U.S. RADIO AND TV STATIONS REQUIRED
TO GIVE CANDIDATES EQUAL TIME   

Under the First Amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of the press, radio and television stations in the United States have enormous latitude in their coverage of candidates and elections. But according to experts, one regulation that has remained, and is likely to remain, is the Equal Time rule.

Under a provision of the 1934 Communications Act, if a broadcast station provides time for one political candidate, it must do so for his or her opponents. This provision -- Section 315 of the law -- is known as the Equal Time rule. It states: "If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any political office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station."

It is a simple concept, but interpretation of the Equal Time rule has evolved over the years as politics and technology have changed. It continues to evolve. In a recent interview, Robert Baker, of the political program section of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the government regulatory agency for the U.S. communications industry, said that "the three principal components of the rule are a requirement that if broadcasters sell time to political candidates they must treat them all equally, allow them to purchase time at favorable rates and not attempt to censor the content of their ads."

In addition to paid political advertising, the law also applies to some programs paid for by the stations in which candidates may appear without purchasing the airtime. Baker explained that as a result of an amendment to Section 315 in 1959, the rule does not apply to regular news and public affairs programming. Thus, if a "legally qualified" candidate appears on a bona fide news program, the station is under no obligation to provide time to other candidates.

The question of what is a bona fide news program, however, at a time when news and entertainment are often mixed in the same program is a subject of much debate in the communications industry. According to Dwight Teeter and Don Duc, authors of Law of Mass Communications, the FCC "has expanded its category of broadcast programs exempted from political access requirements to include entertainment shows that provide news or current event coverage as regularly scheduled segments of the program."

The act stipulates certain requirements for a candidate to be "legally qualified," the most important of which is that he or she be a declared candidate in accordance with applicable state and federal laws. According to broadcast historians, one of the most celebrated tests of this aspect of the rule occurred in December 1967 when the three major commercial television networks carried an hour-long interview with President Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat. It was only a few months before the New Hampshire primary, the first major test in the 1968 race for the presidency.

Eugene McCarthy, who had announced his own candidacy for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination before the broadcast, requested "equal time" from the networks on the grounds that President Johnson was a legally qualified candidate for the same nomination. The appeal was denied because Johnson had not, at that point, declared that he was a candidate for reelection. This is one reason why candidates time an announcement that they are running for office very carefully, so as not to trigger the Equal Time rule requiring stations to give broadcast time in equal measure to their opponents.

There are certain, narrow exceptions to the Equal Time rule that have evolved over the years, however. The most important exception concerns national televised debates involving the major presidential candidates. Not long after debates among the leading candidates for president became a standard component of campaigns in 1976, the FCC moved to exempt them from the Equal Time rule.

Since November 1983, the FCC has allowed the debates to be considered "bona fide news events," thus triggering the exemption. Under the old rule, even minor candidates could have requested equal time during the presidential debates, a problem that led organizations, such as the League of Women Voters, to cover the debates, which the networks then covered as news events. Baker explained that although there is now no requirement that all candidates be included in the presidential debates, the FCC has urged broadcasters not to "favor or disfavor" any particular candidate.

Although the Equal Time rule is concerned with equal access, not initial access, for candidates, a 1979 ruling by the FCC, in effect, required stations to give candidates for federal office "reasonable access" to the airwaves. The case resulted from a request by then-President Jimmy Carter to buy airtime for his reelection campaign. The networks denied the request on the grounds that no equal time provision was at issue and it was too early in the campaign. The FCC, and ultimately the Supreme Court, ruled that the networks should have provided the time. This is now known as the "reasonable access" rule.

In the past, the Equal Time rule was often confused with the Fairness Doctrine, which required that broadcasters "operate in the public interest and afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public interest." The Fairness Doctrine ceased to be a requirement in 1987. Baker explained that although a few minor elements remain, "essentially the Fairness Doctrine was abolished."

Critics have complained that since the Fairness Doctrine was shelved, stations have become less responsible in the coverage of issues. But opponents of the Fairness Doctrine say it was an unnecessary regulatory requirement on broadcasters that other media, such as newspapers, were never required to meet. Since there are now many more broadcast stations than newspapers, opponents say viewers have enough choice on coverage of issues without regulation, especially in an age of hundreds of stations courtesy of cable and satellite television companies.

As new democracies around the world wrestle with issues of regulation in broadcasting to ensure fairness for political candidates in elections, the U.S. experience is an indication that even simple rules are not always easy to implement in practice and must be periodically reevaluated in the light of changing circumstances, both technological as well as political.