Printed from Urbana-Champaign IMC : http://www.ucimc.org/
UCIMC Independent Media 
Center
Media Centers

[topics]
biotech

[regions]
united states

oceania

germany

[projects]
video
satellite tv
radio
print

[process]
volunteer
tech
process & imc docs
mailing lists
indymedia faq
fbi/legal updates
discussion

west asia
palestine
israel
beirut

united states
worcester
western mass
virginia beach
vermont
utah
urbana-champaign
tennessee
tampa bay
tallahassee-red hills
seattle
santa cruz, ca
santa barbara
san francisco bay area
san francisco
san diego
saint louis
rogue valley
rochester
richmond
portland
pittsburgh
philadelphia
omaha
oklahoma
nyc
north texas
north carolina
new orleans
new mexico
new jersey
new hampshire
minneapolis/st. paul
milwaukee
michigan
miami
maine
madison
la
kansas city
ithaca
idaho
hudson mohawk
houston
hawaii
hampton roads, va
dc
danbury, ct
columbus
colorado
cleveland
chicago
charlottesville
buffalo
boston
binghamton
big muddy
baltimore
austin
atlanta
arkansas
arizona

south asia
mumbai
india

oceania
sydney
perth
melbourne
manila
jakarta
darwin
brisbane
aotearoa
adelaide

latin america
valparaiso
uruguay
tijuana
santiago
rosario
qollasuyu
puerto rico
peru
mexico
ecuador
colombia
chile sur
chile
chiapas
brasil
bolivia
argentina

europe
west vlaanderen
valencia
united kingdom
ukraine
toulouse
thessaloniki
switzerland
sverige
scotland
russia
romania
portugal
poland
paris/ãŽle-de-france
oost-vlaanderen
norway
nice
netherlands
nantes
marseille
malta
madrid
lille
liege
la plana
italy
istanbul
ireland
hungary
grenoble
galiza
euskal herria
estrecho / madiaq
cyprus
croatia
bulgaria
bristol
belgrade
belgium
belarus
barcelona
austria
athens
armenia
antwerpen
andorra
alacant

east asia
qc
japan
burma

canada
winnipeg
windsor
victoria
vancouver
thunder bay
quebec
ottawa
ontario
montreal
maritimes
london, ontario
hamilton

africa
south africa
nigeria
canarias
ambazonia

www.indymedia.org

This site
made manifest by
dadaIMC software
&
the friendly folks of
AcornActiveMedia.com

Comment on this article | View comments | Email this Feature
News :: Media
Concentrated Media Sausage: Making Sense Out Of The FCC's Changes To Media Ownership Rules, The Congressional Attempts To Reverse Them, And What This Means In Our Local Media Environment Current rating: 0
19 Jun 2003
Just a little more than two weeks after June 2, whenthe Federal Communications Commission passed a set of rulings that loosened key media ownership regulations, the Senate Commerce Committee, which oversees the FCC, approved a bill that would rescind many of these rulings.

In this article I try to make sense of the FCC's decision and the bill that came out of the Senate Commerce Committee on June 19. But to really put things in perspective I think you have to look at how these rules and bills affect our local media.

Unfortunately, almost nothing is ever written about our local media market, except here on the U-C IMC website and in the public i. So I also take a stab at figuring out what effect the FCC's new rules could have on our local media environment, and how the bill now entering Congress might change that situation.

I covered part of the local media analysis on the June 6 edition of the mediageek radio show, heard 5:30 PM Fridays on WEFT ( http://www.mediageek.org/radioshow.html ) and during an interview on the June 9 edition of IMC Radio News ( http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/12368/index.php ), heard 5:30 PM Mondays on WEFT.
local_media_meatgrinder.jpg
Just a little more than two weeks after the Federal Communications Commission passed a set of rulings that loosened key media ownership regulations, the Senate Commerce Committee, which oversees the FCC, approved a bill that would rescind many of these rulings. The bill that came out of the June 19 committee meeting is not quite a wholesale rollback of the FCC’s decision, but it does contain one provision that would result in the nation’s largest radio giants having to divest themselves of some stations.

The Hollings-Stevens bill was originally written to restore the 35% national TV ownership cap which the FCC raised to 45%. This cap sets the limit on the number of TV stations that a single company can own based upon the total percentage of the nation’s TV households those stations reach.

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-North Dakota) added an amendment to this bill that would reinstate the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban, which prevents a single company from owning both a TV station and a newspaper in a single market (although several such combinations already exist that were either grandfathered in or given waivers by the FCC).

The Dorgan amendment was unexpectedly weakened by an unusual secondary amendment added by Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). Stevens' amendment would allow local utilities commissions in rural markets to petition the FCC for a cross-ownership waiver when requested by a media corporation, and would require the FCC to rule within 60 days. This amendment actually represents a greater loosening that what the FCC had voted to permit, since the Commission had decided to retain the cross-ownership ban in the smallest media markets.

Not coincidentally, in Sen. Stevens’ home state, the owner of the Fairbanks daily newspaper has moved forward to buy the NBC TV affiliate in that city.

A more positive amendment was submitted by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-California) that would require the FCC to hold at least 5 public hearings during any future media ownership proceedings. During this just completed proceeding the FCC held only one officially sponsored public hearing, in Richmond, Virginia, although Democratic Commissioners Copps and Adelstein attended multiple unofficial hearings across the country.

Finally, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Arizona) offered a surprising amendment that would cancel grandfathered ownership protections for radio clusters that exceed the new, slightly more stringent caps established by the FCC on June 2. This decision would force Clear Channel, Viacom/Infinity and other industry giants to divest stations in some concentrated markets, where the FCC’s recent decision would allow these clusters essentially to be grandfathered in, while preventing any new clusters of that size from being created.

Although the Hollings-Stevens bill and most of the attached amendments are good news for those concerned about media concentration and democracy, the details of the FCC’s new ownership rules and these proposed revisions are abstract, and it can be difficult to gauge what effect they might have on local media markets.

The FCC’s change to the radio rules are especially confusing because the Commission has completely changed the metrics it uses to decide how big a given radio market it, which then determines how many stations a single owner is allowed to have. The previous definition of a market was based upon the estimated reach of radio stations into a particular geographic area. This definition caused some small western cities, like Minot, ND, where flat terrain aids the reach of radio stations from many miles away, to be considered as large as cities many times its size in population. Because the limit on the number of stations that one company can own in a market is based upon how big the FCC considers the market to be, cities like Minot have been allowed to become much more concentrated than current rules intend.

The FCC decided to change its market definitions to match the one used by Arbitron, the nation’s largest radio ratings company. In the Minot, ND example, Arbitron considers that city to be a much smaller market than the FCC, since the distant radio stations that the FCC counts do not have reliable signals in Minot and are of little interest to advertisers. Therefore, under the new definition, the largest cluster of co-owned stations in Minot is no longer considered legitimate.

However, as mentioned before, the FCC also decided not to break up clusters of multiple stations in a market that have become disallowed under the new radio market definition rules. Instead, while large radio owners, like Clear Channel Communications, are permitted to keep these stations they may not sell them as a cluster to another large owner, like Infinity broadcasting.

Owners of station clusters may, however, sell the clusters to small and minority owned companies, a provision that was added at the last minute by FCC Chairman Powell, in a move that he claims is intended to boost minority media ownership, which has declined greatly since the Telecommunications Act of 1996

Sen. McCain’s amendment to the Hollings-Stevens bill would rescind that provision and likely force the likes of Clear Channel to sell off stations in dozens of markets. Other large radio giants also would be prevented from buying these stations except in markets where they own relatively few stations.

Another change the FCC made to radio ownership rules was to begin counting non-commercial stations when determining the size of a radio market. So, while some markets may see their size go down under the new Arbitron-based definitions, resulting in halting further consolidations, others that have more non-commercial stations may indeed see their size increased under the new rules, possibly allowing for more consolidation to take place. This consolidation would be permitted to go ahead even if the Hollings-Stevens bill becomes law.

On the whole, the FCC’s changes to media ownership rules resulted in relying more on so-called market data, especially viewer and listener ratings. Aside from raising the national TV station ownership cap, which will result in a definite increase in TV ownership concentration, it is more difficult to assess how significant the increase in concentration will be that results from the other rule changes. The changes will be very specific to each city’s individual media market.

In many markets it is difficult to figure out exactly what types of cross-ownership and concentration are permitted under the FCC’s rule changes. Here in Champaign-Urbana it is still difficult to predict what changes could happen.

One complicating factor is the nature of our local TV market, which is defined as including Champaign-Urbana, Decatur and Springfield, an area that is more than 100 miles across. Because of this great distance, several TV channels in Springfield cannot be seen in Champaign over the airwaves, and vice versa. In recognition of this the FCC has given waivers to three companies, allowing them each to own two TV stations in this market.

Sinclair communications owns both channel 20, the NBC affiliate in Springfield, and channel 15, the NBC affiliate in Champaign. Nexstar owns the CBS affiliate, channel 3, in Champaign, and channel 49, which used to repeat channel 3’s signal in the Springfield area, but has recently switched over to UPN affiliation. And Fox affiliate channel 27 in Urbana is owned by the same company that has the Fox affiliate channel 55 in Springfield.

Under the new rules in order for there to be additional co-owned stations, the top four most highly rated stations in the market must be owned by different companies, and those stations cannot become co-owned. Thus the #1 station can be co-owned with the #6, but the #2 and #3 stations cannot be co-owned. However, determining the top 4 stations in the Champaign-Decatur-Springfield market is not so simple, because it’s unclear whether the FCC will consider both co-owned NBC affiliates, channels 15 and 20, to be one station or two.

In many cases Nielsen TV ratings counts them as one—such as for prime time programming which is the same for both stations—and in other times counts them as two. Thus we may not know if any further TV station duopolies will be permitted in this area until some company attempts to buy another station, triggering an FCC review.

There are no provisions in the current version of the Hollings-Stevens bill to address the FCC’s loosening of TV duopoly and triopoly rules. Therefore, if the FCC determines that the new rules permit there to be more co-owned stations in the Champaign-Decatur-Springfield TV market, then this type of consolidation would not be stopped if the Hollings-Stevens bill were to become law.

Things are just a little clearer when trying to figure out if newspaper-TV cross-ownership would be permitted in our local market. The Champaign-Decatur-Springfield TV market has 11 different TV stations, which includes the three combinations I just mentioned. If those combinations are treated as one station each (essentially one station with one repeater), then the market can be considered to have 8 stations, which is likely.

Under the FCC’s new rules, in an 8 station market a single company is permitted to own up to one TV station and a daily newspaper, in addition to half as many radio stations as allowed in the particular market. Therefore, under the new rules, it appears that the owner of any local TV station is permitted to purchase the News-Gazzette, the Decatur Herald & Review or Springfield State Journal-Register. Similarly, the owner of any of those three newspapers is now allowed to get into the TV station business in our local market.

If the Hollings-Stevens bill becomes law with Sen. Dorgan’s cross-ownership ban intact, then no local TV stations and newspapers will be permitted to be co-owned. However, if Sen. Stevens’ amendment allowing for such combinations when advocated by local utilities commissions also remains intact, then newspaper-TV combinations could be allowed, if local governments were to support such combinations.

It is also somewhat early to tell if the changes to the FCC’s radio market definitions will allow for changes in the Champaign-Urbana radio market (radio markets are considered separately from TV, and in our local case are largely based around single urban centers). However most indications are that the current limits on further local radio consolidation will persist.

In the last five year, the FCC has considered the Champaign-Urbana radio market to have 14 or 15 radio stations. At this level, one company is permitted to own up to six stations, with up to four on one dial – so, up to four FM stations and 2 AM, or vice versa. Currently, one company is at that limit, AAA Communications, based in Rhode Island, which owns four area FM stations.

For advertising purposes Arbitron currently considers Champaign-Urbana to have sixteen stations. While that makes the market larger than the FCC has considered it, it does not change the local ownership limits. In addition to the 16 that Arbitron counts, there are at least another four non-commercial stations, bringing the Champaign-Urbana radio market size to a total of 20 stations. Again, this change does not alter the current ownership limits. A single company may not own more than six stations unless the market has more than 30 stations.

Since the FCC’s new radio market definitions do not significantly change the local ownership limits, we will see no change in local radio ownership if Sen. McCain’s divestiture amendment to the Hollings-Stevens bill survives into law.

Broken down and applied to our local media environment, it becomes clear that the FCC’s June 2 relaxation of media ownership regulations could have real, concrete effects. The most significant effect would be the potential for a local TV station and newspaper to be combined, which would likely result in a real reduction of local news diversity.

Local TV owner Sinclair Communications (WICD-15 and WICS-20) has been battling the FCC in the courts over the duopoly and triopoly rules for several years, and nothing in the Hollings-Stevens bill currently threatens their potential to own even more stations in the Champaign-Decatur-Springfield market.

Sinclair is of special concern because of that company’s plans to all but eliminate local news at all of its stations in favor of a centralized “local” news broadcast. In this new program, called News Central, most of the broadcast originates from Sinclair studios outside Baltimore, with just a short insert from the local station for a few local stories. All other aspects, including national and international news, sports and weather, is shared amongst all Sinclair stations.

This program is already being shown on several Sinclair stations, and the commentary portion of News Central, called the Point, current airs at the end of NewsChannel 15’s ten o’clock broadcast. I reported about this situation back in January in an article entitled The Oncoming DE-Localization Of Our Local "NewsChannel” ( http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/8975 ).

This new News Central program could replace more local news broadcasts if Sinclair were allowed to own more stations in the Champaign-Decatur-Springfield market.

Although the Hollings-Stevens bill is out of committee, it is still not law. And even though it does not completely roll back the FCC’s loosening of media ownership rules, it makes some headway, and also demonstrates the Congress may be newly interested in listening to their constituents and standing in front of the giant media train.

Still, bills like this may not be enough, because it was action by the courts – the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to be precise – that gave Michael Powell and his cohorts the green light to make some of these changes. The Court ruled that several of the FCC’s metrics for determining TV stations and other major media could be co-owned were not sufficiently defensible and ordered the FCC to review and change them.

If the Congress decides to simply reinstate these metrics there is the risk that the Courts would decide that the reinstatement is no good, too, possibly even making matters worse.

Therefore, our legislators may need to be more committed to the cause of limiting media concentration than just passing one bill.

Finally, a last bit of good news is a separate bill introduced by Sen. McCain that would rescind the biennial review provision of the 1996 Telecommunications Act as well as giving the FCC the ability to levy much larger fines on violators. More than any other factor, the biennial review provision is the reason why the FCC went through this recent ownership rules review, and what gave FCC Chairman Powell license to thrust it through the Commission with minimal notice and public input. It’s elimination would be an enormous benefit to the public interest. The Commerce Committee’s consideration of this bill has been put off until next week, so there is still time to agitate for its approval.
See also:
http://www.mediageek.org
Related stories on this site:
The Battle Over Media Ownership Is Far From Over
Add a quick comment
Title
Your name Your email

Comment

Text Format
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.

Comments

Re: Concentrated Media Sausage: Making Sense Out Of The FCC's Changes To Media Ownership Rules, The Congressional Attempts To Reverse Them, And What This Means In Our Local Media Environment
Current rating: 0
19 Jun 2003
Modified: 10:29:20 PM
Paul,
Great article. You have helped make sense out of a complicated and still unresolved situation that greatly affects us all and that, as you've noted, we've seen almost nothing at all in any of the local media, except for Indymedia.
Another Piece Of FCC Dirty Laundry
Current rating: 0
19 Jun 2003
Aside from the usual corruption that the FCC operates with in these dark days of proto-fascist media "deregulation," here's another piece of dirty laundry about the FCC that I hadn't heard of before:
http://www.openairwaves.org/telecom/report.aspx?aid=31
The FCC And WMDs
Current rating: 0
25 Jun 2003
I’m going to follow a thread linking the weapons of mass destruction to the FCC’s move to relax the media-ownership rules, and—trust me—through to Tina Brown.

First, the weapons: The Bush guys obviously played Saddam for a fool. He wanted to have those weapons. He was a broken man without them. The Bushies, by their wild accusations, conceded to him the very illusion of power that they knew he would happily and fiercely cling to and that they could then set out with appropriate fervor to protect us from and to take away from him.

Saddam had a get-out-of-jail-free card: He just had to reveal to the world that he was bereft of resources, spent as a force, bankrupt as a ruler. But Rummy and Wolfowitz and Perle, and everybody else in the Bush administration who has been obsessing about Saddam for fifteen years, understood that it would be at least as difficult for him to admit to not having such power as to get tarred for having it.

He needed to appear threatening. We needed him to appear threatening.

We needed him to dissemble. He needed to dissemble.

Everybody was party to the creation of an alternate—and, likely, entirely false—reality.

There was even a neat moral justification for letting Saddam hang himself: While the Bush people surely had an extensive understanding of the truly dismal nature of the Iraqi military resources, Saddam’s squirreliness allowed them to maintain an iota of less-than-absolute certainty (and then, of course, Wolfowitz and company couldn’t help throwing in a little bogus intelligence). Indeed, North Korea, threatening to blow up the world in the middle of this, turned out to be helpful. Here was a down-on-its-luck regime apparently producing serious offensive weapons—so it could happen. (But since we weren’t running to the barricades on this, it probably meant that the weapons produced by a down-on-its-luck regime were of limited usefulness; or, on the other hand, it means that if we do really fear that a rogue regime has them, we tread carefully.)

Even in the aftermath of the war—where looking for the weapons has become something of a Monty Python routine—the Potemkin-village logic continues:

If we can’t find them, they still must be here—or they must have been here—because Saddam could have avoided all this if he had just admitted he didn’t have them (and while he did say he didn’t have them, he didn’t say it as convincingly as he would have said it if he really didn’t have them).

The logic of the war is the logic of the Jesuitical-style arguments popular on right-wing television and radio. It’s been war by syllogism.

We settled—and continue to settle—for an abstract deduction over actual proof.

Still, this deduction was not so ironclad, or brilliant, or irrefutable, that it could not be—indeed, it has been—disassembled.

And yet this low-rent logic remains, in the public mind, largely unassailable, because nobody—certainly not with any concerted attention—has assailed it.

Why not? It was a setup. A ruse. A cheat. Hello?

How come the Bushies are getting away with it? Sheesh.

Now the FCC:

Every news organization from CNN to Fox to the networks to the big newspaper chains to the New York Times (although, heroically, not the Washington Post) was eagerly petitioning the Bush FCC (led by the secretary of State’s son, Michael Powell) for the freedom to substantially alter the economics of the news business. And as the war got under way, everybody knew the decision would come soon after the war ended.

It’s important to understand how much this FCC ruling means to these companies. News (especially old-fashioned headline news) is a sick business, if not a dying game. For newspaper companies, the goal is to get out of the newspaper business and into the television business (under the old rules, it’s a no-no to own newspapers and television stations in the same market). For networks with big news operations, the goal is to buy more stations, which is where the real cash flows from. The whole point here is to move away from news, to downgrade it, to amortize it, to minimize it.

Anyway, you’ve got all of these media organizations that want something for the most basic reason up-against-the-wall companies can want something: because they think this is what will save them (and transform them). There’s almost nothing—really—they won’t do for this. They’ve already spent many years and millions of dollars trying to make the FCC change the rules. What’s more, all of these companies are in lockstep (save for the Washington Post)—nobody’s breaking ranks.

All right then. The media knows what it wants, and the media knows what the Bush people want.

So is it a conspiracy? Is that what I’m saying? That the media—acting in concert—took a dive on the war for the sake of getting an improved position with regard to the ownership rules? Certainly, every big media company was a cheerleader, as gullible and as empty-headed—or as accommodating—on the subject of WMDs as, well, Saddam himself.

But conspiracy wouldn’t quite be the right word.

Negotiation, however, would be the right one. An appreciation of the whole environment, the careful balancing of interests, the subtleties of the trade (at this point, the ritual denial: “There was no quid pro quo”).

The interesting thing is that in most newsrooms, you would find lots of agreement as to this view of how businessmen and politicians get the things they want. A general acceptance of the realities of ass-kissing, if not a higher level of corruption. You’d find nearly everybody saying, Yes, duh, everybody gets something in return—but not when it come to the news. Not like that. Not so . . . quid pro quo.

Now, this is not entirely true. The people at Fox certainly wouldn’t swear on the life of their grandmothers that the news wasn’t customized for larger business purposes.

And everybody at NBC seems to understand that if Bob Wright doesn’t like what he hears, he’ll be calling the control room—that GE guys aren’t exactly committed to the independence of news.

And certainly, while at the New York Times there would be resistance to the notion that Arthur Sulzberger might have said to Howell Raines, You know, there’s this FCC thing—there would be less resistance to that notion now.

And ABC and Disney, oy.

And CBS and Viacom and Jessica Lynch!

Still, it comes down to the literal point of influence. Who said what to whom? Did anybody in any news organization actually say, “Go easy on the war”?

We tell ourselves it doesn’t go that far.

But do we believe it?

The BBC meticulously dismantled the Jessica Lynch–rescue story weeks ago, but we’re still defending it (although ever so steadily it gets chipped away, altered, recast).

Even the term WMD is a nod to an inside joke—that the existence of the weapons has been established only by constant repetition.

And set the war justifications against this moment in time when the media theme is not to give anybody any wiggle room. Anybody in any position of authority—political, business, journalistic—is being held to the strictest interpretations of meaning and context and responsibility. This cannot equal that. Transparency is the grail. Everybody is held to meticulous account. Except for the Bushies. They have a media pass.

The war is one of those great, suspicious, excessively justified, what-you-see-is-not-what-you-get, dubious-accounting, reality-distorting, even Clintonian (although it seems far vaster in its plasticity than anything the Clintons ever did) endeavors. They piped it. Wolfowitz is Jayson Blair.

And yet as the whole mess continues to unfold, it remains, in the media mind, a pretty good war, with or without the weapons of mass destruction.

And the FCC thing graciously sailed through.


From the June 30, 2003 issue of New York Magazine.
Copyright © 2002, New York Metro, Llc. All rights reserved.
http://www.newyorkmetro.com
Here's My Take On That Michael Wolff Article, WMDs And The Bushies
Current rating: 5
26 Jun 2003

New York Magazine's Michael Wolff links up the Powell FCC's recent regulatory gift to the broadcast industry (and newspapers) with the pass the mainstream media has given the Bush administration (and Mikey Powell's daddy) over the question of WMDs that still haven't shown up in Iraq. Even though, for me, the quid pro quo is too obvious to dismiss, he doesn't think conspiracy is the right word. Instead,

"Negotiation, however, would be the right one. An appreciation of the whole environment, the careful balancing of interests, the subtleties of the trade (at this point, the ritual denial: “There was no quid pro quo”)."

However, a former chair of the FCC, Reed Hundt, is more than willing to call it out. On the eve of the FCC's big June 2 decision, Salon published an interview with Hundt that didn't seem to make any ripples at all, even in media democracy circles, despite Hundt's surprisingly candid proclimations.

With specific regard to a deal between right-wing political forces and the nation's major media conglomerats, Hundt says:

"When Newt Gingrich was running the House of Representatives, effective in the fall of 1994, he called all the media owners together in a room down on Capitol Hill, and according to what people who were there told me, he told them he'd give them relaxed rules allowing media concentration in exchange for favorable coverage. Now I wasn't there, but that's what they said they understood he meant."
And, then, we got the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which, specifically, tremendously loosened radio ownership rules, allowing for the creation of the monster we call Clear Channel Communications. Clear Channel was but a fly on the ass of the radio industry, until the Act allowed it to swallow up struggling radio stations at an alarming rate.

In 1998, as it continued to gorge on stations nationwide, Clear Channel also acquired Jacor, which had become home to conservative radio blathermouths Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Laura Schlessinger. Jacor, itself, had been on a buying spree before that, acquiring these conservative talkers and amassing 169 radio stations.

And although the Clear Channel-Jacor deal happened almost 2 years after the Act, rumblings about it appeared almost a year earlier, which means that the companies were probably scheming way back before the Act even passed - and while their lobbyists and campaign money were busy working their magic in DC.

Limbaugh, specifically, certainly had some influence in Gingrich's 1994 election successes (though not as much as he'd like to claim) and the overall advancement of the neo-conservative (and anti-Clinton) agenda. Acquisition by Clear Channel, and access to its enormous stable of additional stations, certainly didn't hurt that cause, nor Limbaugh's own pocketbook (and the Jacor guys didn't do too bad, either).

Without the Telecomm Act of 1996, Jacor would never have been able to raise the capital to acquire 169 stations and Limbaugh and Schlessinger's programs, and Clear Channel, in turn, would never have had the bucks to swallow them up, either. Without the Telecomm Act Clear Channel would still be a small regional radio owner, and Limbaugh might still be a popular radio host, though without the backing of the 900 lb gorilla's several hundered AM outlets to solidify his position. (and the Dixie Chicks might still get mainstream country radio play.)

Now, TV and newspaper companies want their share of the pie, and they learned from radio how to get it. The conservatives, by their very nature, are much more likely to heave all sorts of corporate benefits your way, so go easy on them, and hard on their enemies, and you will be rewarded.

It's not a conspiracy, it's the core logic of modern American business. The media conglomerates have something the Republican Right wants, and, in turn, the Right's FCC has something the media conglomerates desparately desire. Why should it be surprising that they'd find a way to work together, even if never explicitly?

The loosening of media ownership rules is a reward for a job well-done.

Again, former FCC Chair Hundt paints the picture clearly:

"Progressives would be better off going to a Ouija board to channel the spirits of Upton Sinclair and Ida Tarbell, rather than trying to shake the conservative majority at the FCC. There's no way the three votes there are going to be altered in any way by any kind of popular protest. You can walk the streets of the United States and you will never find a single person who's in favor of more consolidated media, unless by chance you happened to bump into one of Rupert Murdoch's children. ...

"It's the culmination of the attack by the right on the media since the independent media challenged and helped topple Richard Nixon. "

Big media and big political power go hand in hand. Want corporate media reform? It won't happen until American politics changes, too.

Me, I'd be happy to see them both pretty well obliterated.

FCC Issues New Media Ownership Rules
Current rating: 0
03 Jul 2003
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Federal Communications Commission on Wednesday issued controversial new rules that would allow media companies to grow larger, regulations that probably will go into effect in August but could be challenged in court.

The rules -- allowing television networks to buy more local television stations and permit a company to own a newspaper, television station and several radio outlets in a market -- will go into effect 30 days after being published in the Federal Register, which can take up to three weeks.

The Republican-controlled FCC voted 3-2 to ease the ownership limits one month ago. Media companies had pushed the agency to loosen the regulations even further while consumer and political groups sought to tighten the rules.

Both sides could ask the FCC to reconsider its new rules or challenge them in federal court. The rules stretch some 257 pages not including statements by the five commissioners.

"There will be judicial appeals," said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of a public interest law firm, Media Access Project. He also noted that litigation could be held up while the FCC considers likely requests for clarification or reconsideration of the new rules.

Lawmakers in both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate have promised to push a bill to roll back the FCC's new rules as well as a resolution that would veto the agency's action, though some House Republican leaders are opposed to undoing the agency's action.

Under the new rules, a television network will be able to own local television stations that collectively reach up to 45 percent of the U.S. television audience, up from 35 percent.

Both Viacom Inc., owner of the CBS and UPN networks, and News Corp., which runs the Fox network, own television stations that collectively reach roughly 39 percent of the national audience.

Also under the new rules, companies will be allowed to own up to three television stations in the largest markets and two stations in all but the smallest markets. But no entity can own more than one of the top four rated stations in a market.

In markets where there are at least nine television stations, companies will be able to own any combination of newspapers, television stations and radio outlets. No cross ownership will be permitted where there are at most three television stations.

In markets where there are four to eight television stations, limited cross-ownership would be allowed under the new rules. The FCC left intact its regulations that limit how many radio stations a company can own in a market but tightened the definition of what makes up a market.


Copyright 2003 Reuters Ltd
http://www.Reuters.com