There is limited justification for this increase provided in the consultation document – a reference to the fact that ‘other countries are doing it’ and that broadcasters are under pressure in the current economic climate. Restrictions on types of advertising allowed during children’s programming, and frequency of advertising breaks during news programming, are dealt with in a different Code, and no mention is made in this proposal of limitations in amount of time to be devoted to advertising during either of these types of programming.

I’m in the process of preparing a submission in response to this proposal and would welcome feedback, as well as collaborators.

I was reminded of this today when I saw this tidbit from Inside Radio (the story itself is behind a pay-wall):

AG: Talk show not contribution.

Maryland Attorney General’s office says it doesn’t consider a radio talk show a campaign contribution. WBAL, Baltimore talk host and former Republican Governor Robert Ehrlich has said he plans to remain on the air until he announces his bid in July to reclaim the governor’s office. Several Democratic groups protested his radio show, saying WBAL was giving Ehrlich an unfair advantage.

Radio stations are, during an election campaign, subject to the Equal Time rule, which requires (with certain exceptions) that stations provide time to all candidates under the same terms and conditions. The rule is codified in 47 USC 315. That rule, though, only covers ‘legally qualified candidates’ so there’s a loophole as:

Ehrlich has declared his intentions to run for governor and has started campaigning but has not yet officially filed his candidacy.

(In an added absurdity, Ehrlich actually has a campaign spokesperson, who is issuing statements about the issue that are clearly part of a campaign for office: “We were confident all along we were right in our position. And we hope now that everyone can focus on the issues that are important to Marylanders which are lower taxes and creating new jobs.”)

Those stations which hold non-commercial licenses (WBAL holds a commercial broadcast license) from the FCC are also banned, by FCC regulation, from selling airtime or airing ‘calls to action’, which largely prevents the airing of campaign ads. Further, many non-commercial stations are organized as 501 (c) 3 organizations, and so subject to IRS regulations that restrict political activities.

With this story, despite the advice from the office of the (Democratic) Attorney General that the show should not be considered a political donation to Ehrlich, we are reminded that state electoral financing rules might also affect what can, or cannot, be aired, and that the situation might differ state by state.

Incidentally, WBAL is covering the story heavily online and over the air today – together with another where Ehrlich’s non-candidacy status is actually hampering him somewhat, as supporters are being cited for zoning violations, for large (32-square foot) signs that don’t fall under the exception for election candidates. You can’t always have it both ways….

The claim from those pushing product placement is that banning it puts EU producers at an economic disadvantage. In a recognition of the serious problems with product placement, “advertising of products will not be allowed in news, current affairs, documentary, advice and childrens’ programmes.” The notion that news or documentary programming could contain product placement hadn’t really occurred to me previously – I suppose I should be grateful that the bar has been set somewhere, even if it is rather low. Another requirement – that “signals must appear when a programme containing product placement starts, when it ends and after commercial breaks” – may also have some limited value.

Other parts of the regulations may appear to offer protections in related areas, but again the bar is fairly low. For instance, commercial breaks “will be allowed every 30 minutes in TV films, cinematographic works and news programmes – but must not exceed 12 minutes an hour.” Existing Irish regulations set 45 minutes as the maximum frequency of breaks during films. Depending on how the regulation is worded, this 45 limit may be able to continue or the Irish authorities may be required to lower the floor to 30 minutes.

On the topic of the BBC, it’s interesting to see that they have added advertisements to their website when viewed from outside the United Kingdom. Funding is always a complicated issue, and this move has been the subject of much debate, though advertising has seemed inevitable for some time, with ‘consultations’ mainly aimed at gauging reader resistance to the move. The rationale given is that the license fee only covers services to users within the United Kingdom, and with ever stricter EU regulation of this area, some other revenue source was needed for the service to overseas audiences. An explanatory note on the BBC site notes that “the inclusion of advertising on the website when viewed from outside the UK will create revenues which can be used to develop better content and services for both UK and international users.” Just how the cost allocation and revenue allocation will work is unclear, but I’m guessing that international internet connectivity would be one of major costs that would be initially met from advertising revenues. The issue of subsidising general services (such as programme production) from this revenue stream is somewhat problematic – advertising has a habit of colonising that with which it comes in contact.

In terms of alternatives that might have been considered, I would note that the world service is traditionally funded directly by the British government, but that is also a problematic solution, as the rationale for that is that the world service is part of the government’s propaganda activities (politely termed public diplomacy).