Martin’s ‘Modest’ Proposal Is Corporate Welfare for Big Media
Posted November 28th, 2007 by Craig Aaron
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.
