ew guidelines from the Federal Communications Commission requiring a certain class of religious television stations to devote more time to "educational" programming rather than preaching are coming under attack from sectarian groups and a growing chorus of elected officials in Washington.

   In a little-noticed December 30 decision, the Commission voted 3-2 to require religious groups operating under a nonprofit, education TV license to use half of their broadcast time on programs that serve "educational, instructional or cultural needs of the community." The FCC stipulated that to qualify, the programming may not be "primarily devoted to religious exhortation, proselytizing, or statements of personally held religious views and beliefs."

   Church services would not qualify as an "educational" activity unless they were part of a historic event (such as the funeral of a national leader), or could somehow be demonstrated to serve the "educational or cultural" needs of the community.

   Originally, the government had reserved a portion of the broadcast band for nonprofit, educational television; out of this grew the network of "public" stations, including those affiliated with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Noncommercial educational broadcasting on radio was established in 1945, when the federal government reserved twenty percent of the FM band for such stations. In a key 1977 ruling, though, the FCC permitted the Moody Bible Institute to become a television licensee, and moved religion under the mantle of "educational" content. According to FCC guidelines, these reserved channels were set aside exclusively for nonprofit, educational groups and were "to serve the educational and cultural broadcast needs of the entire community to which they are assigned."

   Out of 373 television stations across the country which the Commission now charters as educational and nonprofit, about 20 are religious broadcasters.

   Although the ruling affects only a small number of license holders in one category, both media reports and press releases from religious groups have inaccurately suggested that it covers the full range of broadcasting stations, including radio outlets.

   The FCC guidelines were part of a decision concerning a three-way license transfer involving a public television station, and a religious TV outlet in Pittsburgh, Pa. (WQED and WQEX). A religious broadcasting group, Cornerstone Television, applied for the reserve license held by the PBS affiliate.

   The possible loss of one of the area's two noncommercial TV outlets prompted the Alliance for Progressive Action and the QED Accountability Project to oppose the license transfer. Complicating the picture was the involvement of Sen. John McCain (R-Az.) who is campaigning for the GOP presidential nomination. In late December, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette newspaper reported that McCain had received nearly $16,000 in contributions from principals linked to Paxson Communications, one of the parties involved in the three-way license swap.

   McCain had written a letter to the FCC urging that it act on the WQEX petition which had languished for nearly three years. The Arizona candidate also chairs the Senate Commerce Committee which handles communications issues.

   Other Washington luminaries approaching the FCC to expedite the license transfer were Sens. Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum, and Reps. Ron Klink, Frank Mascara and Bill Coyne. According to the Gazette, these officials urged the Commission to approve the transfer, whereas McCain simply asked for a ruling.

   The Alliance made several complaints to the FCC, insisting that the license swap jeopardized the mission of the area's public service television stations, and argued that any new programming would be heavily religious. The group argued that the transfer would "set a precedent for selling noncommercial educational licenses to religious groups," and produced complaining witnesses who objected to what they insisteded was a narrow, sectarian and bigoted programming content being provided by the religious broadcaster, Cornerstone.

   Left out of many news accounts discussing this story is the fact that the Federal Communications Commissioners, 3-2, rejected the arguments of community activists, and approved the license transfer. The FCC affirmed earlier claims that the fact that a program is religious does not automatically render it something other than "educational." Commissioners also accepted the description of programming from Cornerstone, including "Bible study instruction in conjunction with Oral Roberts University and programs designed to address illiteracy."

In a statement to the national news media, American Atheists President Ellen Johnson and National Spokesperson Ron Barrier charged that the FCC decision was "bad law," involved government in religious affairs and threatened the separation of church and state. Johnson added, though, that it was a "sham" for religious groups to "suddenly unfurl the banner of 'free speech' when so many of these same organizations wish to violate the free speech rights of others by legislating restrictions on television content, the internet, even what magazines may be displayed in supermarket racks..." (read the press release)

   The FCC responded to a complaint by the Alliance that Cornerstone's programming "is narrow, extremist, ideological, biased, erroneous, and propagandistic..." This claim was supported by declarations from individuals who had viewed programs carried by the Cornerstone station who described content which "promotes the adoption of a belief based on its own brand of evangelical Christianity."

   Two local academics viewed a hour-long documentary regarding issues affecting public schools, and said that the program had "little or no educational value," was "extremist" and "radically unbalanced," and presented "misinformation."

   To these and other objections, though, the Commissioners ruled that opponents of the license transfer failed to make a "prima facie case" for denying approval.

   "The Commission, however, 'has long held that its function is not to judge the merit, wisdom or accuracy of any broadcast discussion or commentary,'" noted the FCC's judgment on the case. Critics were instead encouraged to "make their views regarding the programming matters better known to Cornerstone's Board and management."

"These same religious groups and politicians who oppose this FCC decision are the types who want Big Brother determining what movies we may see, or what lyrics can be sung, or even what books can be read in a public library..." -- Ron Barrier National Spokesperson American Atheists

   The FCC also noted the community involvement with the Cornerstone Board of Directors. This included affiliations with business groups and secular non-profits (Pittsburgh Symphony), and other organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America, Coalition for Christian Outreach, Episcopal Diocese, Catholic Diocese, Bible Christian Fellowship, and League of Women Voters.

   Religious involvement per se and the likelihood that the new stations would carry a substantial amount of "informercial" programming were also not grounds for rejecting the license swap, ruled Commissioners.

   "(T)he Commission has previously concluded that specialty stations, such as religious, foreign language and home shopping stations are not inconsistent with the public interest, and broadcasters ... are entitled to rely on these determinations unless and until we change our policy..."

   The FCC also opined: "We will not disqualify any program simply because the subject matter of the teaching or instruction is religious in nature..."

   Faced with turning over a public broadcasting station to a religious group, the FCC did attempt to focus more on the definition of "educational" programming, especially in respect to a media menu of heavy sectarian content. The critical -- and for many groups, objectionable -- portion of the Commission's decision came toward the end of its written opinion in Paragraph 43. It states:

"We have now been faced squarely with the difficult balance between maintaining the educational nature of the reserved allocations (of frequencies) and the First Amendment rights of broadcasters on this band. We believe that it would be advisable to give this license, other potential applicants and licensees, as well as the Commission and its staff, additional guidance... In order to comply with the requirement that a NCETV (Non-Commercial-Educational television) station 'be used primarily to serve the educational needs of the community,' we now clarify that this requirement is twofold. First, with respect to the overall weekly program schedule, more than half of the hours of programming aired on a reserved channel must primarily serve an educational, instructional or culture purpose in the station's community of license. Second, in order to qualify as a program which is educational, instructional or cultural in character, and thus counted in determining compliance with the overall benchmark standard, a program must have as its primary purpose service to the educational, instructional or cultural needs of the community. We 'will defer to the judgment of the broadcaster unless' the broadcaster's 'categorization appears to be arbitrary or unreasonable..."

   The commission did approve, though, of "Programs analyzing the role of religion in connection with historical or current events ... (or) exploring the connection between religious belief and physical and mental health." The FCC also included any broadcasts "examining the apparent dichotomy between science, technology and established religious tenets..."

   Despite the narrow and even vague nature of the FCC ruling -- or the fact that it had the effect of transferring a public, educational frequency assignment to a sectarian group - religious organizations have reacted quickly and vehemently.

   "What the government is doing here is restricting certain types of religious expression, which we feel is unconstitutional," declared Karl Stoll of the National Religious Broadcasters. "It's a problem when the government gets involved in determining what is educational and cultural and what is not. Good grief!"

   The decision also prompted an outcry on capitol hill. Rep. Michael Oxley (R-Ohio) released a statement accusing the FCC of "trying to make religious broadcasting less religion," and described the ruling as "suppression of free speech." A letter of protest to Commissioner Chairman William E. Kennard was cosigned by Oxley along with Reps. Chip Pickering (R-MS), Cliff Stearns (R-FL) and Steve Largent (R-OK). It opined that the FCC "had no business -- no business whatsoever -- singling out religious programming for special scrutiny," and branded the guidelines "an unconstitutional restriction on religious speech."

   In a separate letter of complaint to Vice President Al Gore, the congressmen called on Gore "as the Clinton administration's most visible telecommunications policy maker, to weigh in with the commission in defense of religious broadcasters..."

    So, are the new guidelines a limitation on religious speech?

   Two FCC Commissioners -- Powell and Furchtgott-Toth -- approved in part, but dissented on specific portions of the majority ruling. In a separate written opinion, they argued that "quantification of the 'educational' obligation of noncommercial licensees suggests a greater federal intrusion into the programming judgment of noncommercial licensees that is, to our thinking, unwarranted and may be unconstitutional..."

   The pair questioned the ability to clearly distinguish between "educational" speech that included religious content, and other forms of communication that while religious, may have lacked the appropriate measure of "educational" substance. Their opinion referred specifically to the prohibition of church services as counting toward the one-half content requirement.

   "We ask, however why such programming might not qualify as 'cultural' programming just as presentation of an opera might?"

   The two dissenting commissioners also suggested that the ruling "may open a Pandora's Box of problems that will create confusion and litigation."

   Defenders of the commission suggest that the guidelines are still sufficiently vague so as to permit religious broadcasters (and their attorneys) considerable latitude in programming, and that the guidelines fall within the FCC charter of protecting "the public interest" -- whatever that might be. The rule is also limited; and contrary to published reports and hyperbolic claims, a source told AANEWS that it does not affect content for religious radio stations.

   Also suspect are media claims like the one appearing in WIRED Magazine, which originally broke the FCC story: "Effective immediately, radio stations that don't meet the new FCC standards could have their licenses yanked..."

   Whatever their constitutionality -- and expect the guidelines to be challenged if the Commission does not cave in to religious and congressional arm twisting -- the FCC move is likely a combination of bureaucratic bumbling, attempts to build on questionable precedent (giving religious broadcasters a public, educational license beginning with the 1977 case of Moody Bible Institute) and a halfhearted effort to limit sectarian groups from moving in on the public frequency market. It is sure to confirm the worst fears and expectations of religious groups, though, who already fear that they are "under attack" by government and secular culture.

[text only]