Posted July 28th, 2010 by Matt Schafer
In front of a crowd of 2,000 bloggers and citizen activists at Netroots Nation last week, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) delivered an explosive speech about media consolidation, Net Neutrality and corporate influence over policy. “Now, corporations with government permission pose the greatest threat to your First Amendment rights,” he said.
Franken was not only citing the Supreme Court’s recent Citizens United decision, which will allow corporations to inject millions of dollars into the election process, but also the likely ramifications of the proposed Comcast-NBC Universal merger on free speech and the open Internet.
“If no one stops them how long to do you think it would take before four or five corporations effectively control the flow of information in America not only on television, but online?” Franken asked his audience.
Watch the speech.
A prominent opponent of the Comcast-NBC merger, Franken argued that it could open the door to even more mega mergers that would unite on a massive scale content creators and content distributors, while relegating independent content to the dark corners of the Internet and other platforms. A merger like Comcast-NBC, Franken said, is likely to lead to the favoring of corporate content over that of individuals.
Without vital Net Neutrality protections, and tough but fair regulation for corporations like Comcast, Franken sees a dark future where the flow of information in the United States will be controlled by just a few multinational corporations. Without Net Neutrality and other protections, Franken told the Netroots audience that the foundation of their movement – the open Internet – is next in line for a corporate takeover.
In what can only be called a wake up call for the concerned citizens across the United States, Franken repeatedly brought attention to the Comcast/NBCU merger, saying that empty promises from both Comcast and NBCU are not going to be enough. Instead, he said, it is absolutely necessary to proceed with the greatest amount of caution and skepticism.
“If we don’t protect Net Neutrality now, how long do you think it will take before Comcast-NBC Universal, or Verizon-CBS Viacom or AT&T-ABC-DirecTV or BP-Haliburton-Walmart-Fox-Domino’s-Pizza start favoring its content over everyone else’s?” Franken said.
If the government and the people do not voice their opposition to the Comcast-NBC merger, it is all too possible the media landscape will be dotted with even larger mega companies that control every form of our communications systems. Franken argued that the Comcast merger is just the first domino in a line of future mergers that will stifle innovation, investment, and Internet freedom.
“If [Comcast-NBC] falls, the rest will soon follow,” he said. “It’s almost too late to stop this from happening, but not quite.” Take action.
No Comments »
Posted July 22nd, 2010 by Matt Schafer
In a blow to local journalism and quality reporting, the Federal Communications Commission is supporting an old media cross-ownership rule that allows companies to own more media outlets in communities across the country.
Yesterday, the FCC filed a brief with a U.S. appeals court defending the agency’s 2007 decision under former Chairman Kevin Martin to weaken the Newspaper-Broadcast Cross-Ownership (NBCO) Rule.
The Martin NBCO Rule, which was adopted as part of the FCC’s 2006 media ownership review, is marred by procedural irregularities, ambiguous provisions and loopholes — all of which run counter to the rule’s purpose: to protect local communities from media monopolies and to increase diversity in the marketplace of ideas. The watered-down rule allows media outlets to merge based on promises that the FCC cannot monitor or enforce.
In 2008, Congress passed a resolution of disapproval of the adoption of the Martin NBCO Rule. Earlier this week a bi-partisan groups of senators reiterated their support for a diverse media system and strong ownership protections. In a letter sent to current FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) questioned the wisdom of FCC rule changes in 2003 and 2007 that removed many of the ownership laws that promoted diversity, localism and competition.
Yet, despite congressional disapproval and the FCC’s new leadership, yesterday Chairman Genachowski supported the FCC’s defense of Martin NBCO rules, saying, “While the rules being challenged were adopted before I became Chairman, I support our General Counsel in arguing that the order was within the discretion of the Commission.”
However, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps criticized the FCC’s decision to defend the flawed rule. Copps, a commissioner since 2001, voted against loosening media ownership rules in both 2003 and 2007. He said in a statement:
It is difficult for me to believe that our new FCC, with its new majority, is in court today basically accepting the validity of the pro-consolidation decision of a previous Commission,” Copps said today. “Three decades of hyper-speculation have diminished media diversity, put investigative journalism on the endangered species list and significantly dumbed-down our fact-based civic dialogue.
The FCC has a long history of attempting to erode media ownership rules that protect journalism and the public’s interest. In a 2003 vote along party lines, the FCC attempted to allow the cross-ownership of both a newspaper and a television or radio station.
In 2007, the FCC attempted to deregulate the media industry by again removing rules against cross ownership of a broadcast outlet and a newspaper, a rule change the appeals court had ruled against in the 2003 proceedings. At the time, the New York Times said the rule change “would be a big victory for some executives of media conglomerates.” The appeals court is currently reviewing the changes. Earlier this year, however, the court lifted a stay on the rule change, allowing consolidation to move forward while they continue their review.
In the last fifteen years of media ownership deregulation, the number of television owners has dropped by one third from 450 owners to just over 300. Before the relaxation of ownership rules, there were over 5,000 radio owners, while today there are 3,143 owners – a decline by almost 40%. Currently, there are 175 broadcast duopolies where the same owner operates two stations in markets across the country.
While FCC deregulation in the past has reduced competition, diversity and localism in the market, Sens. Snowe, Dorgan and Cantwell reminded Genachowski that the FCC is “under no obligation to follow the footsteps of its predecessors.” All three senators had also joined the bipartisan resolutions of disapproval of the FCC’s previous attempts at relaxing ownership rules.
Media advocacy groups like Free Press are applauding the senators’ letter to Genachowski and are disappointed by the FCC’s move to support failed media policy that developed under the previous FCC leadership.
“All communities, large and small, deserve diverse, competing and independent local media,” Corie Wright, Free Press’ policy counsel said. “As such, we are disappointed that Chairman Genachowski directed the agency to defend a defective [policy] that has been widely criticized both for its substance and for the manner in which it was adopted.”
1 Comment »
Posted July 13th, 2010 by Megan Tady
Free Press President and CEO Josh Silver testified today before the Federal Communications Commission’s public forum on Comcast’s proposed takeover of NBC. Silver didn’t hold back in criticizing the deal, saying it would result in higher prices for consumers and fewer choices in programming and services, and would limit innovation in the emerging online video market.
The forum was held in Chicago, a city that typifies the negative impacts the merger could have on local media landscapes. Comcast is Chicago’s dominant cable and Internet provider, and now the company wants to acquire NBC 5 Chicago and Telemundo Chicago. If this deal goes through, nearly a quarter of Chicago’s commercial cable channels in the most popular cable package will be owned by Comcast.
In excerpts from his prepared testimony, Silver said:
Policymaking at the behest of the largest companies – across industries – is threatening our economy, our oceans, our security and the very viability of our democracy. Just look at the ongoing recession or the Gulf of Mexico for the most recent examples. … Insufficient government oversight has already allowed companies like Comcast to overcharge customers who have no alternative providers when bills are too high or service quality is too low.
The merger would allow a single company to own a huge array of popular content, and to exert excessive control over how it is distributed over the airwaves, cable and Internet. Such dominance over any one of these provides sufficient reason for the FCC to block the transaction. The merged giant’s power over all three platforms requires that regulators stop the deal.
Comcast and NBC bear the burden of proving to the Commission that this transaction not only will not harm consumers and competition, but that it will actually advance public interest goals. Comcast and NBC have not made and cannot make this showing. … Some have suggested that if we place conditions on the deal, everything will be OK. But requiring conditions to neutralize the harms of a bad merger is not the same as ensuring that the merger affirmatively produces real public interest outcomes. Importantly, such conditions would expire in a few years. With this deal, the anticompetitive incentives would be part of the DNA of the merged company, making conditions with a shelf life about as helpful as putting a Band-Aid on a broken leg.
Read his full testimony here.
The merger is so dangerous for local and diverse media in Chicago and across the country that more than 20 public interest groups and private organizations have joined forces to launch the Coalition for Competition in Media (CCM) to oppose Comcast’s acquisition. The coalition includes Free Press, the National Organization for Women, the National Coalition of African American Owned Media (NCAAOM), Parents Television Council; Rural Independent Competitive Alliance; the Sports Fans Coalition; and, Bloomberg.
The coalition placed an ad in several Washington, D.C. media outlets this week chiding Comcast for its big media takeover. Check out the ad.
Last month, Free Press and other public interest groups filed a Petition to Deny with the FCC, and, along with allies, filed nearly 70,000 public signatures opposing the merger.
During his opening remarks at the forum, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps came out strong in protecting the public’s interest. He said the Comcast-NBC merger would be a “scene-setter for the future” of all media. He asked, “Should the FCC bless more media consolidation, or should the FCC begin pushing back the tide?”
Tell him and the entire FCC what you think by taking action here.
No Comments »
Posted July 8th, 2010 by Nick Russo
Next Tuesday, July 13th, the Federal Communications Commission will hold a public hearing at the Northwestern University Law School in Chicago regarding Comcast’s proposed merger with NBC and the impact it will have on the city.
Before the FCC comes to town let’s get some facts on the table. As the agency considers whether to let big media get even bigger, it’s important to understand the state of media consolidation in the city already. Warning: it’s not a pretty picture.
Chicago is the third-largest radio and television market in the country which means it wields significant social, political and economic power. Regardless of its size, much of Chicago’s traditional media is owned by just a handful of companies. Comcast is already a media giant in Chicago, dominating the cable and Internet service in the city – and now it wants to take over NBC 5 Chicago and Telemundo Chicago. Controlling content on three platforms – cable, Internet and broadcast – Comcast would turn Chicago into a media company town. This is not good for competition or consumers.
The bi-partisan Coalition for Competition in Media, which launched today, outlines the threats to Chicago this way:
“Imagine you live in Chicago. If this deal goes forward as proposed, you and your fellow Chicagoland residents will wake up one day to find Comcast is no longer just the dominant high-speed internet and cable company. Now, Comcast also owns WMAQ, your local NBC affiliate. It owns Telemundo WSNS, your local Spanish-language broadcaster. It owns Chicago Sportsnet, home of the Cubs, White Sox, Bulls and your Stanley Cup Champion Blackhawks. This one company now also owns dozens of cable channels across the dial and websites across the Internet . It also owns the Universal movies you see in your cineplex and the movies you download from the Universal catalogue.”
In Chicago, a city known for its diversity, people of color account for nearly two-thirds of the population in the city of Chicago. Unfortunately, yet not surprisingly, Comcast and NBC both have bad reputations when it comes to diversity in their programming and in their companies. In the past, media consolidation has hurt minority media ownership – this deal would be no different.
Chicago is a city already plagued with media consolidation: just four companies control nearly two-thirds of the local news market with the Tribune company owning some of the most prominent media properties across the city. If Comcast were to swallow up NBC, they would own nearly one quarter of Chicago’s commercial cable channels in the most popular cable package. Nationally Comcast could control one out of every five viewing hours on TV.
These stats just scratch the surface. For more information about the FCC hearing in Chicago click here. For more on media consolidation in Chicago, check out our research here.
1 Comment »
Posted July 1st, 2010 by Nick Russo
If you’re outraged by the proposed Comcast takeover of NBC-Universal and live anywhere near Chicago, you’ll have a chance to personally tell the Federal Communications Commission next week.
On July 13, the FCC will hold a public forum at Northwestern University Law School to discuss the potential implications of the merger on our media landscape. If you’re in the area, be sure to attend and speak out. The meeting is open to the public and will feature two panel discussions and a two-hour block of time dedicated to citizen commentary.
Ultimately, this merger will result in higher prices for consumers, fewer Internet freedoms and a lack of diverse voices in our broadcast media. Additionally, Comcast has hired a battalion of lobbyists to do their bidding in Washington to get this merger approved (while they meet behind closed doors with the FCC in talks to kill Net Neutrality). To make matters worse, many of these lobbyists are themselves former government officials, and some even worked as aides to FCC Commissioners.
In 2007, the FCC held a similar forum in Chicago on the topic of media ownership rules, and over a thousand Chicago citizens showed up – some waiting in line until 2 a.m. to talk face-to-face with the FCC. However, Comcast has a history of underhanded tactics designed to silence the public. In 2008, Comcast hired people off the street to fill up an FCC hearing and keep the public out.
Comcast already dominates much of the media market in Chicago, and swallowing NBC would further limit the scope and viewpoints Comcast promotes. The statistics regarding local and minority ownership across the United States are, to state it plainly, bleak. According to a 2007 report by Free Press, women comprise 51 percent of the entire U.S. population, but own less than 6 percent of all full-power commercial television stations.
In Chicago, 51.5 percent of the population is female, yet there are no full-power commercial television stations in Chicago that are owned by women. According to 2000 census information, 36.8% of people in Chicago are Black and 26% are of Hispanic or Latino origin, but only one commercial TV station is minority owned and operated. Clearly, there is a lack of representation of women and people of color in the media available in Chicago.
Both Comcast and NBC have woeful records when it comes to diversity, and it’s not a far leap to say they will certainly not be fit to serve the public interest if they cannot represent minorities and women in their corporate structure. And NBC lacks significantly in its programming geared toward minorities.
Diversity is something which Chicago’s citizens can boast about, but we should roast Comcast and NBC on their incompetence in representing the diverse communities they are required to serve.
The FCC hearing in 2007 featured prominent speakers from media organizations as well as members of the public who were not afraid to ask the big questions and take a stand against the FCC and demand better media. Let’s make this hearing an even bigger success and let the FCC know we don’t support this merger. They’re giving us this opportunity, so we shouldn’t let it pass us by. You can get more information by going to www.StopBigMedia.com and www.FreePress.net/Comcast.
No Comments »
Posted June 22nd, 2010 by Moira Vahey
Yesterday, Free Press and public interest allies called on the Federal Communications Commission to reject Comcast’s proposed acquisition of NBC-Universal by filing a “petition to deny” the merger with the agency.
The FCC’s public comment period on the merger ended yesterday.
Since the mega-merger was first announced, we have highlighted the major impact it would have on consumers. If the government approves the merger, Comcast will be able to block competitors, force unwanted program “bundles” on other cable and DBS systems, and discriminate against competing programmers seeking carriage. Thanks to this merger, the public is likely to see higher cable rates, fewer programming choices, less diversity, inhibited online innovation, and possible job losses.
Here is a quick review of what happened yesterday:
- 31,454 comments were filed in the FCC’s Comcast docket – a record for major merger filings, according to Politico.
- Free Press submitted a 152-page “petition to deny,” which is our formal filing to oppose the Comcast-NBC merger.
- Free Press, along with thirteen other companies and public interest groups, submitted a letter calling on the FCC to stop the Comcast merger.
- Nearly 34,000 people signed a Free Press petition calling on the FCC to stop the Comcast-NBC merger.
Now the FCC is charged with analyzing the merger and determining whether or not it is beneficial to the public. In order for a merger to be approved by the FCC, burden of proof is actually on Comcast to show the agency that this transaction will provide clear benefits to the public. So far, Comcast has not offered any merger conditions that deliver much beyond the status quo or adequately address our concerns.
Common sense alone should dictate that this merger is bad for the public – just look at the alarming market power a Comcast-NBC duo would wield, Comcast’s terrible customer service record, and the company’s lies to Congress and federal authorities.
Free Press’ comments also provide a comprehensive look at how the Comcast-NBC merger could threaten the future of online video and leverage its power to withhold popular content and raise costs for competing video providers – and leave consumers paying more for less.
Read Free Press’ comments here.
Stay tuned. There is much more to come on this mega-merger and your participation is crucial as we enter the upcoming stages of review. Next up:
- The House Commerce Committee’s July 8th hearing on the merger in Chicago;
- The FCC’s July 13th hearing in Chicago;
- Comcast will submit reply comments on July 21; and,
- The public deadline to respond will be August 5.
No Comments »
Posted June 21st, 2010 by Josh Stearns
Today is the deadline at the Federal Communications Commission for public comments on Comcast’s proposed takeover of NBC-Universal. Use this simple web form to submit comments directly to the FCC to object to the merger.
What’s at stake with this merger?
Comcast is the largest cable and Internet service provider in the country, and now it wants to buy NBC-Universal, effectively taking over its news and entertainment programming, its cable channels and local broadcast stations, and its movie studios. This means Comcast will not only own the content, but also control access to that content online, on cable and over broadcast. After its takeover of NBC, Comcast would control one in every five television viewing hours.
You can quickly and easily add your voice here, or read on for more information about the merger.
This deal is bad for consumers and citizens:
Comcast was just voted the worst company in America for 2010 by the readers of Consumerist.com. Comcast already raises its rates every year for its cable subscribers, and prices will only increase more after the merger. Rates for all cable customers nationwide could skyrocket because Comcast will have the opportunity and incentive to charge its competitors more for NBC programs and force competitors to pay for less desirable Comcast cable channels in order to get NBC programming — those added costs will mean bigger bills for all cable subscribers.
This deal is bad for independent media makers:
Both Comcast and NBC have a history of sidelining independent producers and media makers. Jean Prewitt, of the Independent Film and Television Alliance, testified that the Comcast merger is about “the very future of creative life, cultural expression and the free exchange of ideas.” She wrote, “This merger places at risk the opportunities for diverse, original and independent programming to reach the public through traditional media and new platforms.”
This deal is bad for labor:
Comcast is notoriously anti-labor and is known for firing workers who try to organize. In testimony to the House Judiciary Committee, the Communications Workers of America union wrote, “A Comcast-NBC combination will lead to the loss of good jobs. Comcast/NBC debt will increase by approximately $8 billion after this transaction. To pay for the debt, the company has two choices: cut jobs or raise cable prices. Either way, consumers and workers lose.”
This deal is bad for diverse voices and communities:
NBC and Comcast’s track record with diverse communities has been at the center of a number of debates about this merger. Members of Congress have been asking hard questions about this issue (see videos here and here). And the National Coalition of African-American Owned Media (NCAAOM) has called for a boycott of Comcast for their treatment of African American media owners.
This deal is bad for competition:
The Comcast merger puts too much power in the hands of one company. Comcast could withhold programming from competitors, and crush competition from emerging online video outlets by starving them of content. Comcast and NBC compete head to head for advertisers in cities across the country, but this merger would eliminate that competition.
Take action today to stop this merger.
1 Comment »
Posted June 15th, 2010 by Megan Tady
Conservative radio talk show host Al Roney offered listeners a local perspective on WGY, an AM station in Latham, N.Y. That is, until the Clear Channel-owned station replaced Roney’s morning show with canned programming. In February, he was fired, and Glenn Beck’s nationally syndicated show—far less interested in life in Latham than Roney—took over his slot.
“I like the local focus that (Roney) brought to the radio,” Eric Sutton told the Albany Times Union, “and I really think we’re going to miss that. There’s nobody else talking about the local disgraces that are going on.”
Of course none of this is shocking news. Since Congress lifted the limits on local radio station ownership in 1996, mega corporations like Clear Channel have been swooping in to communities to buy stations, fire local staff and replace the local shows with computer-generated playlists and syndicated (mostly right-wing) talk show hosts broadcasting from miles—and even states—away.
But there could be a sliver of a silver lining: On May 25, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) kicked off its 2010 review of media ownership rules, which dictate how many radio and TV stations someone can own in one community. This quadrennial review is a unique opportunity for citizens to weigh in on the ways media consolidation has impacted their community. But it’s also a chance for Big Media to lobby the FCC for more big giveaways. In the past, the FCC has consistently tried to loosen media ownership rules to let the biggest media companies get even bigger.
Will the FCC finally take this opportunity to stand up for the public and create new rules that protect our airwaves and give us more diverse radio, or will it – once again – bow to industry’s wishes?
Here’s what we do know: In 1996, there were 10,257 commercial radio stations and 5,133 radio owners. Today, there are 11,202 commercial radio stations and 3,143 owners. That’s a 39 percent decrease in the number of owners since 1996.
What these numbers mean in practice is clear: a whole lot of harm to local communities.
Broken corporate promises
When big companies buy up commercial broadcasting stations across the country, they care about one thing: big profit. Local news, music and information is replaced with automated programming specifically designed to keep listeners tuned in for long (and getting longer) commercial breaks. (Watch this disturbing video of how Clear Channel uses “focus groups” to determine which songs their dee-jays are forced to play: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crwQJQDfrzE)
It’s almost impossible for independent and local musicians to enter this carefully controlled media environment. In 2007, the FCC fined four of the nation’s largest radio station group owners—Clear Channel, CBS Radio, Citadel and Entercom—for participating in payola (the illegal practice of exchanging song airtime for payment or other inducements). Additionally, the companies voluntarily agreed to an “indie set-aside,” promising to collectively air 4,200 hours of local, regional and unsigned artists and independent labels.
But last July, the advocacy organization Future of Music Coalition produced a report called “Same Old Song,” which examined playlist data in New York State from 2005 to 2008. Despite noble corporate promises, there was no considerable difference in broadcasting practices. Local and independent music was still off the air.
Emergency unpreparedness
If live DJs are gone and programming is canned, what happens if there’s a local emergency? The kind where residents need information from their radio stations about evacuation procedures and safety precautions? Well, what might happen is a corporate-made media disaster.
Remember Minot? In 2002, a train derailed in Minot, N.D., releasing noxious anhydrous ammonia into the air. When the federal Emergency Alert System tried to get in touch with radio stations in the town about the spill, the “unmanned” stations didn’t respond. New York University sociologist Eric Klinenberg recounted the radio fail in his 2007 book Fighting for Air: The Battle to Control America’s Media:
KCJB, and every other radio station in town, were not reporting any news or information about the anhydrous spill. Instead, all six of Minot’s name-brand stations—Z94, 97 Kicks, Mix 99.9, The Fox Classic Rock, 91 Country, and Cars Oldies Radio—continued playing a standard menu of canned music, served up by smooth-talking DJs…while the giant toxic cloud floated into town.
The threat of a legitimate disaster unfolding silently persists. Here’s Ars Technica writer Matthew Lasar worrying about San Francisco last month:
[W]e’re waiting for our next major earthquake. On that fateful day, our Internet won’t be worth much if our local [Internet Service Providers] go down. Our smart phones won’t help if carrier networks overload or their transmitter towers run out of back-up power. Ditto for cable TV, electricity-wise.
So chances are that when the Big One comes, we’ll drop our fancy mobiles, get in our cars, and fire up our AM radios. Here’s hoping that six months later we won’t be following debates about why we heard nothing but Rush Limbaugh and adult contemporary pop.
What’s the FCC to do?
With overall radio ownership down, consider these alarming statistics: Women own just six percent of all full-power commercial broadcast radio stations, even though they comprise 51 percent of the U.S. population. Racial or ethnic minorities own less than eight percent of all full-power commercial broadcast radio stations, though they account for about one-third of the U.S. population.
So, what’s the Federal Communications Commission to do with this information? FCC Commissioner Michael Copps has a few ideas, which he released the same day the ownership rules review was announced:
If a central tenet of our FCC mandate is to promote diversity in the media, which it is, then we need diverse ownership policies to help that happen. We need to pay attention to market realities and all the new media innovations that have developed since our last review, but uppermost in our minds must be crafting rules that serve the goals of democracy-building and democracy-maintenance.
It’s time for the FCC to roll back radio consolidation and better protect the public’s airwaves. The FCC may not be able to put the toothpaste back in the tube, but it can use the 2010 review to stop any more media consolidation. We don’t want radio produced for the masses. We want radio that reflects the complexity, personalities, talents and struggles of our own communities.
It’s vital that you tell the FCC what’s on your mind as soon as possible—Clear Channel and its corporate ilk certainly won’t stay silent. Be sure to send an email to the commission (at info@fcc.gov) demanding an end to consolidation and a return to locally owned and operated radio stations.
Article first published by InTheseTimes.com.
No Comments »
Posted June 10th, 2010 by Jenn Ettinger
Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) vigorously questioned Christine Varney, assistant attorney general for antitrust, about the proposed Comcast-NBC merger during a Senate Antitrust Subcommittee meeting on Wednesday.
Franken was openly skeptical about the assurances being made by Comcast and NBC, particularly those about price increases, in-house production and program favoritism.
Varney addressed Franken’s concerns, saying: “Let me assure you, Senator, that we don’t rely on promises. If a transaction is anticompetitive and violates the prohibition on substantially lessening competition, we will block it. We will go to court, and we will block it.”
Here’s a full video of Franken’s questioning of Varney.
No Comments »
Posted June 10th, 2010 by Matt Schafer
In 2008, a majority of Americans reported that they regularly got their news from local television. Yet the quality and diversity of this “trusted news source” has declined, thanks in part to loopholes in media ownership rules — rules that by themselves already allow massive media consolidation and cross-ownership.
The Federal Communications Commission recently announced a Notice of Inquiry to review all past broadcast media rules, and has an opportunity to change some of its past mistakes. But will it look at one of the most alarming ways media corporations are eroding local journalism?
Current FCC rules limit an individual’s or company’s ownership to two local news stations in the same Designated Market Area (DMA) so long as one of the stations is not among the top four ranked stations in the market (by ratings), and eight independent TV stations remain in the DMA.
But Big Media has found a way around this rule in the form of “Shared Services Agreements” (SSA). An SSA is an agreement between two media companies that effectively transfers control of one station to another, while not transferring the actual license. More importantly, an SSA appears to result in the consolidation of control of news reporting and production. Where once there were two or more teams covering local news, the SSA reduces that number to one.
What does this mean for the news consumer, the news content and the journalist? It means that consumers are stuck with content that lacks diversity and quality. For the journalist, it means the loss of a job.
What does this look like when it’s played out? Let’s examine the case of one agreement among stations in Youngstown, Ohio, where New Vision Television, a media company based in Los Angeles, owned both the local FOX and CBS affiliates. Then in 2007, New Vision took control of the local ABC affiliate as well. How did this happen?
First, the FCC approved the transfer of the license for ABC affiliate WYTV from Chelsey Broadcasting to Parkin Broadcasting. Indeed, the FCC wrote in its decision that “We find that grant of the application will further the public interest, convenience and necessity.”
Parkin Broadcasting then turned around and entered into an agreement with New Vision Television, according to which New Vision Television would assume control of the once independent ABC affiliate’s newscast. That was in 2007. Where are they now?
In 2009, New Vision Television filed for bankruptcy. Today, each local New Vision Television controlled affiliate publishes the exact same online content as the other New Vision Television affiliates. The average story on each affiliate’s website comes in at a paltry 162 words in length in our sample, and the sites share the same video spots. WYTV, the ABC affiliate operated by New Vision Television through the SSA, now only employees 13 people on its news team, seven of whom are also employed by “its competitors.”
As Don Shilling of the local newspaper The Vindicator said after the agreement first took effect, “The local TV market will never be the same.”
It’s clear that these backdoor takeovers of the local broadcast stations in Youngstown are not in the public interest. They inhibit the diversity of viewpoints, sources and content. They impede localism, with decisions being made, in this case, in Los Angeles and not in Youngstown. They impinge on enterprise and local investigative journalism, as the operators of stations with an SSA often opt to lay off journalists and support staff.
The FCC has the chance to close the loophole this year and restore a competitive, vibrant and robust local television news environment through its review. Because local news outlets, as author Phyllis Kaniss put it, “have always played an important role in the way a city and region understand its problems, its opportunities, and its sense of local identity,” it’s important to protect the meaningful pursuit of news and investigative reporting that is promoted by competition among multiple news outlets.
Matt Schafer is a Graduate Intern for Free Press where he researches the effects of cooperative journalism ventures on the public interest. Matt graduated from the University of Illinois with a Bachelors of Media Studies. Currently, he is attending Louisiana State University, where he is enrolled in a joint degree program for a Master’s of Mass Communication and a Juris Doctorate.
2 Comments »
