Democratic Gains Alter Media Ownership Debate
By David
Hatch
(Tuesday, January 16) For television, radio and newspaper outlets
seeking regulatory relief from the FCC, the timing of the agency's comprehensive
review of ownership limits could not be worse.
When FCC Chairman Kevin
Martin, a deregulatory-minded Republican, initiated the review last year, the
business-friendly GOP controlled both chambers of Congress. But now the
Democrats are in charge, and some are flexing their muscle on the
issue.
"I think the election [result] is going to add additional
challenges" for stations seeking relief, National Association of Broadcasters
spokesman Dennis Wharton conceded.
"If Martin had known the Democrats
were going to take over Congress, certainly he would have moved things along
faster," quipped Andrew Schwartzman, president and chief executive officer of
the public-interest law firm Media Access Project, which opposes easing the
rules. Schwartzman predicted that the agency, which will issue new reports on
media ownership this spring, will not conclude its review until the third
quarter of 2007.
Learning From The Past
In 2003, then-FCC Chairman
Michael Powell, a Republican, pushed through revised restrictions on a 3-2
party-line vote. The changes would have allowed one entity to own up to three TV
stations, eight radio stations, the daily newspaper and cable system in a single
market. But Powell prompted a backlash from lawmakers in both parties, watchdogs
and citizens worried that the new thresholds would trigger consolidation and
lead to more homogenized content.
In 2004, responding to a challenge
spearheaded by low-power radio operators, a federal appeals court sent most of
the changes back to the agency for reconsideration. The court said the FCC had
failed to provide sufficient analysis to justify altering the
rules.
Martin is now overseeing a review of those items, but having
learned from Powell's problems, he is taking a fresh approach that includes
seeking input from all sides. The FCC plans six nationwide hearings, with two
already having been held in Los Angeles and Nashville, Tenn.
"The goal of
these hearings is to more fully and directly involve the American people in the
process," Martin said in Tennessee. "I have said many times before, but it bears
repeating: Public input is critical to our process."
As a commissioner,
Martin supported Powell's initiative. But at his September re-nomination hearing
-- under questioning from Sen. Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat and staunch
critic of media consolidation -- he said he was no longer comfortable with his
2003 vote.
While the media-ownership review has just begun, Martin
already has altered it in response to Democratic-led demands. In December,
Dorgan spearheaded a request from senators in both parties for the FCC to
complete a pending inquiry into how TV broadcasters can best serve their local
communities before tackling media ownership. Martin pledged to heed the
request.
Late last month, the FCC posted internal studies on media
ownership to its Web site. The move followed a September flap in which Sen.
Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., accused the FCC of having spiked a 2004 report on the
benefits of locally produced television news to communities. Martin, who claimed
to be unaware of the report, immediately posted it to the site.
The new
Democratic heads of the Senate and House commerce committees, which oversee the
agency, and other lawmakers are expected to keep a watchful eye on the FCC's
approach to media-ownership revisions. Adding to the pressure, Martin's
Democratic colleagues, Jonathan Adelstein and Michael Copps, have been
strengthened by their party's takeover of Congress, though the GOP still has a
3-2 majority at the agency.
The Stakes In The Debate
During an
impromptu Jan. 10 interview, Copps told Technology Daily that as part of the
review he will press for more public-interest obligations for broadcasters,
which will be capable of offering multiple stations when they switch to digital
signals in early 2009. During a speech the same day, Copps suggested that
increased consolidation may be fueling more gratuitous violence and sex on
television as media conglomerates appeal to the lowest common
denominator.
Religious groups, meanwhile, raised concerns at a Jan. 8
press briefing in New York about the impact that loosening the rules could have
on religious programs and stations, which increasingly worry about being
squeezed off the TV dial.
Among the items up for review, the most
controversial is the ban on one entity controlling a TV or radio outlet and
newspaper in the same market. Combinations that pre-date 1975 have been
grandfathered, and the FCC has issued permanent and temporary waivers to aid
struggling papers and stations.
"I have various problems about how
allowing more cross-ownership serves the public interest," Copps said. "When
that happens, you're investing one player with just really excessive power in a
specific media market, and you further encroach upon localism and diversity in
that market."
"The irony is, what you're hampering is the only free
media," countered Shaun Sheehan, a vice president at Tribune Company, which has
been lobbying for years to end the cross-ownership ban so it can permanently
absorb TV stations it inherited through its purchase of Times Mirror.
The
FCC also is re-evaluating whether to extend its duopoly rules, which allow
common ownership of two TV stations in large cities, to small- and medium-sized
markets. NAB argues that when a successful TV station purchases a struggling one
in the same market, program quality improves. Many stations face tremendous
costs as they transition to digital, the group said. But critics accuse NAB of
exaggerating the degree to which local stations are hurting
financially.
In addition, the agency must re-examine its limits on
co-owning TV and radio outlets in one market and review whether "triopolies,"
ownership of three stations in the largest markets, should be
permissible.
Congress removed a key item from reconsideration. The FCC
had voted in 2003 to increase the cap on the national audience reach of
network-TV-owned stations from 35 percent of TV households to 45 percent. But
lawmakers subsequently set it at 39 percent, meaning it is not under FCC
review.
The Fight For Reform
Both sides are prepping for an
all-out fight. Last month, nearly a dozen advocacy and academic groups released
a book, "The Case Against Media Consolidation: Evidence On Concentration,
Localism And Diversity," that details their opposition to further relaxation of
the rules.
The watchdog Free Press also hosted a media reform conference
in Memphis, Tenn., to sound the alarm about concentration. At the event,
advocacy groups released six studies that seek to rebut industry claims that
broadcast outlets are struggling to compete in today's Internet-driven
world.
"The FCC must study the impact of consolidation on the diversity
of media ownership and implement a plan to increase minority and female
ownership of broadcast stations," Consumers Union, Free Press, Rainbow/PUSH
Coalition Founder Jesse Jackson and other concerned parties demanded in a Jan.
12 letter to the FCC.
Proponents of easing the rules argue that with the
growth of subscription television, the Web and emerging technologies, such as
high-definition and satellite radio, the media universe is more diversified.
"Many of these rules have been in place for 30 to 40 years," lamented NAB's
Wharton, adding that "the program choice has exploded, but the rules have
remained the same."
Democracies are best practiced when citizens have access to multiple and varying sources of information. Debates in recent years have centered on the perils of media concentration and bias, and thus so has the issue of access to reliable political information. This was the issue in 2004 in the Senate race between Tom Daschle and John Thune and the Argus Leader's political coverage and monopoly status. Placing too much power into the hands of a single media outlet gives them immense power over editorial decisions and effectively limits the information available to citizens.
Recent Comments