Toxic Television, Editorial Discretion, & (and) the Public Interest: A Rocky Mountain Low

In the modem world of newsmedia, the lines between informative news and gratuitous entertainment have been blurred by a increase in infotainment broadcasting and by news shows which often use violence or other entertainment devices to increase audiences. This trend has given rise to concerns that the current regulatory scheme is not properly categorizing this type of news and is not sufficiently warning or protecting viewers. In this article, Professor Calvert examines the questions surrounding this controversy. To illustrate some of these issues, this article looks at a recent challenge brought by a Colorado group to the renewal of the licenses of four Denver television stations, alleging that these stations were broadcasting toxic television news detrimental to the public interest. Although the challenges were ultimately denied, the controversy revealed several important features of the FCC\u27s current policy and views of broadcast regulation. Among other things, the FCC\u27s definition of public interest, its views of violence on television, and its differing standards for adult and juvenile viewers came out in relief. Professor Calvert argues that these revelations indicate that the FCC subscribes to a suspect and increasingly misguided dichotomy between news and entertainment in regard to television violence. Despite some of these flaws in the FCC system, however, the article concludes that the decision to deny the challenge against the Denver broadcasters was the correct one, due to both weaknesses in the causal analysis offered by the challengers and the First Amendment concerns that would arise from the FCC exercising editorial control over broadcasters. Although he agrees with the FCC\u27s decision overall, Professor Calvert also warns the reader of the potential dangers and policy concerns surrounding the free broadcast of such toxic television