One fine Fri in May, Jack Sargeant wrote to Lee Ayrton:
 > I'm not so sure.  I can see where TV stations might simply send out
 > coding requiring adult access for "breaking news" interruptions.  I
 > wouldn't bet the farm on it happening, though.
  JS> Not without violating his constitutional rights as regards 
  JS> freedom of the press.  
Violation of whose rights?  The station's?  Exercising self-restraint isn't a 
violation of freedom of the press.
 > Personally, I think that local broadcast stations should be
 > required, as part of their license, to provide an hour of local news 
coverag
  JS> e a day
 > commerical free, wiht a news budget that is a fixed minimum percentage of 
th
  JS> e
 > station's operating budget.  With news departments not having to support
 > themselves and no ratings to scramble for, perhaps we'd get all the news 
tha
  JS> t's fit
 > rather than all the stuff that fits. But that, of course, will nevr 
ppen.
  JS> News departments of local TV stations are extremely 
  JS> competitive, and will stop at nothing to either be first with the news,
  JS> or barring that, stop the other guy if possible. An exemple as 
Yes, Jack, that's what I was trying to address.  By making news 
programs commerical-free air time, you removing the need to grab audience 
from 
other stations in order to pump their own ratings and thereby set higher ad 
rates.  One would hope that by that the competition would subside to a dull 
roar, letting the end user get real news, not eye candy.  By mandating a 
minimum budget floor for news one would hope that, again, news would actually 
meet the "public service" intent of licensing and not consist of solely PSAs, 
publicity releases and manufactured fluff -- which, along with a few shots of 
bloody pavement and "on the scene" shots of a "reporter" at the corner of 
WALK and DONT WALK is what my local news here is rapidly becoming.
 
--- msged 2.07
---------------