FCC
Proposes Greater
Media Consolidation
By
Stephen Lendman
15 December,
2007
Countercurrents.org
On
October 17, FCC chairman Kevin Martin proposed lifting the 1975 media
cross-ownership rule that forbids a company from owning a newspaper
and television or radio station in the same city even though giant conglomerates
like Rupert Murdock's News Corp. and the (Chicago) Tribune Company already
do. On November 13, he expanded on his earlier plan claiming changes
will only allow cross ownership "in the largest markets where there
exists competition and numerous voices."
That's not
how Free Press.net's policy director, Ben Scott, sees it in his statement
on the same day saying: "Chairman Martin's lofty rhetoric talks
about saving American newspapers and ensuring a diversity of voices.
But the devil is in the details. His new rules appear to be corporate
welfare for the (media giants) in the biggest cities (and) most worrying....the
proposed rules appear to contain a giant loophole that could open the
back door to runaway media consolidation in nearly every market (in)
another massive giveaway to Big Media."
If the ban
is ended, that's what will happen, and the trend author and journalist
Ben Bagdikian documented since 1983 will continue unimpeded. He did
it in six editions of his landmark book, "The Media Monopoly,"
plus his newest 2004 update titled, "The New Media Monopoly."
Since 1983,
the number of corporations owning most newspapers, magazines, book publishers,
recorded music, movie studios, television and radio stations have shrunk
from 50 to five "global-dimension firms, operating with many of
the characteristics of a cartel" - Time-Warner, Disney, News Corp.,
Viacom and Bertelsmann AG based in Germany. Also large and dominant
are companies like cable giant Comcast and corporate behemoth GE with
its NBC television and radio operations.
When The
Telecommunications Act of 1996 passed, its supporters claimed it would
increase competition, lower prices, improve service, and according to
Vice-President Al Gore be an "early Christmas present for the consumer."
Point of fact - it wasn't passed for the consumer or to discipline the
market. It had many anti-consumer provisions in it that included giving
media and telecom giants the right to consolidate further through mergers
and acquisitions.
Limits on
TV station ownership were raised to let broadcast giants own twice as
many local stations as before. For radio, it was even sweeter with all
national limits on station ownership removed, and on the local level
one company henceforth could own up to eight stations in a major market.
In smaller ones, two companies could own them all. The bill also consigned
new digital television broadcast spectrum space to current TV station
owners only and let cable companies increase their local monopoly positions.
The clear winners from this bill were the media and telecom giants.
As always, consumers lost out, and FCC chairman Martin wants to make
it worse by his October 17 proposal to end the cross-ownership ban.
Further consolidation
means less diversity when there's already precious little. That's anathema
to a healthy democracy that depends on the free marketplace of ideas
that's greatly eroded since the 1980s. In 2003, the Michael Powell-run
FCC tried to weaken it further through a number of proposed changes
Congress blocked in the wake of strong public opposition to them. That
even aroused former CNN owner Ted Turner to say a further rule relaxation
would "stifle debate (and) inhibit new ideas." The Media Access
Project (MAP) also won a Third Circuit Court June, 2004 decision in
the Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC case that ruled for diversity and
democracy over greater media consolidation and ordered the FCC to reconsider
its ill-advised ownership rules changes Powell's FCC proposed that included:
-- ending
the cross-ownership ban under consideration now that prohibits a company
from owning a newspaper and TV or radio station in the same city;
-- eliminating
the previous ban on radio/TV cross-ownership and replacing both types
with a single set of cross-media limits;
-- a concocted
"diversity index" to determine cross-media limits. It was
based on assigning varying weights to the various media to determine
if markets retained enough diversity. It would only consider ownership
limits if by its formula there wasn't enough. It was pure deception
because in major markets like New York the FCC gave equal or greater
weighting to a community college radio station than the New York Times
and local ABC affiliates;
-- cross-ownership
limits only in smaller markets. In ones with eight or more TV stations,
proposed rules changes would have no cross-ownership newspaper, TV and
radio station restrictions;
-- a company
would be able to own two TV and six radio stations in the same market
if at least 20 "independently owned media voices" remained
after a merger. If only 10 remained, ownership would be limited to two
TV and four radio stations;
-- redefining
National Market Share to mean the total number of households company
TV stations reach and raising the allowable ownership ceiling from 35%
to 45%. A 39% compromise was reached to allow News Corp. and Viacom
to keep all their stations that already exceeded the allowable limit.
In spite
of mass public opposition today, FCC Chairman Martin wants to end limits
on media ownership in a plan to take effect in weeks or sooner if not
stopped. He's been allowing public comments on the proposal since mid-November
with a Republican three to two majority FCC vote planned for December
18. His move is the latest effort to end 1940s restrictions the New
York Times said (in February, 2002) were "rooted in the fears of
the European experience at the time that the television industry in
the United States could come to be dominated by a few powerful interests."
Ownership limits were gradually eased thereafter, and mergers and acquisitions
followed.
By the mid-1980s,
no network was allowed to control local media that reached over a fourth
of the nation's households, nor could it own more than 12 stations.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 raised the limit to 35% that made
possible almost 200 TV station mergers and acquisitions that followed.
It was no
different for the three giant radio broadcasters. They were able to
acquire the great majority of the 2000 stations bought between 1996
and 2000, after which Clear Channel Communications bought AMFM Radio
to become the nation's largest radio broadcaster with over 900 stations
(plus its 19 TV stations) that combined with its international holdings
makes it the largest one in the world.
Regulatory
easing had a devastating effect on local diversity according to Free
Press.net Research Director S. Derek Turner. In testimony before the
Senate Commerce Committee on October 23 he said: "Congress must
send a message to the FCC to stop its rush toward more consolidation.
Ownership rules exist for a reason: to increase diversity and localism,
which in turn produces more diverse speech, more choice for listeners,
and more owners who are responsive to their local communities."
Free Press,
the Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union voiced their
opposition to proposed changes by filing thousands of pages of comments
October 22 against the FCC plan. Their research shows ownership limits
enhance local news quantity and quality. It refutes FCC's "inconsistent,
incompetent and incoherent" opposite claims case and fraudulent
press release in mid-November that its proposal was just a "minor
loosening of the (cross-ownership) ban....in (only) the very largest
markets and subject to certain criteria and limitations." Left
out of its comment was the fine print Free Press exposed below on November
26 in 10 facts:
(1) "Martin's
proposal (hides) corporate welfare for Big Media (that will) unleash
a buying spree in the top 20 (media) markets."
(2) "Loopholes
(through waivers) open the door to cross-ownership" anywhere.
(3) "Loopholes
allow newspapers to own TV stations of any size (and) top-rated stations
to (buy) major newspapers."
(4) "FCC
history shows weak standards won't protect the public (and) the FCC
hasn't denied any temporary waiver request in years."
(5) "Cross-ownership
doesn't create more local news" as dominant companies crowd out
competition.
(6) "Cross-ownership
won't solve newspapers' financial woes" that are greatly exaggerated.
(7) "The
Internet is an opportunity, not a death sentence," and media consolidation
won't help traditional media's financial problems.
(8) "Martin's
plan would harm minority media owners" by making them takeover
targets.
(9) "A
broken and corrupt process creates bad policies" that are characterized
by FCC's secrecy and rush to change media ownership rules for the media
barons it supports.
(10) "The
public doesn't want more media consolidation" expressed by 99%
of comments to FCC opposing letting media giants "swallow up more
local media."
The Prometheus
Radio Project (dedicated to a "free, diverse, and democratic media")
also expressed its concern about Chairman Martin's plan to weaken rules
to allow "unchecked corporate power in media" and the inadequate
timeline he set for public comments. Prometheus also wants scheduled
proceedings delayed until the Localism Task Force (established in 2003
to strengthen broadcasting localism) integrates the results of its work
into FCC's ownership proposals. It stresses that corporations don't
own the airwaves. They belong to the public and "setting a reasonable
set of limitations on ownership (won't burden) those (given) the privilege
(to) broadcast signals for the public benefit." Prometheus wants
FCC to retain current ownership rules and devote its efforts to establish
more low power radio licenses, preserve net neutrality, expand cable
access, better use unlicensed spectrum and promote diversity and localism.
The Senate
Commerce Committee is now examining Martin's proposal, and Senator Byron
Dorgan predicted it would be greeted by "a firestorm of protest"
as in 2003. Other senators voicing concern include Republican Trent
Lott and Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama who called "the
proposed timeline and process....irresponsible" and added "the
Commission has failed to further the goals of diversity in the media
and promote localism, and as a result, it is in no position to justify
allowing for increased consolidation of the market." Dorgan and
Lott began work on a bipartisan bill to prevent FCC from instituting
new media consolidation rules. Dorgan predicted on October 24 he's "confident
any plan to allow additional concentration of media ownership will be
rejected" by Congress.
He and Lott
also said they'd seek support in Congress for a "resolution of
disapproval" to overturn the FCC rule if it's passed. It's a rare
move that was only once before used in 2003 when the Powell-led FCC
tried to change the rules. To take effect, it would have to pass both
Houses by two-thirds margins because George Bush is certain to veto
it. Presidential vetos are rarely overridden, but that pattern may not
hold up this time.
Support is
building in Congress to stop gutting media ownership rules. On October
24, over 40 House members sent a letter to Chairman Martin to "resolve
significant shortcomings in (FCC's) plan regarding accountability, transparency,
and scientific integrity" in its current proposal. Of particular
concern were a lack of public hearings, the dismal state of female and
minority media ownership, and FCC's tainted research to make its case
for changing the rules. Senators Nelson and Snowe also were critical.
They called media consolidation "a critical issue (that) requires
a completely transparent process" and urged Martin to complete
his proceedings on localism and minority ownership before addressing
rules changes. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Inouye agrees and
intends to hold hearings on media consolidation, diversity and ownership
to address these vital issues.
New developments
on November 8 came from a Senate Commerce Committee hearing at which
Senators Dorgan and Lott said they'd introduce legislation to quash
the FCC's rush to gut current rules. The bipartisan bill with many co-sponsors
is called the "Media Ownership Act of 2007." The Senate Commerce
Committee unanimously passed it on December 4, and it now goes before
the full Senate. If it becomes law, it will require the FCC to publish
any proposed rule changes in the Federal Register 90 days prior to a
vote, give the public 60 days to comment and another 30 days for reply
comments. If the FCC fails to do this, the bill voids any changes it
approves. It also directs the FCC to conduct a separate proceeding on
localism and create an independent minority and female ownership task
force ahead of any efforts to change the rules.
This development,
growing public opposition and calls for the FCC to complete its long-running
study of how broadcasters serve local communities should have delayed
the December 18 vote Chairman Martin wants. Instead, it's now on the
agenda to be ruled on according to a December 12 FCC release that puts
the agency on a collision course with key lawmakers in Congress who
want more time to study the issue and greater public input. Martin is
also defying A Media and Democracy Coalition poll released October 31
that showed 70% of respondents opposed media consolidation, and 57%
said owning a newspaper and TV station in the same market should be
illegal.
Then there's
the StopBigMedia.com Coalition. It's made up of grassroots "groups
across the spectrum that agree to a set of principles and have banded
together to stop the FCC from allowing a handful of giant corporations
to dominate America's media system." It's principles state:
-- democracy
depends on a "free and vibrant media full of diverse, local and
competing voices;"
-- media
ownership consolidation "has dangerously reduced the number of
(media) voices (that) seek to minimize competition" and promote
profits over the public interest;
-- Congress
and the FCC must ensure that our media system is "an uninhibited
marketplace of ideas in which truth will prevail."
We have a
long way to go to achieve these goals, but the StopBigMedia.com Coalition
is committed to doing it. Its bottom line: "If we want better media,
we need better media policies" that are made by Congress and FCC.
But they won't come out of this FCC that's totally beholden to the media
giants.
It shows
in its practices and reports of its biased research, false claims, and
a long history of ignoring the public interest. That has growing numbers
on Capitol Hill saying FCC failed to make a case for further consolidation.
It now remains to be seen if Congress and the courts will back the public
interest the way they did in 2003.
Not if the
Wall Street Journal's editorial page view prevails as it weighed in
on this issue prominently on October 25. It accused Senators Dorgan
and Lott of "shilling for local broadcasters who don't want the
competition," when, in fact, that's exactly what they want. It
also attacked the "political left's ideological paranoia (over)
corporate media ownership" saying it has "no such objection
to the left's operational control of National Public Radio or PBS"
when, in fact, both broadcasters are corporate America tools and never
met a US-led war they didn't love and support.
All the Journal
can do is shill for the media giants and note how it's "long favored
letting the free market determine the size of a company." It further
cites media concentration as a fait accompli new technologies will allow
to continue. By Journal logic (and the Martin FCC): "This has led
not to monopolies but to a media landscape that is more diverse than
ever (with) more news and entertainment options." Media theorist
Neil Postman had a different view. He once called Americans the most
over-entertained, under-informed people in the world and wrote about
it in books like "Amusing Ourselves to Death." Further media
consolidation guarantees much more of the same with the public, as always,
the loser.
Stephen
Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected].
Also visit
his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen
to The Steve Lendman News and Information Hour on TheMicroEffect.com
Mondays at noon US central time.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.