attack the use of racist words on the nation's airwaves admit that this tactic is likely to be effective, especially in the hands of someone like Banzhaf.  For example, broadcast law attorney John Garziglia told Radio Ink magazine that:

€œ[A]n adverse filing against a license renewal application containing such allegations does have the potential to further delay FCC action on the application. . . . The FCC often gets objections against license renewal applications regarding a station'€™s programming or other content . . .  the FCC will often take years to grant a license renewal application that has objections filed against it.  Because radio stations are subject to the heavy regulatory hand of the FCC, there are many ways for disgruntled individuals and groups to use the FCC'€™s regulatory processes as pressure. . . . Mr. Banzhaf is reportedly fairly adroit at manipulating the FCC'€™s processes."

Since the broadcast license challenges in DC and in California are based on racism, it is well to note that WLBT-TV had its broadcast license held up many years before eventually losing it over charges of racism, and WJIM-TV and WNAC-TV also lost their licenses on other grounds.

Even if the license challenges are not ultimately successful, they nevertheless usually hang like a Sword of Damocles over the head of the station, adversely affecting its credit rating, its ability to sell or transfer assets, etc.

Indeed, the license renewal challenge Banzhaf helped orchestrate over racism in DC was ultimately unsuccessful.  But long before the final decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals, virtually all DC-area TV stations made the major changes the petitioners had demanded.