It has already been a memorable year on Capitol Hill as the Trump administration carries out its agenda, including streamlining operations and cutting what it sees as fat in government spending.
Cuts and regulatory changes have stretched far into the broadcast world with the dismantling of Voice of America, the defunding — and subsequent pending closure — of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the scrutiny of certain media operations, in part via the Federal Communications Commission.
In addition to those current events, the fate of the AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act still hangs in limbo, and broadcasters are waiting to see what a shorthanded, politically divided FCC will do on media ownership and other issues in coming months.
To hear how some of these developments are affecting broadcasters, Radio World took a moment to check in with Curtis LeGeyt, president and CEO of the National Association of Broadcasters. We spoke to him on Aug. 1. LeGeyt’s answers in this Q&A have been edited for length and clarity.
Radio World: What is your prognosis for getting the AM legislation passed by end of this year?
Curtis LeGeyt: In spite of all of the focus of Congress on government funding — obviously, the “Big Beautiful Bill” — we feel like we are poised for the House Energy and Commerce to take up this bill and consider it as soon as Congress is back here in D.C. in the fall. Then we’re going to be pushing to get floor time in both the House and the Senate for this bill.
The reason I feel confident we will get that floor time is because of a broad bipartisan consensus — that in spite of all of the other issues on Washington’s plate, this is one that Washington needs to deal with. I think that, unfortunately, recurring natural disasters provide a reminder to legislators — it feels like every few weeks — on the enduring power of AM. So we’re really confident about where we are right now.
RW: Why do you think this bill stands a better chance of passing now than last time?
LeGeyt: What I think is unique about this legislation, and why it’s uniquely positioned beyond just the co-sponsor numbers, is the fact that this is driven by public support. Over the course of the last year and a half, more than a million AM radio listeners across the country have reached out to their members of Congress, either through direct email communications or through social media, to amplify the importance of AM radio [in] their everyday lives, especially in times of disaster.
You know, we’ve got 125 community groups — ranging from local emergency responders to the AARP and National Urban League — across the political and ideological spectrum who believe in the importance of AM radio in times of disaster. This has become a mission-driven cause that extends far beyond broadcasters. I think that’s what distinguishes it in Washington right now from a legislative perspective, and why I’m optimistic.
RW: What are your thoughts on the FCC’s “Delete, Delete, Delete” proceeding? Is it accomplishing what NAB feels should be accomplished?
LeGeyt: Well, you know, top of the list for us is modernization of the ownership restrictions that impact local radio stations. And we use the “Delete, Delete” proceeding to highlight the existential need for the FCC to modernize its rules. As you know well, radio today, these stations are not competing principally with one another. Radio is competing with SiriusXM, with Spotify, Pandora and Apple Music — all of which have global scale. And we are competing with them for audience and for advertising dollars.
We’re obviously competing with the tech platforms in a myriad of ways, yet we’re limited locally in the amount of programming options that our local stations can offer to listeners. That is an antiquated notion. These rules are premised on a world of decades ago, where broadcasters were only competing against other broadcasters for advertising dollars, for audience. So what we’ve said to the FCC in the “Delete, Delete” proceeding is that there is a laundry list of items that we would love to see the FCC take a look at. But they’re all sort of moot if they don’t level the playing field for us to compete with the tech platforms.
First and foremost, we recently received a really favorable decision out of the Eighth Circuit that I think tees up the FCC to address these radio rules head on. This decision eliminated a legacy restriction on local television broadcasters, the “top-four” rule, but most importantly for radio, it also very clearly gave Chairman [Brendan] Carr clarity that he’s got the authority to address these local radio rule restrictions, and that the congressional intent of the media ownership rules — with the statute that governs these quadrennial reviews that [Carr] needs to do by law every four years — is intended to be deregulatory. So we feel like the chairman has the directive he needs from the courts.
RW: What pieces of “outdated” legislation does the NAB hope will be addressed in the future?
LeGeyt: We’ve used the “Delete, Delete” proceeding to highlight the need to get the 2022 quadrennial review moving and to address those outdated rules. In addition, we do think that there are some other rules here that the FCC would be well served to take a look at. You know, our filing was fairly lengthy in this regard, but whether you are talking about the burdensome nature of EEO audits, the nature of the public file upload requirements and the burden that’s putting on stations relative to the ongoing public interest.
There are AM technical mandates, a number of efficiency standards — a lot of these rules are just dating from a time that is long past and don’t have the public benefits that the FCC intended when they put these burdens in place. We’ve asked the FCC to take a look and to eliminate those restrictions that no longer have a public use, a consumer benefit, yet are putting real strain on local stations who are bandwidth constrained, manpower constrained and need to be focused on doing what we do best, which is serving our communities and being boots on the ground.
[Related: “NAB Swings for the Fences With ‘Delete, Delete’ Filing“]
RW: Turning to more recent headlines, is it appropriate for the FCC to predicate license renewals and merger approvals on whether a broadcast company has DEI policies in place? Why or why not?
LeGeyt: Well, listen, we’ve been very vocal on the necessary independence of local broadcast newsrooms from government oversight. We put a filing in place in the FCC’s “60 Minutes” news distortion proceeding. I’ve been vocal on this in speeches that I’ve given at the Media Institute and otherwise. And you know that’s a holistic principle, which is that the First Amendment is in place to ensure the editorial independence of our stations. That is a first principle here, that neither the content of what’s on our airwaves, nor the business practices that impact who is on the air and local stations are within the purview of the FCC when it comes to license renewals or license station transfers. We will continue to reaffirm the law as it relates to the FCC’s actions in that regard.
You know I’m not sure I accept the premise of the question entirely, but I do think it’s important to say that the chair of the FCC … it is their prerogative to ask whatever questions they view within their purview. We are federally licensed stations, and I’m not going to opine on the nature of the questions he’s got. [It’s] within his prerogative to ask those questions, but I think it’s important to state that, to my knowledge, broadcast stations largely take their public interest obligations exceedingly seriously, and that certainly relates to their business practices. I think all of our members look forward to transparently engaging with this FCC to satisfy any concerns they might have.
RW: What is your view on Commissioner Gomez’s believe that this administration is running “a campaign to censor and control“?
LeGeyt: Certainly we have been outspoken on the necessary editorial independence of local broadcast newsrooms. And I know that’s something that she’s been very vocal on as well.
Radio World welcomes letters to the editor on this or any story. Email [email protected].
