|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Media |
|
WEFT Opposes FCC Rule Change |
Current rating: 0 |
by Peter Miller
(No verified email address) |
29 May 2003
Modified: 08:10:09 AM |
|
On June 2, the FCC is scheduled to vote on relaxing media ownership limits, a step that will allow a tiny number of corporations to control what Americans see and hear on TV, radio, and in newspapers. Community-owned and operated radio station WEFT 90.1 FM issued the following comment to the FCC. |
Note: The website www.mediareform.net makes it easy for individuals to join WEFT in speaking out against the proposed media ownership changes.
WEFT's Response to FCC Ownership Review
WEFT-FM, a locally owned and operated independent radio station in Champaign, Illinois herein officially opposes relaxation of the ownership rules being considered in the biennial regulatory review by the Federal Communications Commission. Having noted the responses to the proposed changes by corporations owning media but not residing in our local market (see proceeding 00-244 Sinclair Broadcasting and 00-244, 01-235, 02-113, Nexstar Broadcasting) we take exception to comments arguing that our media marketplace is "amazingly diverse" (Nexstar), that "local programming would increase" if the rules were relaxed (Nexstar) and that retention of the current (minimal) FCC rules is not "necessary in the public interest." (Sinclair)
Regarding MM Docket Nos. 01-317 & 00-244, our local media, specifically radio stations in our broadcast market, are already dominated by absentee owners who program from afar with little interactive capacity. The radio shows are too often pre-recorded, not allowing listener input. The radio news staffs locally could generously be called minimal and accountability to the community in any direct way other than through radio listener polls to determine advertising dollars is unacceptably low. Further dilution of the FCC regulations governing absentee ownership will not improve media diversity as these corporations suggest.
Regarding MM Docket No. 01-235, we are also concerned about the proposed relaxation of cross ownership rules within our market. Our local area, Urbana-Champaign, has only one daily newspaper, having lost the other competitive daily in 1980. Further, we have just this month lost our local weekly newspaper. Allowing the single newspaper, with its virtual print news monopoly, to own broadcast stations here would certainly not encourage the kinds of diverse opinion necessary for informed citizen participation in political debate.
Quite the contrary. If the claim, as it appears to be, is that loosening the rules will actually increase competition and thus increase the numbers and kinds of voices on the air, then to make such an argument is to twist reason beyond recognizability. As Journalist Neil Hickey wrote in the Columbia Journalism Review about the earlier loosening of FCC regulation of ownership in the 1996 Telecommunications Act:
Thus the question presents itself like a Japanese koan (the scrupulous contemplation of which may or may not lead to enlightenment): "how is it possible for fewer and fewer owners to generate greater and greater competition?" (available: http://www.cjr.org/year/97/1/telecom.asp) That act has neither enhanced diversity nor improved other aspects of the public interest and these proposed changes will further erode the possibility of informed citizen involvement in political action, as the constitution intended. Further, the preponderance of academic studies cited by the corporations owning media from a distance is suspect. We agree with Professor Jay Hamilton in his response to your proposed changes when he questions the claims by media owners that there is already adequate diversity in the media environment. As he notes, these claims are not sufficiently supported by the studies cited.
A statistical analysis of the kind used in these studies only goes so far in providing an adequate understanding of the dynamic, multifaceted relationships between media ownership and diversity.
What is needed is a much more sophisticated and thorough view of this exceedingly complex relationship. (see comment to commission by Jay Hamilton: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 02-277, rel. Sept. 23, 2002)
While the corporations claim current rules infringe on their first amendment rights (Sinclair), it is clear that the very foundation of free expression for the individual citizen is threatened to a much greater degree should the commission allow these corporations to further expand into local markets and shrink the variety of voices we citizens hear. The availability of diverse--and local--information is crucial to the spirit of the first amendment.
Submitted to the Federal Communications Commission on behalf of the WEFT Board of Directors by Board member, Ivy Glennon, January 30, 2003.
www.weftfm.org |
See also:
http://www.fair.org/media-woes/policy.html
http://www.mediageek.org/
|
Related stories on this site:
Stop The FCC!!!
|
|
Protesters Across Country Fight Media-Ownership Changes |
by Gary Gentile
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
30 May 2003
Modified: 09:47:54 AM |
LOS ANGELES - Small groups of demonstrators around the country marched and chanted to urge federal regulators not to give large media companies more control over the nation's newspapers, television and radio stations.
Thursday's demonstrations were staged just four days before the Federal Communications Commission was to consider eliminating many restrictions on media ownership in the same city.
Another proposal would raise an existing market cap that prevents any one company from owning a combination of TV stations that reach more than 35 percent of U.S. households.
In Los Angeles, about 60 people marched outside Clear Channel talk radio station KFI with signs reading, "No Choice, No Voice: Reclaim Our Airwaves."
"We're frozen out," said Karen Pomer, a member of the group Code Pink, which organized the protest and also rallied for peace during the war in Iraq. "All of this is benefiting conservative voices."
About a dozen people protested outside the Clear Channel building in Pittsburgh. Protesters carried a woman's pink slip scrawled with the words, "You are canceled for assault on free speech."
A Clear Channel spokesman said media coverage of the protests is evidence that diverse viewpoints are not ignored.
"Americans today have more diverse choices for entertainment, news and information than ever before," said Andrew Levin, Clear Channel's senior vice president for government affairs. "Radio is the only medium I know where the customer can switch providers at 60 mph."
San Antonio-based Clear Channel has become a favorite target for those who oppose deregulation. The company owns 1,200 stations nationwide, including nine in Los Angeles.
FCC Chairman Michael Powell has said the regulatory changes are needed to reflect a market altered by cable TV, satellite broadcasts and the Internet. If the FCC doesn't act, outdated rules will be swept away by court challenges, he said.
A protest in New York was organized by United for Peace and Justice NY, an anti-war group. About 150 people picketed outside station WWPR and carried signs that read, "Farewell Free Speech, We'll Miss You" and "The Airwaves Belong to the People, not Clear Channel."
Relaxing restrictions on media ownership is opposed by the two Democrats on the FCC and backed by the three Republicans, including Powell. The FCC hearing was set for Monday in Washington.
Proponents include large media companies such as Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., which owns television stations as well as the Fox network. Murdoch is also seeking regulatory approval for his purchase of a controlling share of the satellite television service DirecTV.
Another media titan, Ted Turner, is on the other side. In an op-ed piece Friday in The Washington Post, he said that even though he's a major shareholder in conglomerate AOL Time Warner, he believes the proposed rules "will stifle debate, inhibit new ideas and shut out smaller businesses trying to compete."
He said he bought a UHF television station as a fledgling entrepreneur, but no one could do that now, because "they're all bought up."
© 2003 The Associated Press
http://www.ap.org |
