FCC Opens Door to Cross-Ownership Everywhere

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has portrayed his new media ownership rules as a “compromise” that would only remove the cross-ownership ban in the 20 largest media markets. However, a closer reading of the actual rule changes makes it clear that any company wanting to break the cross-ownership rule and form a combination of local TV stations and newspapers in any market needs only to apply for a “waiver.”

Over the next two weeks at StopBigMedia.com, we’ll be counting down the “10 Facts Kevin Martin Doesn’t Want You to Know” about his new media ownership rules, as exposed in our new report — Devil in the Details.

Fact No.2: Loopholes Open the Door to Cross-Ownership in any Market

To appreciate just how dramatically the standards would be relaxed under Martin’s new rules, consider that under the existing rules permanent waivers almost never have been issued. Since 1975, the FCC has granted permanent waivers just four times, and, in each instance, an outlet was at risk of going out of business entirely.

Under Martin’s new plan, however, cross-ownership is “presumed” to be in the public interest as long as it takes place in the top 20 markets; involves only one TV or radio station; at least eight other TV stations or “major” newspapers would remain after the deal; and the TV station is not among the four top-ranked stations in the market.

But that doesn’t prevent other mergers — potentially hundreds more — from taking place in smaller markets. In fact, such waiver requests will almost certainly be granted under the loose and vague language of Martin’s plan.

When the exception is the rule

That’s because there’s a giant loophole in the language of Martin’s proposal. In all markets outside the 20 largest, cross-ownership would be “presumed” unlawful. But the new waiver standard is so lax and ambiguous that it’s almost toothless.

When issuing unlimited permanent waivers, according to the text of the “proposed change” included with Martin’s press release, the FCC can still consider several factors (which themselves raise more than a few follow-up questions):

• Whether the company “will increase the local news disseminated through the affected media outlets in combination.” (Does that mean 10 minutes of news a day? a week? a year?)
• If each of the outlets would still “exercise its own independent news judgment.” (How much collaboration is too much?)
• How concentrated the market would become. (What measurement would the FCC use?)
• The newspaper’s “financial condition” and whether it’s in “distress.” (Does this mean a paper would have to be going out of business or just have had a bad year?)

Martin’s proposal outlines no benchmarks or process of verification. The first two criteria are so vague they could be met by any applicants who cross their hearts and promise to do more news. Once cross-ownership is permitted, there’s no way for the FCC to hold the companies accountable.

Furthermore, there’s no definition of which measure of concentration the FCC would use. It could be the “eight voices test” that the agency is applying to the top 20 markets, meaning that at least eight independently owned and operated full-power TV stations and major newspapers (with at least 5 percent of the market share) would remain after the outlets combined. This standard would allow mergers in hundreds of markets.

Finally, the standard of “financial distress” is incredibly vague. Previously, permanent waivers were only granted if an outlet was bankrupt and about to close its doors. But Martin’s murky language suggests a lowered bar. Would a bad quarter or two pave the way to more consolidation? With this loophole, it might.

Burden of proof

To stop a merger in the top 20 markets under Martin’s scheme, the burden of proof would rest with those opposing the deal. They would have to show that the proposed combination didn’t meet these criteria.

Outside the top 20 markets, the burden of proof would rest with a company’s lawyers, but the companies would control all the information and could make promises that would be almost impossible to enforce. Average citizens don’t have the resources to prove whether companies will increase news a little bit, and they would have a hard time accounting for claims of “financial distress.”

The bottom line: The waiver standard is so loose that cross-ownership in almost every market could be approved by the FCC.

Tomorrow: Loopholes open the door to cross-ownership in any market.

No Comments »

Murdoch TV Station Moves from NYC to NJ…in Just 2 Hours!

On Wednesday night at a public hearing held at Rutgers University, two Federal Communications Commissioners, Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and scores of activists berated Rupert Murdoch’s WWOR-TV, Channel 9. Purchased in 2000 by Murdoch’s NewsCorp., the Secaucus, New Jersey-based station has operated as if it were based in New York City. Independent studies confirmed that the station devotes over 80 percent of its news coverage to New York and less than 20 percent to New Jersey.

Here’s where it gets interesting: Less than two hours after the hearing began, Channel 9 launched a new brand on its Web site, and the New York skyline was replaced with a photo of the George Washington Bridge that connects New York and New Jersey.

Clearly, Channel 9 staff rushed to their computers after getting beat up at the public forum, but as I write this post, New Jersey still appears nowhere on the site’s home page — and clicking on the weather link still takes you to the forecast for Central Park. At the hearing, when WWOR-TV showed up with the nightly news anchors and camera crews, they carefully placed masking tape to cover up the words “New York” on their gear. They were obviously feeling the heat.

Earlier this year, when WWOR-TV’s license first came up for renewal, New Jersey citizens came together under the umbrella of Voice for New Jersey and filed a petition with the FCC to deny the renewal. This effort was bolstered by another petition from Rainbow PUSH and the United Church of Christ, Office of Communications Inc. Senator Lautenberg demanded that the FCC hold Wednesday’s hearing.

At the hearing, members of Voice for New Jersey presented damning evidence of WWOR-TV’s utter lack of coverage of New Jersey’s issues. In fact, among all the stations broadcasting into northern New Jersey, WWOR provided the least amount of local news for New Jersey communities. The station carried virtually no coverage of local and regional elections. In the 30 days prior to the 2005 elections, WWOR ran only 10 stories focused on the New Jersey election — and nine of those focused on the governor’s race, almost totally ignoring local races. Seven of the 10 stories aired in the final week before the election.

This hearing was a rare event for an FCC that has turned the license renewal process into rubber stamp. The agency used to require media companies — who use the valuable public airwaves for free — to renew their licenses and document their service to local communities every three years. Industry lobbyists with bags of campaign cash have since extended that timeline, giving stations eight years between license renewals and removing any teeth the agency once had to enforce stations’ public interest obligations. Pretty much all they have to do now is send in a postcard.

On paper, all stations that broadcast over the public airwaves are required to serve their local communities, but a special set of circumstances surrounds WWOR-TV. Prior to 1982, no VHF broadcast TV stations were located in New Jersey. WWOR-TV became the first after Congress passed a law that required the FCC to automatically renew the station’s license if WWOR-TV moved to New Jersey and agreed to “operate in New Jersey for the benefit of the people in our State.”

This gave local citizen groups even more ammo when they argued that WWOR-TV – with a congressional mandate to cover New Jersey — failed to uphold its obligation to serve local needs. Judging by the station’s desperate efforts to change their brand on the heels of the hearing, I would say that the citizens of New Jersey made an impact. But a new brand does not a local station make. WWOR-TV has been called out, and the FCC has taken notice. But if last night is any indication, it is going to take more than a new Web site graphic to satisfy New Jersey citizens.

No Comments »

Martin’s ‘Modest’ Proposal Is Corporate Welfare for Big Media

Over the next two weeks at StopBigMedia.com, we’ll be counting down the “10 Facts Kevin Martin Doesn’t Want You to Know” about his new media ownership rules, as exposed in our new report — Devil in the Details.

Fact No. 1: Martin’s “Modest” Proposal Is Corporate Welfare for Big Media

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has portrayed his proposed changes to the nation’s media ownership rules as “significantly more modest” than the rules put forward by his predecessor, Michael Powell, in 2003. And in the face of widespread public opposition, Martin — at least for now — took changes to the local and national ownership caps off the table.

Lifting the longstanding ban on cross-ownership — a rule change long coveted by the media titans, especially Tribune Co. — is no small matter. Even taking Martin’s word that he intends to loosen the rules “only for the largest markets,” we’re still talking about a tectonic shift in the American media landscape.

Martin claims his new cross-ownership rules would only apply in the top 20 markets to newspaper-TV combinations that don’t involve the four top-rated stations. Yet Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein note that “the top 20 markets account for over 43% of U.S. households.” They add: “Even on its face, this proposal directly affects over 120 million Americans.”

Who benefits?

Martin’s proposal is little more than corporate welfare for the biggest media companies. One way to see who stands to benefit the most is to look at which companies already own TV stations and newspapers across the top 20 markets.

Cui bono? Here’s the list: Belo, Cox, E.W. Scripps, Gannett, Hearst, Media General, MediaNews, News Corp., Tribune Co. and the Washington Post Co.

Martin’s proposal would allow many of these firms to keep cross-owned properties they’ve attained through “temporary” waivers. And it would encourage all of them to sell or swap their properties with other media giants to establish local or regional dominance.

The new rules certainly wouldn’t benefit independent local owners. The smaller stations beyond the top four are the same ones more likely to be owned by independent broadcasters, women and people of color. And they’re likely to be prime targets in the ensuing frenzy of acquisitions.

Tomorrow: Loopholes open the door to cross-ownership in any market.

No Comments »

New Jersey Citizens Fight to Be Heard

Tomorrow afternoon, Nov. 28, there is going to be an unprecedented Federal Communications Commission hearing in New Jersey. Concerned citizens and public interest groups have petitioned the FCC to deny WWOR-TV 9’s broadcast license, asserting that the station hasn’t lived up to its commitment to serve New Jersey.

It’s one of the first public hearings the FCC has held to investigate a license renewal of a TV station in decades. As such, this could be a precedent-setting event, empowering other communities to hold hearings looking into their local TV and radio stations’ public service. The public owns the airwaves that radio and TV stations use to broadcast. However, Big Media companies have been permitted to use those airwaves for free — making millions of dollars doing so — under the obligation that they serve local communities.

Raise Your Voice in Newark The FCC Wants to Hear From You

Before 1982 there were no VHF TV stations located in New Jersey. The FCC denied the renewal of WWOR’s license in the early 1980s because its owner, General Tire and Rubber Co., engaged in a range of corporate misconduct. When a court required the FCC to reconsider its decision, WWOR’s owner convinced Congress to pass a law that required the FCC to automatically renew WWOR-TV 9’s license if the license holder will move to New Jersey and “operate in New Jersey for the benefit of the people in our State.”

However, all indications suggest that WWOR has not served the people of New Jersey - they even advertise themselves as “My9 New York.”

On Nov. 28 at 4 p.m. in the Paul Robeson Campus Center on the Newark Campus of Rutgers University, New Jersey citizens will have the rare opportunity to make their voices heard about how WWOR is serving New Jersey.

To find out more about the hearing, visit: www.stopbigmedia.com/=newark or www.voicenj.com.

The Case Against WWOR

The concerns of local New Jersey citizens were filed in petitions by the Office of Communications Inc. of the United Church of Chirst, Rainbow PUSH and Voice for New Jersey. Below is a summary of some of the points these local citizens found in their research and from their personal experience. (All facts presented here were taken from research and petitions to deny WWOR’s broadcast license filed with the FCC by groups representing local citizens.)

• In the first nine months of 2006, WWOR reported less than 10 hours of total news programming. Of that, a scant 2.66 hours (27%) was dedicated to New Jersey stories. WWOR rarely spent more than 10 minutes of news broadcasts dedicated to New Jersey coverage.
• According to WWOR’s own data, over a seven-year period from 1999-2006, they broadcast fewer than 170 New Jersey news stories per year. That is less than one New Jersey story every two days.
• Over the course of a 15-month study, only 46% of New Jersey stories on WWOR covered government and politics. In its report, “Service to New Jersey,” WWOR included sports stories to boost the number of local news stories they reported.
• In 2006, WWOR only aired 30 public affairs shows dedicated to New Jersey. The majority of these programs aired for only 30 minutes, meaning that WWOR averages less than 1.5 hours of public affairs programming per month.
• The station carried virtually no coverage of local and regional elections. In the 30 days prior to the 2005 New Jersey elections, WWOR ran only 10 stories focused on the New Jersey election and nine of those focused on the governor’s race. Seven of the 10 stories aired in the final week before the election.
• Since acquiring the license for WWOR, Fox has repeatedly shown that it would rather incorporate the station into its New York City media empire rather than serve the citizens of New Jersey. For example, in 2004, Fox planned to move the bulk of the station’s operations to New York City, prompting an outrage in New Jersey. In the face of congressional pressure, Fox finally backed down and decided to remain in New Jersey.
• A brief look at the station’s Web site is enough to show that the station is now targeting the New York audience, not the New Jersey one. The main station page has a picture of the New York City skyline, with the station’s new name, “My 9 New York” displayed prominently.
• As of today, “New Jersey” does not appear once on the station’s homepage (http://www.my9ny.com). The weather section brings up the current weather conditions and forecast for Central Park, New York, rather than anywhere in New Jersey. The public affairs section gives a phone and fax number to contact the Public Affairs Department; both numbers have New York area codes.

No Comments »

Minority Media Ownership Drops. Where’s the FCC?

Free Press today released Out of the Picture 2007, an updated analysis of the impact of media consolidation on minority and female TV station ownership.

The report updates the results from last year’s Out of the Picture study — the first complete assessment of female and minority ownership of commercial broadcast TV stations. The new data suggests that the future of minority TV station ownership is in jeopardy.

Among the most alarming new findings:

• From October 2006 to October 2007, the number of minority-owned commercial TV stations decreased by 8.5 percent.
• African-American TV station ownership dropped by 60 percent — as the total number of black-owned TV stations fell from 19 to 8 in just a single year.
• People of color now own just five of the 845 “big four” network-affiliated stations — a 62 percent decline from October 2006.

Much of the decline can be attributed to the bankruptcy and subsequent change in ownership of a single company — Granite Broadcasting, formerly the country’s largest minority-owned broadcast television company.

Minority television ownership is in such a precarious state that the loss of a single minority-owned company results in a disastrous decline.

Despite the worsening crisis of minority ownership, the FCC has yet to even conduct an accurate count of minority-owned stations. The most recent FCC study on this issue failed to identify 69 percent of minority TV station owners and 75 percent of female owners.

The FCC’s failure to address this issue in any meaningful way is a disgrace. You can’t separate this crisis from the unrelenting push for more media consolidation. And you can’t fix the situation if you allow a few big companies to swallow up more local stations — yet that’s exactly what FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is trying to do.

The best, most effective way to boost minority and female ownership is by rolling back consolidation. Ignoring the facts won’t change them.

Read Out of the Picture 2007 at http://www.stopbigmedia.com/files/otp2007.pdf

1 Comment »

Devil in the Details: Martin’s Big Media Giveaway

Today, Free Press released Devil in the Details, a report exposing what FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is hiding from the public about his recent proposal to lift the longstanding ban on “newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership.”

Using a carefully crafted PR campaign — including an op-ed in the New York Times — Martin has portrayed his proposal as a “moderate compromise” that would only allow one company to own both a daily newspaper and a broadcast TV or radio station in the 20 largest media markets.

But Devil in the Details exposes how the loose and ambiguous “waiver” standard proposed by Martin creates a giant loophole for big media companies to sidestep the ban in any market and for any station.

Martin’s rhetoric can’t match the reality that his plan is nothing more than a massive giveaway to the largest media companies.

You can read the full report here: http://www.stopbigmedia.com/files/devil_in_the_details.pdf

And we’ll be counting down the “10 facts Kevin Martin doesn’t want you to know about his new media ownership rules” each day for the next two weeks.

Leave your comments here or join the discussion over at the Free Press Action Network.

No Comments »

Sneak Preview: Moyers on Martin’s Massive Media Giveaway

Tonight on PBS, Bill Moyers returns to his “favorite beat” — the battle against Big Media.

But you can catch a sneak preview of the segment here.

Or read the transcript.

The show feature highlights from last week’s boisterous ownership hearing in Seattle — and the shots of Chairman Martin’s reactions are priceless.

Watch all the way to the end, where Moyers explains why Martin’s supposedly moderate new proposal to lift cross-ownership in the biggest cities is a stalking horse for runaway media consolidation across the country.

Then contact your senators and tell them to do something about it!

4 Comments »

FCC Chairman’s Slick PR Can’t Hide Big Media Giveaway

Tuesday morning — just three days after 1,000 people crowded into Seattle Town Hall to tell Kevin Martin’s Federal Communications Commission not to allow further media consolidation — the FCC Chairman released proposed rule changes that would allow one company to own a daily newspaper and a TV station in the same market.

Martin is pushing this massive giveaway to Big Media even though the overwhelming majority of the public — at six official public hearings and in hundreds of thousands of comments filed with the FCC — has told him:

1. The media are not serving local communities.

2. He should not allow the largest media companies to get even bigger.

This is not just a slap in the face of the thousands of people who have testified and sent letters to Chairman Martin, but also a snub of Congress who has been calling on him to slow down and address outstanding concerns about the impact of more media consolidation on minority ownership and localism.

The day before the Seattle hearing, a bipartisan group of senators — led by Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Trent Lott (R-Miss.), and including presidential candidates Barack Obama (D-Ill.), Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Joseph Biden (D-Del.) — introduced new legislation that would slow down Martin’s timeline and ensure that the FCC follows its mandate to protect the public interest.

Big Media’s Sob Story

The proposed rule change was accompanied by an op-ed from Chairman Martin in the New York Times claiming that the new rules are designed to save a struggling newspaper industry.

Oh, the poor, poor newspaper industry. They have fallen from average profit margins of 30 percent to around 20 percent today — still dramatically higher than the vast majority of other industries. Martin’s rationale is the best bluff he can offer up while he does the bidding of media giants like Tribune Company and its would-be owner Sam Zell. Martin knows that if Tribune fails to secure cross-ownership waivers or a rule change by Jan. 1, the price to purchase the remaining stock would go up at an annual rate of 8 percent.

Bigger Media Is Bad News for Minorities

The U.S. media is a complete mess — and it doesn’t represent the vast majority of Americans. Women and people of color — who comprise two-thirds of the population — own only about one-sixth of commercial radio and TV stations.

Martin’s proposal doesn’t merely ignore this; it would allow the situation to get even worse. He hopes to quell critics’ concerns by only relaxing the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership ban in the only top 20 markets, and by only letting newspapers combine with broadcast stations outside of the four top-rated channels.

Problem is that one-third of the stations owned by people of color are in the top 20 markets and none of those are the top four stations. That puts the few minority-owned stations directly in the cross-hairs of consolidation.

Corruption 101

The entire process leading to Tuesday’s announcement has been a study in government corruption 101. Biased research, flawed data and unfair timelines from the FCC have consistently pushed the public out of the policymaking process and ignored citizens’ impassioned pleas against further media consolidation.

But Martin’s proposal represents a particularly nefarious strategic turn. While his press release notes reassuringly that the rule change would be limited to the top 20 media markets, the fine print of the rule change reveals a dangerous loophole that could open the back door to runaway media consolidation in nearly every market. It would allow cross-ownership in smaller markets — perhaps hundreds of them — if stations could show such a combination meets a series of ill-defined standards.

In the end, Kevin Martin is yet another Bush appointee attempting to dish out yet another handout for Wall Street on the backs of Main Street. He better get ready for a fight.

2 Comments »

For Big Media, No News Is Good News

In case there was any doubt that media conglomerates are thumbing their noses at the public interest, the television network CW recently rolled out a series of bubbly ads trumpeting the fact that they offer no news to local viewers.

In one targeted at Washington, D.C. viewers, a CW “professor” explains to a classroom that the “good news” about CW is that “there is no news.”

In another ad, rapper Biz Markie sings that CW “got what I need… drama, action and laughs, no news ain’t that a blast.”

What the CW’s corporate owners at CBS and Time Warner forgot is that their stations were granted license to the public airwaves in exchange for broadcasting that serves the “public interest, convenience and necessity.”

Usually that means news and information that helps viewers participate in civic events and engage with other important developments in their community.

Sadly, the FCC seems also to have taken a lesson from the “professor’s” own text book.

The CW continues to broadcast no news in certain markets without the slightest blink from the bureaucrats who are duty sworn to protect our airwaves from such abuse.

It’s ironic that these ads ran at the same time the FCC held a hearing in the other Washington, during which residents of Seattle sent a resounding message to FCC Chair Kevin Martin: our democracy can’t survive on a steady diet of junk media.

Apparently, his friends at the CW missed that headline.

1 Comment »

Seattle: Ground Zero for Media Reform

On Friday night, Seattle was ground zero for the media reform movement. Seattle’s “Town Hall” overflowed with a crowd of more than 1,000. Most every person in attendance took a vocal stand against any rule change that would allow large media corporations to gobble up more local outlets. The evening was important not only for the size and volume of opposition to Big Media, it was important because those who crammed into the hearing demonstrated great depth and intelligence about what’s really at stake.

Seattle Times Editor-at-Large Michael Fancher on Sunday wrote, “I have come to agree that media consolidation is, in fact, a threat to democracy. The evidence is inescapable. What surprises me is how clearly the people get it. On the left and on the right, they know that bigger media aren’t in their best interest.”

It’s time that FCC Chairman Kevin Martin gets it, too. His fumbling efforts to justify his actions by blaming others — in the face of fierce heckling from some in the audience — is one of those rare and incendiary moments in political life, where a corrupted official is confronted by the same public he’s failed to serve. [For audio of Martin’s own ‘battle in Seattle,’ click here.]

Seattle got it right and made this long-departed native both proud and profoundly homesick all at once.

For more on Seattle’s media reform, media justice community, visit Reclaim the Media. Follows is my written testimony [for audio, click here]:

= = = = =
Thank you. I’m Timothy Karr, campaign director for the media reform group Free Press and a Seattle native. This is the last of six ownership hearings. I have watched, listened to or attended all of them. One thing is clear. The public is single-mindedly opposed to any rule changes that would unleash a new wave of media consolidation.

The sentiments heard in Seattle tonight echo those voiced in Los Angeles, Nashville, Tampa, Harrisburg and Chicago. They are the same views voiced during a round of ownership hearings four years ago: We believe now as we did then that media consolidation is a bad thing.

This is not just evident in the passion of those before you, it’s a fact reflected in the record.

My group, Free Press, has done some counting. Of the people who filed comments on this issue in 2003, more than 99 percent were against any further media consolidation.

In case you missed that point let me say it again. More than 99 percent of the commenting public was against any rules that would let a single company like Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation gobble up more radio and television stations in the same town.

But don’t listen to me, check your own information:

1. The Commission has claimed that cross-owned stations do more local news, but Free Press found using the FCC’s own data that markets with cross-owned stations produce fewer total minutes of local news.
2. Higher levels of local ownership lead to more local news at the market level, while increasing market concentration decreases the production of local news. This is especially relevant in Seattle where only three of the cities 13 commercial television stations are locally-owned.

Given your own evidence, what possible reason would you have to dismantle vital ownership limits and unleash more consolidation?

An industry representative sitting on a panel tonight wrote in the Seattle Times this week that broadcasters need you to strip away these rules in order to survive in the Internet age.

This simply isn’t true.

1. FCC data indicates that outside of the very largest markets, there is no financial benefit from the creation of cross-owned and duopoly combinations.
2. Only a small percentage of the public uses the Internet as their primary source for local news, and those that do are visiting the Web sites of their local broadcasters and newspapers.

So here you have it. The public passion agrees with your own empirical data. Despite what high paid industry lobbyists have told you on their daily rounds at the FCC, media consolidation is bad for us all.

The public has spoken. It’s now up to you to listen up and stop writing blank checks to Big Media. Do your jobs and do the right thing — not just for the sake of the evidence but for the benefit of our democracy.

Thank you.
= = = = =

1 Comment »