Oh, They Could, Could They?

     A recent article in The Atlantic about the lies politicians assert, and how futile fact-checking can be, included an interesting statement: "Tech and media companies need to create incentives for truth-telling and deterrents for lying. Platforms of all kinds could charge higher ad rates to candidates who have the worst records among fact-checkers."  The article also suggests another way to discourage untruths: lying during a debate could cost candidates airtime.

     Many platforms could, but I'll tell you one that can't: broadcast stations. Take the idea of cutting time for fibbers.  Uncle Sam says it's a no-no.
     "FCC rules seek to ensure that no legally qualified candidate for office is unfairly given less access to the airwaves – outside of bona fide news exemptions – than their opponent. Equal opportunities generally means providing comparable time and placement to opposing candidates; it does not require a station to provide opposing candidates with programs identical to the initiating candidate."
     Trim a liar's time, face an FCC fine.

     You can look on it as self-serving.  Politicians set up the FCC, and they're not going to clip their own wings.  Or you can look on it as preventing a station owner from playing favorites.  Either way, the proposed fix is out.  (Cable and online services still can -- airtime and broadcast frequencies are a limited resource but those cable TV and telcom fibers are a data pipe fatter than a sewer main.)

     When it comes to charging liars more, that's out, too.  The FCC language is fussy:
     "The FCC rules require that broadcast stations and cable systems can only charge legally qualified candidates the 'Lowest Unit Charges' and 'Comparable Rates' for their advertisements."
     Translation is easy: whatever the car dealers or other big clients who run a lot of ads pay for time is what candidates will be charged, and not a cent more.  This, too, can be read as cynical manipulation, pols demanding they all get the best rates.  Or you can take it as a way to ensure the station can't charge the candidate they dislike ruinous rates while giving time away to the one they favor.*

     So, sorry, there's no coercing honesty from politicians, at least not via over-the-air, free TV and radio.  We're back to the eternal question: how do you keep 'em honest?  How do you even ensure that, once bought, they stay bought?  We'd have as much luck trying to breed honest politicians as we'd have trying to create honest preschoolers -- and if you can find one that won't at least occasionally try to feed their Brussels sprouts to the dog so they can enjoy a favorite dessert or fib about doing something they know they shouldn't, you've found one in a million.  Politicians likewise, and they really don't like Brussels sprouts. 
_______________________
* It's been known to happen anyway.  One Indianapolis FM frequency was vacant for years after the owner of the station that used to be there gave airtime away to U. S. Senator, got caught (c'mon, its not like the other guy isn't checking) and lost the license.  A multi-way legal fight among would-be owners followed and took nearly a decade to resolve.