RTV Theory and Practice - Special Issue

Atl of this woulđ seem to indicate that regutatory bodies can or will do little to insure that radio serve the many elements in society that maKe up a locale. However , such bodies aren't always reluctant to see to it that radio not be offensive to some of those elements , as witness the 1987 action of the FCC against several stfetions which allegedly had broadcast songs , disk јоскеу patter , etc . , that was 'off ensive to community stanđards 15 ) However , it well тау have been the case that the ‘offensive' material was perfectly acceptable to certain elements within the community . So a regulatory body тау be willmg to place limits upon stations which actually prevent them from serving parts of the community with broadcast material that is legal, even if 'offensive.' Whether the regulatory system reguires it or not, there's nothing to prevent a broadcaster from taking the responsibility for serving a community , and l've yet to meet one who doesn't daim to be doing so . A station programming nonstop pdp (with openings for ads and for two,-minute top of the hour newscasts ) provides a service of sorts , unless no one listens to it. But its service to that particular community is pretty much limited to whatever local advertising it carries , since its musical selections are likely to be drawn from nationai 'charts' or provided through satellites and its- news usually comes from national wire services . The claim of community service, then, is a very slim one , and yet there are hundreds anđ even thousands of stations in France , Japan , Australia , ltaly , Canada and the Umted States that fit the description Just provided . Such stations exist in part because broadcasting is regarded m some countries as a business, and , more specifically , as a profit-makmg business . There are two basic arguments for governmental regulation of broadcasting: first , that some high-level bođy must maintain some degree of order m usage of th<? frequency spectrum (otherwise thmgs would become chaotic ); and second , that the amwaves аге a public resource , to be used for public benefit . The first argument retains its validity today , but guestions have been raised regardmg the second . As the argument usually runs, the greater availability of frequency spectrum space (anđ certainly there's a great deai more of it now that апуопе could have dreamed of m the 192 s anđ 19 30S) makes it possible to license тапу more stations than once was the case . That being so, it no longer is so crucial to insure that community interests be served by апу one station , since the failure of апу one station to serve апу given part of the commumty can be addressed by iicensmg further stations . The regulatory body needn't reguire that апу of the stations provide specific sorts of services : if the

134