Profit is Paramount

Initially following FCC deregulation, most local television and radio stations sustained their existing commitments to public service. The broadcasters were hedging their bets in a way. They feared that the regulatory pendulum would swing back to greater control if they made changes that were too unfavorable to citizens or happened too fast. Off air, however, the expense of such commitments or perhaps more important, the potential revenue that eliminating those "free" programs represented, was getting a great deal of attention. Gradually, and later with increasing speed, broadcasters began decreasing the amount of "free" time they offered to not-for-profits. In addition, they strongly encouraged those organizations to look for corporate sponsors to pay for production or to support other aspects of the public relations campaigns that would previously have been provided by the station.

Simultaneously, major daily newspapers were recognizing the revenue potential of sponsored sections or inserts that focused on one or another social service or arts theme. Journalists would argue that those changes were separate from editorial decision-making. Why, after all, should a serious journalist write or report about an organization which essentially "bought" space or time in media? The same argument that had been applied for years to the private sector, especially to retail business, was now applied to the community sector. Good News/Good Deeds asked journalists in Gilmore Research focus groups "...if the community sector in general wanted to raise its visibility, what would work best for you?"

On respondent said,

"I am not sure I am there for that. ...Given our limited resources and our limited air time, I don't have the time to do their publicity. We have paid underwriting possibilities... if you [not for profits] want to give us some money. They support us, we support them type of thing."

If it walks, talks, and looks like an advertiser, it must be an advertiser.