As a corporation, yes. And I'd apply the same rules as ought be applied to
the Web: the distinction between their own content vs. other people's content
they carry. The TV station, newspaper etc. should be limited in the amount of
advertising, support etc. they originate on behalf of a candidate. When
it comes to other people's content they carry (eg. ad time candidates buy, news
coverage, etc.), since that's not originated by them it doesn't count against
their limits so long as they treat all candidates equally. They don't
have to be absolutely to-the-second equal in coverage, but they can't be
unreasonably biased in one direction or the other. If they sell ad time to any
candidate, they have to offer all candidates time at the best rate they offer
any of them. If they cover political events, they have to cover the events of
all parties and candidates in at least rough proportion to their demonstrated
popularity (eg. if the Republicans and Democrats are neck-and-neck in the polls
there ought to be roughly equal coverage of both's events, but the candidate
polling 2% can't expect more than 2% of the coverage).
Final caveat:
they're fine with reporting what the candidates said. They're fine doing factual
analysis, eg. taking what the candidates said and reporting how it stacks up
against the facts from other sources, as long as they're even-handed and do that
for all candidates and not just one party's. It's only when they either begin
opining about which candidate is right (as opposed to which one made statements
that did or didn't square with confirmable facts) or start offering preferential
treatment to some candidates that they cross the line from reporting news to
supporting a candidate and start having to worry about their own campaign
limitations. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
