STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MIGNON L. CLYBURN
Re:  Standardized and Enhanced Disclosure Requirements for Television Broadcast Licensee 
Public Interest Obligations (MM Docket No. 00-168) and Extension of the Filing Requirement 
for Children’s Television Programming Report (FCC Form 398) (MM Docket No. 00-44)
Striking a balance via FCC rulemakings can at times be elusive. As an idealist, I always 
hope that all parties find satisfaction in everything we do.  While we achieve industry – and FCC 
– consensus on a great many items, 100% harmony is difficult. This is why the Chairman has 
wisely partnered with the private sector on a number of major initiatives, and why I mention the 
power of public-private partnerships in nearly every speech I give.
So it is in that vein that we come to this item, which has been much discussed and hotly 
debated over the past month.
When we last gathered in this room to discuss this subject, I was again reminded that the 
words “disclosure” and “transparency” inspire confidence, increase the public’s trust, and 
convey good faith. The American people not only want those things, they demand them, and 
that is the basis for my approval of this item.
In putting these files online, the FCC is requiring broadcasters to take a step that 
innumerable other entities have opted for since the World Wide Web became a part of our daily 
lives, and putting public files on the Internet in 2012 makes sense. It is the expected means of 
data viewing, and this action requires no unreasonable amount of production or disclosure.
And I am happy to report the overwhelming consensus that surrounds those sentiments.
Like many in this room, I attended the National Association of Broadcasters gathering a couple 
of weeks ago, and was told by many participants that putting their public files online was a 
logical outgrowth of the ubiquity of public information made viewable by the Internet.
But it is important to strike a balance. I have repeatedly mentioned that one of the 
paramount considerations regarding this implementation is that we take into account and 
minimize the burden on industry.
The FCC listened to broadcasters while developing a system that keeps the burden of this 
new regime as low as possible, and I commend our Media Bureau for its diligent work in this 
regard. The Commission has devised a scan and upload system that is as user-friendly as it is 
sensible, and should require minimal effort to execute. While it will involve more labor, I firmly 
believe that any inconvenience will be offset by the public benefits.
For the public is our greatest watchdog, and media observers from all corners, students, 
teachers, Ph.Ds, whistle-blowers, grassroots organizations, or people with a lot of time on their 
hands serve overwhelmingly as the best source of information regarding compliance or 
noncompliance with our rules. We should all embrace this, as actors like these are an integral 
2
part of our democratic fabric. Moreover, if the FCC can be instrumental in giving them better 
tools to do so, I feel that it must.
I firmly believe that this item does just that. Those who follow the use of local 
programming and reporting, or lack thereof, can scan the disclosure files from broadcast stations 
across the nation and use that information for any reason they choose. Maybe it’s to scrutinize 
the programming and ad revenue of stations, or maybe it’s to applaud it. Or perhaps a professor 
in Wyoming wants to analyze what local content is being shown in Brooklyn, New York.
I see no reason to limit the reach of the online public file. We do not restrict, in any way, 
shape or form, who can access the existing paper files, and I see no need to do so for this new 
regime. I reject the claims that to do so would go against the principles and aims of localism, 
and feel that universal online availability is well within the letter and spirit of our direction from 
Congress.
The point isn’t so much what the use of the information from an online public file will be, 
but simply the ability to use it. The relevant governing statute uses the words “convenience” and 
“necessity” in discussing the public interest aspects of renewals of broadcast licenses, and our 
actions via this rulemaking speak to such principles.
I’ve heard many stakeholders significantly downplay the interest in broadcaster files by 
members of the American public. I’ve also heard that there’s a better likelihood of an asteroid 
hitting Earth today than two people walking into a local affiliate station seeking to view these 
records. But again, such speculation is pointless. Ours is not to keep track of such things, but 
rather to ensure the availability of relevant files, regardless of how many sets of feet do or do not
walk into a station. What we do via this item will take this availability into the 21st century.
Included in this new regime, will be the political files of broadcast stations, which are 
currently viewable within those entities – and no where else. Within these files are records of 
candidates’ requests for airtime, a run-down of the time purchased, and other pertinent 
information. This is required by statute. Congress deemed this data to be within the public’s 
interest to know, and have access to, and the FCC is the cop on the beat in monitoring 
compliance. This information also affords the American electorate an opportunity to see how 
much money is being expended on behalf of a candidate, and during what days and hours.
In an era when political ad spending is well into the billions, many are clamoring to learn 
what people and groups behind the advertisements. However, that curiosity is not what guides 
the FCC.  What we are charged to do is to assure that such information is available, and now it 
will be even more so on the Internet.
But concerns arose regarding the widespread dissemination of the itemization of political 
ad spending and how the containment of it within broadcast stations is where it should remain.
More to the point, a global window into the lowest unit charge afforded to political ad spending 
was a point of contention to many, in that corporations and other ad buyers could use such 
knowledge to leverage their own negotiations.
3
I wrestled long and hard with this, and was intent on giving these arguments due 
consideration.
What was always at the forefront of my mind, however, is the fact that this information is 
currently available for any and all to view. But  during my time as a publisher of a small weekly 
newspaper, I learned very quickly how difficult it is to generate ad revenue and how painful it 
can be to be gamed by entities who try to talk you down dollar by dollar. These concerns swam 
around in my head as I considered the arguments of those against putting detailed information on 
a platform that the world can view, and I made my thoughts known to my colleagues.
We ended up, after much discussion, including language in the item that serves as a kind 
of checkpoint, which will allow us to assess the impact and effect of putting the rate information 
online. Our rulemaking mandates that over the next two years, only stations affiliated with the 
top four national networks, and that are licensed to serve communities in top 50 designated 
market areas would be required to post new political file documents in our online database.
However, one year into that timeline, and one year before all other stations – large and small –
must follow suit, we will issue a Public Notice that will seek comment on what, if any, 
unforeseen burdens or harmful effects have arisen and whether changes need to be made.
I feel this ability to revisit our actions today and consider whether to alter them if 
necessary is a sensible, prudent, and measured way to proceed. And while it may not be an ideal 
fix for all of the critics of our path forward, I think it is a worthwhile, middle ground approach.
As to the concerns about the burdens associated with putting rapidly-changing political 
ad information in an online public file, I am confident that the system we devise will offer a well 
thought-out and technologically straightforward method for the uploading and submission of 
relevant data. The format set forth in the item is well-conceived, and stops short of mandating 
that broadcasters change the structure of the documents they currently use.
This should allow for the uploading of various documents in different formats and will 
eliminate the need for converting filings in order to match a certain program.
The public will be aware of the online public file via on-air and website-based 
announcements, and we hope such outreach will bring fresh interest.
To reiterate, this agency functions at its best when it works in concert with the individuals 
and corporations and individuals we oversee and regulate. The staff worked very hard on this 
item, and took the predictions of future hardships seriously. I weighed them also against the 
need for bringing disclosure into the new mainstream – on the web – and I am proud of this 
agency, in particular our Media Bureau, for doing its absolute best to take into account the 
worries and sensitivities of the broadcast industry. What we put forth today is a proper 
interpretation of the law governing broadcast disclosure, with the main beneficiary being the 
American public. This enhanced transparency is in keeping with the times, and is a big, overdue 
step forward.
4
I want to thank Bill Lake and his superb team in the Media Bureau for their tireless work 
on this item.  Mary Beth Murphy, Bob Ratcliffe, Bobby Baker, Hope Cooper, and Greg Elin 
were integral to this effort, and I want to put special emphasis on Holly Saurer, who worked day 
and night and deserves some additional combat pay.  She was of great assistance to my office, 
and I am very grateful.