|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Media |
|
FCC Puts Democracy On Mute |
Current rating: 0 |
by Common Cause
(No verified email address) |
02 Jun 2003
|
FCC Votes To Give Away Diversity And Freedom of Speech to Corporate Monopolies;
Common Cause, MoveOn.org, Free Press Urge Congress and Courts to Defend Marketplace of Ideas |
WASHINGTON - June 2 - Common Cause, MoveOn.org and Free Press today condemned the FCC's 3-2 vote in favor of relaxing media ownership rules that favor corporate monopolies at the expense of local news outlets and diversity. The groups vowed to continue fighting to take back America's public airwaves by going to Congress and the courts to restore limits on what media giants can own.
"This is a dark day for American democracy," said Chellie Pingree, president of Common Cause. "The FCC has ignored mounting public pressure and given the green light to a handful of media moguls to control what the American public sees, hears, and reads. That is frightening prospect."
For the past month, the coalition engaged in a high-profile campaign that included paid print and television ads and generated hundreds of thousands of email appeals and phone calls that resulted in crashing the FCC's server on Friday.
"Make no mistake, this corrupt process and ruling fly in the face of democracy and drowns out the voice of the little guy in favor of corporate monopolies," said Eli Pariser, campaign director of MoveOn.org.
"Just as other successful movements have suffered setbacks at the hands of corrupt and shortsighted regulators, so did media reform today. However, we have been strengthened by this fight, and are now prepared to not only reverse these rules, but to begin securing media policies that will serve all Americans," said Free Press President Robert McChesney. |
See also:
http://www.commoncause.org
http://www.freepress.org
|
Comments
|
A Dark Storm Cloud Is Looming Over The Future Of The American Media... |
by Jonathan S. Adelstein
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Jun 2003
|
Statement Of FCC Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein
This is a sad day for me, and I think for the country. I'm afraid a dark storm cloud is now looming over the future of the American media. This is the most sweeping and destructive rollback of consumer protection rules in the history of American broadcasting.
The public stands little to gain and everything to lose by slashing the protections that have served them for decades. This plan is likely to damage the media landscape for generations to come. It threatens to degrade civil discourse and the quality of our society's intellectual, cultural and political life. I dissent, finding today's Order poor public policy, indefensible under the law, and inimical to the public interest and the health of our democracy.
In the end, this Order simply makes it easier for existing media giants to gobble up more outlets and fortify their already massive market power. It capitulates too many of the longstanding demands of the media companies we oversee.
This approach shatters most of the last vestiges of the consumer protections that weren't eliminated in the 1980's. This decision pulls the teeth out of the remaining rules, leaving the FCC a toothless tiger. As big media companies get bigger, they're likely to broadcast even more homogenized programming that increasingly appeals to the lowest common denominator. If this is the toaster with pictures, soon only Wonder Bread will pop out.
It may take a while for the public to feel the full effects of today's decision. Consolidation in the media markets could take place over a number of years, just as it did in radio. But people will notice every time a new merger goes through that eliminates a voice in a community. Their anger will flash as they surf through their channels only to find more sensationalism, commercialism, crassness, violence, homogenization and noticeably less serious coverage of news and local events, just as many Americans warned me they expected to happen if we allowed further consolidation.
It didn't have to turn out this way. Congress and the courts forced a massive review. They did not force massive deregulation. We had a choice. The courts required us to justify our rules, not to gut them or replace them with pale substitutes. Certainly, the media markets have changed, and our rules must keep pace. But the majority chose to go much further than Congress or the courts required. They chose to pursue gratuitous deregulation. This is by far the most dramatic weakening of our media ownership rules this country has ever seen.
This has turned out to be a painful process. I had hoped for a better outcome I could support, or at least oppose less strenuously. The Commission undertook the most comprehensive review of its rules ever. It was designed as an effort to produce a judicially-sustainable, intellectually-coherent framework. But those good intentions and good faith efforts didn't pan out. The comprehensive framework never materialized. An effort begun with serious intellectual aspirations descended into an incoherent, outcome-driven political document, the likes of which the Commission has too often seen and sought to avoid.
A new regime for a new era never materialized. Instead, we're left with a muddled patchwork of meager protections. The only consistent elements are market-driven philosophies and deregulatory outcomes. The Order is rife with references to market efficiencies but virtually devoid of references to consumers.
It's been difficult for me to watch a group of colleagues whom I genuinely respect, like and admire move in a direction with which I so strongly disagree. I feel compelled to speak out, but take no joy in taking such strong exception.
The majority implies that Congress and the courts forced this outcome. I disagree. We had much wider latitude than this suggests. The biennial review provides a simple directive - to determine whether the rules "are necessary in the public interest as the result of competition," repealing or modifying them only if we deem them "no longer in the public interest."
The linchpin of Congress's statutory guidance is two words - public interest. The American citizenry should benefit from each decision. All American citizens must benefit, including minorities, women, and non-English speaking citizens.
In the context of media ownership, no matter what others think the Circuit Court may have implied, the FCC still has a special duty to protect what the Supreme Court referred to as an "uninhibited marketplace of ideas."
I'm afraid this decision departs dramatically from our statutory mandate, which is to establish rules in the "public convenience, interest or necessity." Let me explain why today I think we fail to meet even that flexible, broad standard.
Judging from our record, public opposition is nearly unanimous, from ultra-conservatives to ultra-liberals, and virtually everyone in between. We have received about three-quarters of a million comments from the public in opposition to relaxing our ownership rules, a new record, and only a handful in support. Of the hundreds of citizens I heard from directly at field hearings across the country, not one stood up to call for relaxing the rules. Of the thousands of e-mails I personally received, I saw only one didn't oppose allowing further media concentration.
The American people appear united in believing that media concentration has gone too far already and should go no further.
I've heard it said we can't make this decision by polls or by weighing postcards. Fair enough.
But the statute doesn't let us simply dismiss the public's views with a passing reference in one paragraph, as this item currently does. The public apparently has no interest in further media concentration. Does the majority really know what's better for the public than the three quarters of a million citizens who are motivated enough to contact the Commission or attend field hearings? We should not assume that those people who took the time to alert us to their deep-seated concerns, with 99.9 percent in opposition, are wrong unless there is overwhelming evidence proving it. Here, just the opposite is true. There is plenty of evidence the people are right.
The public is joined by bipartisan chorus of caution from over 150 Members of Congress. Organizations from nearly every political stripe, from the National Rifle Association to the National Organization for Women, expressed grave doubt about the wisdom of allowing greater consolidation. We heard from artists, academics, media moguls -- Republicans, and Democrats.
It has been said that the public comments we received are too simple and offer no substantive basis from which to make our decision. I beg to differ. I have read a lot of their comments, and I've listened to hundreds of people firsthand in city halls, schools churches and meeting rooms.
Let me tell you, the Americans we heard from know what they're talking about. This is the media they view every day. They take it very personally, and they are very articulate and substantive in what they say.
We have heard from people who have collectively spent billions of hours watching TV, listening to the radio and reading newspapers. There is no better expert witness than the American people. There is no more objective jury.
But today's decision overrides their better judgment. It instead relies on the reasoning of a handful of powerful media companies who have a vested financial interest. Those who stand to benefit by buying and selling the public airwaves won out over the public.
Anyone who questions whether consolidation can cause harm need only look to the experience of radio. The most constant refrain I heard from coast to coast was complaints about the homogenization and loss of news coverage on the radio dial since 1996. People begged us not to let happen to television what happened to radio. But the majority did not heed this concern. By ignoring this history, we may be destined to repeat it. Radio is a very sick canary in the coal mine, and we're about to infect television with the same disease.
I suggested and would have taken another approach. This Order often equates the public interest with the economic interests of media conglomerates. It assumes that efficiencies and cost savings created by mergers will translate into benefits for the public. But it makes no effort to ensure that will actually happen.
We could have easily addressed these concerns. I share the view that given changes in the marketplace, some of these combinations may make sense. I could have supported greater flexibility to evaluate mergers on a case-by-case, market-by-market analysis. That is the only true way to determine if media mergers of this magnitude would actually benefit the public. But the only way to determine the value of a given merger is for the Commission to request companies that seek to merge to demonstrate how, in the case of those particular entities in those particular markets, any efficiencies gained by the merger would be channeled into something positive for the viewing public.
The majority rejected such an approach in favor of bright line rules. They refused even to ask parties that seek to merge to say anything about how many news staff would be retained, the number of hours of local programming planned, cross-programming plans for TV duopolies or the overall impact on news and public affairs programming.
Their stated goal is to achieve more market certainty for entities that seek to merge. They proudly note that establishing set rules facilitates transactions, reduces costs and makes deals more attractive to the capital markets. Another stated goal is to avoid the administrative burden that a case-by-case approach would impose upon the Commission.
The Order actually makes a special effort to proclaim the Commission has no interest in the facts of particular cases since the new rules are the be-all and end-all of what's in the public interest. This implies the Order divined some sort of higher truth as to what works best in every case for the American people. It says we don't want to be bothered with facts that might point in another direction.
In its rigid insistence on fixed rules based on oftentimes arbitrary numbers, the Order ignores our statutory obligation to serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity in favor of the convenience of those who seek to maximize the money they can extract from private sale of the public airwaves. And it favors the Commission's administrative "convenience" ahead of the public interest. We are here to carry out the statute, not subvert it with the excuse that it's too much work to implement. This just won't do when our very democracy is at stake.
The majority's approach simply assumes that if we let media companies merge, they will channel the resulting efficiencies into better programming for the public. Broadcasters have a long and proud tradition of public service I know many will want to carry on. But in the absence of some other compulsion, the logic of marketplace competition and the media companies' fiduciary responsibility to shareholders will require them to maximize profits rather than serve the public interest. The record does not support the dangerous assumption that the many mergers contemplated under these rules will invariably serve the public interest.
One argument in favor of unleashing the media giants is that free over-the-air television is threatened. That's a worthy goal, but the rumors of its demise, widely spread, are greatly exaggerated.
In reality, just last month, broadcast network advertisers spent a record $9.4 billion in upfront sales for next season, up 13 percent. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that some networks make $600-$700 million, though others are less profitable.
It is quite telling that the best case for consolidation is that the networks need to make still more. It's not the FCC's job to make sure every big TV network makes money - that's up to network management. Our first priority is ensuring the American people get a wide range of diverse viewpoints.
The day we will know over-the-air TV is in real trouble is when broadcasters start lining up to turn back their licenses. Today, instead, the value of television stations continues to skyrocket because these licenses are so scarce. One station in Los Angeles sold for $800 million. Why are the networks so interested in increasing the nationwide cap or acquiring triopolies or duopolies in local markets if this business is on the way down?
It violates every tenet of a free democratic society to let a handful of powerful companies control our media. The public has a right to be informed by a diversity of viewpoints so they can make up their own minds. Without a diverse, independent media, citizen access to information crumbles, along with political and social participation. For the sake of our democracy, we should encourage the widest possible dissemination of free expression through the public airwaves.
Some argue that the concern about the threat to American democracy is overblown since it is so strong and resilient. While our democracy is strong and not about to crumble, does it mean we can afford to weaken it? Doesn't it matter that only half our citizens vote? The same people argue there is plenty of diversity already, so we can afford to lose some. I just don't agree.
Despite the Order's assumption that technological advancements render broadcasters just another voice in a crowd of ever-expanding and fungible media channels, a simple fact remains. No technological advances have made it possible for every person who wants to broadcast in a local community to do so. Nobody yet has figured out how to replicate the spectrum for everyone who wants to broadcast a message. The exclusive right to use the broadcasting spectrum denies it to all others.
The majority completely ignores the reality that neither cable nor the Internet has changed the huge market power granted by federal license to use scarce broadcast spectrum, particularly when that license comes with the requirement to be carried on cable.
It also ignores that people still get the vast bulk of their local news and information from the same places they always have: their local newspaper and local TV stations. And these are the very outlets we are giving the most new flexibility to merge.
Today's bottom line spells an open season on consolidation. In place of our once powerful cross-media limits, only 2.3 percent of the American population will now receive full diversity protection. In contrast, the markets where all remaining cross-media protections have been entirely lifted represent 72.58 percent of the population.
While I agree that some consolidation may be warranted in the very top markets, the leap from protecting 100 percent of the population with full cross-newspaper/broadcast protections to less than 30 percent is dramatic. We are moving to a world where in larger markets one owner can combine the cable system, three television stations, eight radio stations, the dominant newspaper, and the leading Internet provider, not to mention cable networks, magazine publishers and programming studios which could produce the vast bulk of the programming available to those outlets. In my view, it is no exaggeration to say the rules now permit the emergence of a 21st Century Citizen Kane on the local level, with perhaps a handful of Citizen Kanes on the national level.
In smaller markets, say the town of Great Falls, Montana with a population of 56,690, under our new rules one entity could own the cable company, the dominant television station, the dominant newspaper, and multiple radio stations. Is this safe for democracy?
We have heard that relaxing the rules is appropriate because so many Americans can now access so many channels, the Internet and other media. But it turns out the same few vertically-integrated global media firms own the bulk of what people see. Ownership has become more concentrated. A person can always add more electrical outlets throughout their home, but that doesn't mean they will get their electricity from new sources. The same goes for media outlets.
And we cannot ignore that many citizens have no access to these wonderful new options. Until every American can effectively access these outlets, this Commission should protect the diversity available in the outlets that serve their needs.
Our task, therefore, should be to encourage maximum diversity, not assure a four-voice or six-voice sliver of it. This Order, to the contrary, concludes that there is plenty of diversity already, so we can afford to sacrifice some and have enough left over.
The public interest means more than just efficiencies and cost savings. Every community has local needs, local elections, local news, local talent, and local culture. While localism reflects a commitment to local news and public affairs programming, it also means much more. It means providing opportunities for local self-expression and reaching out to, developing and promoting local talent. It means making programming decisions to serve local needs. It means allocating resources to address the needs of the community. Localism's many virtues are hard to capture, but may get easier to ignore as companies consolidate.
When this full document is finally made public, I expect it will be torn apart by media experts, academics, consumer groups, activists, and most of all, the American people. They will find it riddled with contradictions, inconsistencies, false assumptions and outcome-driven thinking.
I would like to recount some of the most glaring inconsistencies and flawed reasoning behind these new rules. I've got a much longer written critique I will release soon, but will spare you now by summarizing some highlights.
In perhaps the Order's most inexplicable inconsistency, the Majority decides to retain a 50 percent discount for UHF stations in the national television cap, yet fails to apply comparable treatment to the local television rule and cross-media limits. To discount some stations for one rule while failing to do so in others is arbitrary and unjustifiable. If the purpose of this exercise is to update our rules in light of technological developments, we can't ignore some just because we don't like the outcome of more stringent limits.
In perhaps the most blatant evidence of a results-driven process, the Majority goes out of its way to allow companies to seek waivers of the new bright line rules to achieve greater concentration, while it attempts to deny the statutory right of opponents of mergers to petition to deny a given transaction. It is fundamentally unfair to allow waivers for corporate interests in extenuating circumstances without the corresponding protections to the public.
The Diversity Index was a noble effort that tragically degenerated into an ill-conceived rote formula that even Merlin couldn't decipher. The Index is seemingly nothing more than economic jujitsu, an ornate castle built upon a foundation of sand at the ocean's edge.
After detailing at length the new formula and its underpinnings, the Majority stresses that the index is used only as a basis to draw bright-line rules. But the order specifically denies any person the right to apply this new magical formula to a particular market. In other words, no one can use the FCC's own new methodology to show that an application in a particular market harms the public interest.
Among its many flaws, the index distorts how it calculates the market shares of relevant providers in each local market, resulting in grossly understated measurements of the impact of any particular combination. For example in New York, it treats the Shop At Home TV station the same as the local NBC station. Similarly, with respect to newspapers, the index treats the New York Times the same as the Polish Daily News.
Despite the quest for empirical footing, the index is premised on admittedly incomplete data. Recognizing that the Nielsen study failed to ask the specific question of the source of local news, the majority marches ahead, cobbling its own data points on local news sources from selective answers to muddled questions.
Against all notions of consistency, the majority unwisely decides that even if a broadcaster is restricted from acquiring a newspaper, the broadcaster can still buy the paper and hold it until its next renewal period - a period of 8 years. This simply underscores the outcome-driven nature of this Order.
On the radio front, the retention of some local radio rules appears an acknowledgment by the majority that they couldn't stomach the fallout from the rapid consolidation of the past 7 years. And some actual improvements were made in the market definitions.
Yet, for all the talk about tightening the radio rules, in several important respects the Order actually further unleashes the industry. It eliminates the radio-TV cross ownership rule. And it eliminates the current limit on the audience or advertising share any one owner can gain through mergers in a local market. For a rule designed solely to address competitive effects of mergers, it is mystifying why the majority would cast aside such a fundamental and economically sound principle as accounting for the measure of power of combined stations. The revised rule now clears the way for mergers that previously were denied or designated for hearing due to the strong likelihood of negative competitive effects.
The Order includes a helpful provision that allows only small businesses --initially -- to buy grandfathered groups of radio clusters that no longer comply with the new market definition. While useful, it may not get used much. Small businesses will encounter great difficulty in raising the capital necessary to buy expensive, large clusters, if they ever even come on the market at all. This is especially true given that the seller could peel off one or two stations and then sell both the remaining cluster and the spin-off stations with no restrictions to an unlimited pool of potential buyers, which will limit the exclusivity of the eligible entity buyer pool.
In my view, adding an admittedly helpful provision that potentially affects a only a handful of stations, if it ever gets used at all, doesn't come close to offsetting the sad truth that small businesses, including those owned by minorities and women, are going to find it even harder in more concentrated and expensive media markets to raise capital, own outlets or have their unique voices heard.
Most alarming is that after only two years, the small business can flip the grandfathered cluster to any large radio or media conglomerate like Clear Channel. Making this approach so ripe for abuse further diminishes the likelihood that it will serve much of a useful purpose, since real disadvantaged businesses will have to bid against companies that plan to sell to well-capitalized radio giants, raising the price of clusters. The ultimate beneficiaries of this approach could be companies like Clear Channel that could add even more grandfathered clusters than it currently controls.
Today the Commission introduces a new behemoth into our media landscape: a TV triopoly. Where is the empirical evidence supporting this creation in our record? As unjustified by evidence as it may be, this leap is in only six of top TV markets.
More troubling is the leap in the number of duopolies now permitted. Duopolies are now restricted to sizable markets. But this Order expands duopolies to 162 out of 210 markets, or 95.4 percent of the population. I can't fathom why we would allow such dramatic consolidation across the board with no analysis as to how this will impact individual markets. It's a breathtaking assumption that each of these mergers, all of which will eliminate a local voice, is in the public interest. And I don't believe the record justifies it.
I do believe the record demonstrates that further concentration of power in the hands of networks justifies retention of the national network cap at the 35 percent level set by Congress.
The majority has not adequately justified the selection of a new 45 percent cap. It relies exclusively on evidence showing that the largest network station owners possess no greater bargaining power, measured by prime time preemptions, than the smallest network station. This is a thin reed on which to justify a 10-point increase. Moreover, without access to more data, this conclusion is unconvincing.
In the end, we have yet another tradeoff between efficiencies and public interest goals such as localism. Guess who wins. The social benefit of locally originated and oriented programming and program selection to me outweighs the efficiencies of further vertical integration.
Finally, let me explain why I cannot join the majority in voting for retention of the dual network rule. I disagree with the Order's conclusion that diversity no longer underpins this rule. But more importantly, a more rigorous examination of this rule must be conducted in light of the rising tide of Spanish-language broadcasting networks. Just as the rule is retained for the top-four English-language networks, so too should Spanish broadcasting be examined separately. The rapid growth of the Spanish language media in the past several years is having a significant effect on the landscape in which broadcast networks operate. I believe that these developments require us to consider whether to afford Spanish-speakers the same protections available to English-speaking television audiences.
Looking back on how we got here, I am convinced there is little else I could have done to change the outcome. In an effort to moderate the extreme proposals that emerged, I offered suggestions to my colleagues which unfortunately were not incorporated. The turning point when I realized I could not likely support this proposal was when a majority settled on the notion that bright line rules were preferable to making case-by-case determinations as to whether mergers served the public interest.
The Supreme Court has said that "promoting the widespread dissemination of information from a multiplicity of sources" is of the highest order. So safeguarding diversity should not be subject to abstract diversity scenarios or arbitrary decisions that reduce the number of voices people can hear.
I don't mean to suggest that bigness is always bad, or that free enterprise will always fail the public. There is some truth to the arguments that my colleagues make today. There's nothing inherently wrong with earning profits from using public property.
But when it comes to gaining even greater profits at the expense of the cornerstones of our democracy, we must carefully question the effect on the public. Today's rules just don't let the big get bigger, they will effectively prevent smaller entities from breaking in. I would have relaxed the rules more incrementally and shown the public each time how it would benefit.
Since my arrival here 5 months ago, I have approached this proceeding with a constructive frame of mind. I sought to understand the various proposals and their underpinnings, and offer my views on their efficacy. Even after others closed in on an approach with which I could not get comfortable, I made reasonable attempts to moderate the proposals -- which were refused. In the end, it wasn't the process that precluded me from participating in drafting and supporting today's Order. It was the substantive direction the item took and the results-driven imposition of bottom line, bright line rules ahead of all else. I am disappointed that a majority of my colleagues could not be persuaded to take a more reasoned, conservative, case-by-case approach.
This is far from over. Congress may prove more responsive to the citizens who passionately plea for the independence and diversity of their media. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, this is not the end, or even the beginning of the end, but just the end of the beginning. |
|
I Dissent Because Today The FCC Empowers America's New Media Elite With Unacceptable Levels Of Influence... |
by Michael J. Copps
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Jun 2003
|
Statement Of FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps
I dissent to this decision. I dissent on grounds of substance. I dissent on grounds of process. I dissent because today the Federal Communications Commission empowers America's new Media Elite with unacceptable levels of influence over the ideas and information upon which our society and our democracy so heavily depend.
This morning we are at a crossroads - for television, radio and newspapers and for the American people. The decision we five make today will recast our entire media landscape for years to come. At issue is whether a few corporations will be ceded enhanced gatekeeper control over the civil dialogue of our country; more content control over our music, entertainment and information; and veto power over the majority of what our families watch, hear and read.
Two very divergent paths beckon us.
Down one road is a reaffirmation of America's commitment to local control of our media, diversity in news and editorial viewpoint, and the importance of competition. This path implores us not to abandon core values going to the heart of what the media mean in our country. On this path we reaffirm that FCC licensees have been given very special privileges and that they have very special responsibilities to serve the public interest.
Down the other road is more media control by ever fewer corporate giants. This path surrenders to a handful of corporations awesome powers over our news, information and entertainment. On this path we endanger time-honored safeguards and time-proven values that have strengthened the country as well as the media.
So the stakes are high - higher than they have been for any decision the five people sitting here today have ever made at this Commission. How do we decide which path to choose?
We should begin by examining the law. What does the law tell us? The Communications Act tells us to use our rules to promote localism, diversity and competition. It reminds us that the airwaves belong to the American people, and that no broadcast station, no company, no single individual owns an airwave in America. The airwaves belong to all the people. And the Supreme Court has upheld media protections, stating that "it is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee."
We should then look at the world of experience. What practical, real world experience do we have to guide us? Radio deregulation gives us powerful and relevant lessons. When Congress and the Commission removed radio concentration protections, we experienced massive, and largely unforeseen, consolidation. We saw a 34 percent reduction in the number of radio station owners. Diversity of programming suffered. Homogenized music and standardized programming crowded out local and regional talent. Creative local artists found it evermore difficult to obtain play time. Editorial opinion polarized. Competition in many towns became non-existent as a few companies bought up virtually every station in the market. This experience should terrify us as we consider visiting upon television and newspapers what we have inflicted upon radio. "Clear Channelization" of the rest of the American media will harm our country.
We should, finally, seek out the counsel and wisdom of the American people. Commissioner Adelstein and I have attended public hearings across the country with conservatives and liberals, broadcasters and creative artists, concerned parents and civil rights activists, church leaders and educators. Our Commission has seen close to three quarters of a million people register their views - more than for any proceeding in Commission history. And in a nation that can be deeply divided on important issues, these citizens are uniquely unanimous on the question of whether this Commission should allow further media concentration. They are screaming that we should protect local broadcasting, diversity of programming and opinion, and the ability to compete with the huge companies. We should heed their conservatism - their urgent call to refrain from abandoning time-honored protections when so much is at stake and so much is unknown about the consequences of what we are doing here today.
The majority instead chooses radical deregulation - perhaps not quite so radical as originally intended a year ago before Americans found out what was going on and began to speak out - but radical nevertheless. This decision allows a corporation to control three television stations in a single city. Why does any company need to control three television stations anywhere? The decision allows the giant media companies to buy up the remaining local newspaper and exert massive influence over a community by wielding three TV stations, eight radio stations, the cable operator, plus the already monopolistic newspaper. The decision further allows the already massive television networks to buy up even more local TV stations, so that they could control up to an unbelievable 90 percent of the national television audience. Where are the blessings of localism, diversity and competition here? I see centralization, not localism; I see uniformity, not diversity; I see monopoly and oligopoly, not competition.
Will the vaunted 500-channel universe of cable TV save us? Well, 90 percent of the top cable channels are owned by the same giants that own the TV networks and the cable systems. More channels are great. But when they're all owned by the same people, cable doesn't advance localism, editorial diversity or competition. And those who believe the Internet alone will save us from this fate should realize that the dominating Internet news sources are controlled by the same media giants who control radio, TV, newspapers and cable.
Don't tell me that those of us who feel strongly about this are being too emotional. Some would have us believe that this is merely an ordinary examination of our rules that we conduct every two years. Let's not kid ourselves. This is the granddaddy of all reviews. It sets the direction for how the next review will get done and for how the media will look for many years to come. As for the emotion, I have seen the concern, the deep feeling and outright alarm on the faces of people who have come out to talk to Commissioner Adelstein and me all across this country. Are they emotional? You bet. And I think they are going to stay that way until we get this right.
Why did the Commission get this so wrong? Good, sustainable rules are the result of an open administrative process and a serious attempt to gather all the relevant facts. Bad rules and legal vulnerability result from an opaque regulatory process and inadequate data. Unfortunately, today's rules fall into the latter camp. This proceeding has been run as a classic inside-the-Beltway process with too little outreach from the Commission and too little attention paid to the public. This is the way the Commission usually does business, we are told. Well, I submit this is too important to be treated on a business-as-usual basis. So Commissioner Adelstein and I traveled across the country to attend as many hearings and forums as we could.
I am also troubled that the Commission has refused to publicly disclose the rules we are voting on today. What possible harm can come from transparency? How can telling Congress and the public what we plan to do possibly be bad? Isn't the animating spirit of our "notice and comment" procedure to make sure our people know as much as possible about the specifics of what is being proposed?
And so, we arrive at today. Citizens across this country will hear for the first time the proposals that we are adopting. Some of the details of the rule changes have leaked to the press. Even with this incomplete information, the public reaction against the proposed changes has been unlike anything the FCC has ever experienced. Of the nearly three quarters of a million comments we have received, nearly all oppose increased media consolidation - over 99.9 percent.
We've heard bipartisan concern from more than 150 Members of Congress, including the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, asking us to slow down and put these proposals out for public comment before we vote. Some of those Members of Congress are here today and I thank them for coming.
Dozens of organizations - from the National Rifle Association to the National Organization for Women have weighed in with their concerns about media concentration and the process by which we are dealing with it. City councils across this country in such places as Chicago, Seattle, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Atlanta, and Buffalo, as well as a whole state - Vermont - have gone on record against media concentration.
As Brent Bozell of the Parents Television Council so aptly put it, "When all of us are united on an issue, then one of two things has happened. Either the Earth has spun off its axis and we have all lost our minds or there is universal support for a concept." Well, it's the concept - a transcending, nationwide concept.
The FCC is not, of course, a public opinion survey agency. Nor should we make our decisions by weighing the letters, cards and e-mails "for" and the letters, cards and e-mails "against" and awarding the victory to the side that tips the scale. But even this independent agency is part of our democratic system of government. And when there is such an overwhelming response on the part of the American people and their representatives in Congress assembled, we ought to take notice. Here the right call is to take these proposals, put them out for comment and then -- only then -- call the vote. The spirit underlying the "notice and comment" procedure of independent agencies is that important proposed changes need to be seen and vetted before they are voted. We haven't been true to that spirit. Today we vote before we vet.
And what are we voting on? The majority decides to allow TV networks to control up to 45 percent of the national audience - up to 90 percent once the strange decision to keep the UHF discount is considered. Merrill Lynch predicts this decision will result in a "Gold Rush" where the national networks buy up the remaining local broadcasters. This decision is made without an adequate explanation for why 45 percent is not just an arbitrary number pulled out of a hat, and despite exhaustive and largely uncontested evidence supporting the existing cap by local broadcasters. I frankly doubt the courts will be impressed.
Some have argued that free over-the-air television is doomed unless we allow more concentration. The facts tell a different story. The networks not only reach consumers over the air through their own highly profitable stations and through affiliates, but they are also guaranteed carriage to cable subscribers. Indeed, they own much of cable. The networks command an enormous advertising premium, recently receiving a record $9.4 billion in up-front prime-time advertising for the next season. They have ownership in most of their profitable programs, and these are subsequently put into syndication or "repurposed" - the fancy new term for a re-run. This argument that the only way for the poor among us to continue receiving free, over-the-air television is to allow already powerful networks to grow more powerful would have been better left unsaid.
The majority inexplicably, maintains the UHF Discount. Under the UHF Discount, UHF TV stations are considered to reach only 50 percent of the households that VHF TV stations reach for purposes of determining whether a company has exceeded the national cap. Once upon a time, that was warranted. The Commission found that over-the-air UHF stations reached fewer viewers than VHF stations because their signals were different. But UHF and VHF stations reach an identical number of viewers when delivered over cable TV facilities. Today, over 85 percent of consumers receive their signal from cable and DBS. Program carriage requirements ensure that cable consumers receive the UHF signal, and DBS operators are required to carry all UHF stations in any market where they carry any local channel.
With 85 percent of Americans experiencing no difference between UHF and VHF stations, the discount no longer makes sense. Eliminating the entire discount may be warranted, but at a minimum it requires replacement with a number that reflects the reality of today's technology and marketplace.
The more you dig into this Order, the worse things get. The Order finds:
" That further concentration in already highly-concentrated markets is acceptable.
" That in a town with only four TV stations, it is acceptable for the top-rated television station to buy the only daily newspaper.
" That consolidation going forward will enhance news programming, despite considerable record evidence showing that increased concentration more often than not reduces quality news.
There are other things this order could have done. Commenters addressed the need to require more independent programming on our airwaves so that a few conglomerates do not act anti-competitively to control all of the creative entertainment that we see. These proposals should have received the serious attention they deserve in this decision. Over the past decade, we have witnessed a substantial increase in the amount of programming owned by the networks. In addition to the obvious loss of diversity, this has also entailed the loss of thousands of jobs, including creative artists, technicians and many, many others. Years ago, we had protections against this kind of program ownership. Now that the majority is loosening outlet ownership rules, we ought to be looking at the consequences of having no limits on who owns the programming.
The Order could have addressed having a legitimate license renewal process to partially protect against the risks of further consolidation. The system has degenerated into one of basically post-card license renewal. Unless there is a major complaint pending against a station, its license is almost automatically renewed. A real, honest-to-goodness license renewal process, predicated on advancing the public interest, might do more for broadcasting than all these our other rules put together.
The Order could have analyzed the impact of media concentration on indecent and excessively violent programming. Some have suggested that there may be a link between increasing consolidation and increasing indecency on our airwaves. The Commission fails to address this issue in its analysis. It seems plausible that there is such a connection. I don't know the answer to this question. I do know this: we have no business voting until we take a serious look at the matter and amass at least a credible body of evidence.
The Order could have addressed the impact of media concentration on women and minority groups. We know that there are substantially fewer radio station owners today than there were before the rules were changed in 1996. People of color now make up less than four percent of radio and television owners. The National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters tells us that the number of minority owners of broadcast facilities has dropped by 14 percent since 1997.
We have not even attempted to understand what further consolidation means in terms of providing Hispanic Americans and African Americans and Asian-Pacific Americans and Native Americans and women and other groups the kinds of programs and access and viewpoint diversity and career opportunities and even advertising information about products and services that they need. America's strength is, after all, its diversity. And our media need to reflect this diversity and to nourish it.
Today's Order puts most such questions off into the future, with the exception of a curious plan to allow a small business, perhaps a minority firm, to buy a consolidated block of outlets from an incumbent who exceeds the limits. That would require deeper pockets than most such firms could afford. I would prefer to look for real opportunities for small entrepreneurs instead of encouraging them to buy large consolidated properties.
All this means that I am deeply saddened by the Commission's actions today. Some have characterized the fight against this seemingly pre-ordained decision as Quixotic and destined to defeat. But I think, instead, that we'll look back at this 3-2 vote as a Pyrrhic victory.
This Commission's drive to loosen the rules and its reluctance to share its proposals with the people before we voted awoke a sleeping giant. American citizens are standing up in never-before-seen numbers to reclaim their airwaves and to call on those who are entrusted to use them to serve the public interest. In these times when many issues divide us, groups from right to left, Republicans and Democrats, concerned parents and creative artists, religious leaders, civil rights activists, and labor organizations have united to fight together on this issue. Senators and Congressmen from both parties and from all parts of the Country have called on the Commission to reconsider. The media concentration debate will never be the same. The obscurity of this issue that many have relied upon in the past, where only a few dozen inside-the-Beltway lobbyists understood the issue, is gone forever.
I believe, after traveling almost the length and breadth of this land, that our citizens want, deserve, and are demanding a renewed discussion of how their airwaves are being used and how to ensure they are serving the public interest. I urge my colleagues to heed the call. I want to thank the hundreds of thousands of people who have attended hearings, filed comments, written letters to the editor, and contacted the Commission. You have made a difference. And if you stay the course now, the chances have improved that we can yet settle this issue of who will control our media and for what purposes and to resolve it in favor of airwaves of, by and for the people of this great country.
Thank you. |
|
Michael Powell And The FCC: Giving Away The Marketplace Of Ideas |
by Tom Shales
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
03 Jun 2003
|
Unless something dramatic and unexpected occurs to stop it, this is what will happen today in Washington: The Republican chairman of the Republican-dominated Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and his Republican majority will revise long-standing rules on media ownership in ways that will hugely benefit, among others, rich Republicans.
Revising and relaxing the rules that prohibit a single entity from controlling too large a percentage of American media will allow corporations that are already too big to become much, much bigger. Also much more powerful and much more oblivious to the common good.
The proposed changes are such a threat to First Amendment freedoms that even some Republicans on Capitol Hill have been brave enough to oppose them. And yet, a fat lot of good it does. FCC Chairman Michael Powell wants to plow ahead with his deregulation scheme no matter what. It appears he is trying to do more damage than any other chairman in FCC history.
Never mind that a diversity of voices -- voices with the ability to be heard -- is integral to the health and maintenance of a democracy. While Powell and his supporters claim that the existence of dozens, even hundreds, of channels on cable and satellite systems proves there's diversity unbound, Powell's critics note that the diversity is a mere illusion if only five fat companies own all those channels.
Maybe this isn't a "sexy" issue, and it's received only perfunctory coverage from the networks and stations affected -- because it isn't visual, or because reporters and producers know that corporate management would prefer no such stories appear. But unless the word gets around somehow, unless people wise up and rise up, they'll discover that America's "marketplace of ideas" is owned and controlled by only a handful of appallingly powerful and interdependent corporations.
America in the 21st century faces dozens of socioeconomic problems requiring prompt government attention, obviously -- but would anyone argue that expanding the power and profits of omnivorous conglomerates is among them? Maybe Powell would, because he has made relaxing the ownership restrictions an obsessive crusade, pushing the changes through with little debate, great haste and even considerable secrecy.
"I'm opposed to the changes," says Barry Diller, chairman of USA Interactive and nothing if not a media mogul himself, "but I'm much more upset that this has not produced enough conversation and dialogue. The way Michael Powell has gone about it is to hide the issue as much as possible, organizing it to avoid debate and hearings, and getting it done largely under the cover of night."
Diller calls the rule changes "dark and dispiriting -- on the merits for sure, but also on the method." He says he doesn't understand why Powell and his supporters won't stop for a moment -- even just a 30-day delay -- to give the public more input. "Why are they so afraid of a mere pause?" Diller asks. "It's not like there's a bridge on fire."
Jeff Chester, executive director of the public-interest Center for Digital Democracy, says Powell has declined even to debate Diller, among others. "He refused to conduct [adequate] public hearings, he refused to have 30- or 60-day debates on the rules, he has been unwilling to reach out to the public," Chester says. "If Saddam Hussein had stayed in business, Powell might have made a great minister of information."
Powell's motive in ramming these changes through can't have anything to do with "the public interest, convenience and necessity" that the FCC is mandated to safeguard, because it's all about corporate interest, convenience and (to stretch the term) necessity instead. Perhaps Powell, who is the son of Secretary of State Colin Powell and a communications lawyer, believes that by making this generous bequest to corporate America, he is enhancing his own political future. He may have his eyes on a cabinet-level position if Bush gets a second term, and might even imagine himself being named attorney general.
Fortunately for the country but unfortunately for Powell, his stubbornness and arrogance have antagonized groups and individuals that might otherwise not have paid that much attention to the rules being changed. And the informal coalition opposing the changes is not -- unlike the FCC itself -- drawn along partisan political lines. Thus the conservative National Rifle Association is among the groups protesting the changes, and conservative columnist William Safire has called the rule changing a "power grab" by the rich and powerful. Safire also blasted the FCC for its refusal to hold ample public hearings on "the most controversial decision in its history."
In a May 22 column in the New York Times, Safire wrote, "The concentration of power -- political, corporate, media, cultural -- should be anathema to conservatives . . . Why do we have more channels but fewer real choices today? Because the ownership of our means of communication is shrinking. Moguls glory in amalgamation, but more individuals than they realize resent the loss of local control and community identity."
Andrew Jay Schwartzman, executive director of the activist Media Access Project, says "hundreds of thousands of postcards" protesting the proposed changes have taken Powell and his two fellow Republicans on the commission by surprise.
"The Internet group 'moveon.org' got a much bigger response than they expected" when they exposed the issue on the Web, Schwartzman says. "They got 3,000 responses on the Bush tax cut, but they've received 180,000 and counting on media ownership. People may not understand the details -- things like 'lifting the cap' and 'the top 12 markets' and so on -- but they know this is bad. They know the idea of a few companies owning everything is a bad one.
"This is about democracy having as many ideas and opinions out there as possible. That's why it's so important, and people are starting to realize that."
Ted Turner, one of the most influential communications entrepreneurs in American history, has also come out against the Powell's precipitous plan. The new, relaxed rules would "stifle debate, inhibit new ideas and shut out smaller businesses trying to compete," Turner wrote in The Washington Post on Friday. "If these rules had been in place in 1970, it would have been virtually impossible for me to start Turner Broadcasting or, 10 years later, to launch CNN."
Bob Edwards, anchor of NPR's "Morning Edition," talked about the myth of media diversity in a lecture last month at his alma mater, the University of Kentucky.
"It's kind of a cruel, ironic joke," Edwards said. "The rise of cable TV and the Internet were supposed to democratize the media and give us many voices and numerous points of view. Instead, market forces and deregulation have clobbered diversity. The networks and cable channels have the same owners -- Hollywood studios, mainly -- and the most popular Web sites for news are those of organizations firmly established before the Web was spun."
Edwards used the example of the Dixie Chicks to show how monolithic media can manipulate public opinion. During that not-so-long-ago pre-war era -- before America "liberated" Iraq -- one of the Chicks uttered the now infamous opinion that as a Texan she was "ashamed" to be from the same state as Bush. There followed a huge tsunami of anti-Chicks protest. Or did there? Edwards said the supposedly populist "backlash against the Chicks" was mainly manufactured by Clear Channel Radio, a powerful and Texas-based corporation that owns 1,250 radio stations throughout the country. Songs by the Dixie Chicks, meanwhile, quietly dropped out of the playlists of many Clear Channel's country stations.
"Clear Channel loves George W. Bush," Edwards said. "Clear Channel would like the administration of George W. Bush to remove all remaining restrictions on the ownership of media properties. That is exactly what the Bush administration is considering."
If there is one public figure more than any other that symbolizes media greed and the lust for power, as well as profit, that figure is Rupert Murdoch, the megalomaniac Australian with an insatiable lust for broadcast and cable properties. Murdoch's support of the Bush administration has been rewarded over and over by non-regulating regulators and Republicans in Congress. Murdoch is poised to acquire controlling interest in DirecTV, the nation's largest satellite delivery system. This comes shortly after another company, EchoStar, was rebuffed by the Justice Department in its attempt to buy the same company. Murdoch's desire to acquire it was already well known.
Although it would be economically unwise, Murdoch could conceivably drop CNN, chief competitor to Murdoch's Fox News Channel, from the DirecTV bill of fare. However, we can all rest easy. Why? Because Murdoch says he won't do that. And surely it would be uncharitable to imagine that Murdoch's easy win on the DirecTV decision had anything to do with the conservative slant of Fox News or the fact that the channel was easily the loudest national media cheerleader on behalf of Bush's Iraq war.
Fittingly and shrewdly, a group opposing the changes in the ownership rules is using a picture of Murdoch as its symbol of power-mad gluttony in commercials designed to arouse public opinion. To support the changes, say the ads, is to give Murdoch and his empire even greater influence over American life.
Cross-ownership rules that prohibit one company from owning a TV station, radio station and a newspaper in the same market would also crumble and fall under the Powell initiative. This worries Chester, who says that while newspapers are now "the last bastion of serious journalism," making them part of the TV empire will subject them to the tyranny of ratings, lead to a "dumbing-down" of newspapers and result in news budgets being "slashed," because when corporations grow, the first thing they always do is look for ways to cut costs.
"History shows that when you borrow a lot of money to buy new properties," says Schwartzman, "you plow profits back into debt service and you cut costs. And viewers suffer."
NBC, owned by General Electric, has been permitted "temporarily" to operate three TV stations in the Los Angeles market, Schwartzman says. If Powell's rule changes go into effect, the arrangement is bound to become permanent, "and that will be the rule in the very largest markets across the country. The Tribune Company will own two stations in every market where it has a newspaper. So will Gannett."
Bigness leads to homogenization, sameness, conformity and mediocrity. And this will be some of the biggest bigness America has ever seen.
Schwartzman, for one, sees hope. Angry reaction on Capitol Hill to Powell's crusade has been "quite bipartisan," he says, and he thinks the White House may be getting "a little uneasy" about the sudden, if belated, public reaction. Such network news programs as "Nightline" and "NBC Nightly News" have even done stories on the proposals. By and large, though, the network reports have hugely underplayed the importance of the story -- and the tremendous bonanza awaiting the networks' corporate owners if Powell's public-be-damned philosophy is allowed to reign supreme.
In testimony supporting the rule changes at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing, Viacom President Mel Karmazin said more deregulation of the business was overdue. Viacom owns CBS, MTV, UPN, Paramount and a herd of other cash cows. Karmazin whined that under the present rules, broadcasters are "handcuffed in their attempts to compete for consumers."
Yesterday on "This Week With George Stephanopoulos," Powell made a rare public appearance to defend the changes, saying they will be less drastic than has been speculated and necessary so that broadcasters can "remain economically viable in the advertising market."
Oh, they're really hurting. Diller scoffs. "Anybody who thinks they're in trouble hasn't read the profit statements of those companies," he says. "The only way you can lose money in broadcasting is if somebody steals it from you."
Michael Powell and the FCC are riding to the rescue of huge media conglomerates that need rescuing about as much as Spider-Man, Batman and the Terminator do. Unfortunately, you and I and the freedom of speech are the ones getting trampled in the stampede.
Staff writer John Maynard contributed research for this column.
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
http://media.washingtonpost.com/ |
|
Re: FCC Puts Democracy On Mute |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -2
03 Jun 2003
|
Dear Lefists,
My suggestion to you is to raise capital and buy up media in markets that you can. Then put on shows, news, and interesting entertainment which will then allow you to sell to advertisers. That, in a nutshell, is the problem now is'nt it. If you really truly say who you are and tell what you believe, then your views cannot survive the light of day. You already have NPR, The NY Times, Newsweek, Time, US News and World Report, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. You controlled the media for 40 years, now it the turn of the free market.
In the arena of ideas, you lose.
Jack
|
|
