Tuesday, when FCC Chairman Kevin Martin rammed through his plans to allow one company to own the major newspaper and a TV or radio station in the same city, he lit a fire under Congress and sparked outrage across the country. The response to the FCC’s decision to lift the 30-year-old newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban has been swift and promises to escalate in 2008.
In just 48 hours, more than 165,000 people have signed an open letter to Congress calling for Martin’s new rules to be overturned.
Burning Down the House
Although Kevin Martin has chosen to ignore the public, Congress is taking notice. Twenty-six senators sent a letter to Martin last week vowing to “immediately move legislation that will revoke and nullify the proposed rule.”
Less than 24 hours after the controversial FCC vote, Reps. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and Dave Reichert (R-Wash.) introduced the “Media Ownership Act of 2007” (H.R. 4835) – the House companion to a Senate bill (S. 2332) sponsored by Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Trent Lott (R-Miss.) — legislation that would overturn disastrous new media rules approved by the FCC.
“This legislation changes technical provisions but is simple in its message and effects,” said Reichert. “We want local media to remain local, diverse and free.” He continued: “We’re taking swift action to hopefully prevent these changes from affecting our communities and the families at home. I respect the free market and want a marketplace that allows corporations to operate as freely as possible. However, I believe it is a role of government to stand between corporations and consumers when the public interest is at stake. I will continue to do what I can to maintain a diverse, free and unbiased source of news for my constituents and across this nation.”
At a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing earlier this month, Congressman Inslee chastised FCC Chairman Martin for announcing the Seattle hearing on short notice. He said that Martin treated Seattle residents “like a bunch of chumps” by unveiling his new rules in a New York Times op-ed almost immediately following the hearing. Martin admitted at that hearing that he already had his mind made up and his editorial drafted before the Seattle hearing.
Carrying the Wood
When Martin’s rush to change this rule was first uncovered by the New York Times, Sen. Byron Dorgan promised that there would be a firestorm of protest and he would be “carrying the wood.” However, the public outrage at Martin and the FCC was smoldering long before his secret plans were revealed.
The public distaste for Martin’s plan was first exhibited at the FCC’s public hearings on media ownership and localism. Thousands of people showed up in Los Angeles, Nashville, Harrisburg, Pa., Tampa, Fla., Portland, Maine, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Seattle — sometimes with only a week’s notice — to testify against further media consolidation. In Washington on Halloween, Martin had to face spirited “FCC cheerleaders,” while in Seattle “media zombies” roamed the streets outside the hearing.
This kind of creativity was echoed elsewhere in the campaign and throughout the country. Chicago Media Action sang “carols” outside Tribune Co. headquarters. Activists built a Potterwatch Web site and recorded a “Wizard Rock” album to rally fans of the Harry Potter series against media consolidation. And a YouTube video opposing Martin’s early “Christmas gift” to Big Media has been watched nearly 80,000 times.
Those denied the opportunity to voice their opposition directly to all five FCC took their protest online. More than 100,000 individuals have contacted Congress and the FCC and thousands more have posted their pictures on a virtual wall of protest at StopBigMedia.com. A broad-based coalition of organizations has taken up this issue, including more than 20 civil rights groups that called upon the FCC to first address the media diversity crisis before considering any new rules. These diverse faces and voices are a powerful reminder that media consolidation is not just an inside-the-Beltway issue.
The fight is far from over. Martin’s insistence on pushing through this favor to his big business buddies is only going to fan the flames outrage across the country. It won’t be long until he gets burned.
Wednesday, December 19th, 2007 by Rep. Louise Slaughter
My friends, I am simply appalled by the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) decision yesterday to allow newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership in major media markets around the country. This egregious ruling, rammed through on a party line vote by FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, allows near unfettered consolidation of local media outlets by some of the largest corporations in America. The Democratic commissioners said it right, this is a “Christmas present to the nation’s largest conglomerates.”
Guest Blog Post by Rep. Louise Slaughter
The ruling loosened a 32-year-old restriction preventing a single company from owning newspapers, as well as television or radio stations in the twenty largest media markets in America. The ability of the Rupert Murdochs of the world to acquire the available news outlets in a single media market will severely restrict the public’s access to free media by making it extremely difficult for independent or competing voices to be heard.
However, isn’t the very foundation of this country based on exactly the opposite premise, that independent and competing voices are essential to the health and vitality of our democracy?
By permitting a few giant conglomerates to own most of the newspapers, as well as the television or radio stations within a single city, the traffic of information is held hostage to the executives in a few corporate boardrooms. Instead of making decisions about content that is based on fairness, or balance, or localism, or diversity, or democratic principles, decisions about what information the American public hear and see will be made with only the company’s bottom line in mind.
Is that democracy?
The airwaves are owned by the public, not the mega media corporations. The American people deserve information from many different, independent outlets, with diverse, fair coverage from all sides of an issue, and different points of view.
Otherwise, how can we make informed decisions about the many issues that will affect our lives and the direction of our country?
I believe that the future of our very democracy depends on the answer to that question.
Today, the Federal Communications Commission voted to remove the longstanding “newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership” ban that prohibits a local newspaper from owning a broadcast station in the same market. When the Commission voted today, 3-to-2 along party lines, they did so in spite of enormous public pressure and stern warnings from Congress.
But that’s not all. In a series of late night revisions to his rule, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin fattened his holiday gift to Big Media by granting permanent waivers to companies across the country who have been in breach of the cross-ownership ban for years. Already ignoring the millions who have spoken up against media consolidation, this last-minute immunity for Big Media is a slap in the face to the American people.
Today’s vote was a confirmation that the FCC has turned its back on its own mission and mandate to foster localism, diversity, and competition. The Commission, which is supposed to be dedicated to protecting the public interest on the public’s airwaves, has shown today that it is held hostage by Big Media’s campaign contributions and high-powered lobbyists. Their corrupt process and biased research ensured that they reached a preordained conclusion today to gut the few remaining protections for local media.
“For many years, the underpinnings of the Commission’s public interest analysis with regard to media have been to promote localism, competition, and diversity. Yet it is clear from the record that this decision undermines all of these goals,” said Commission Jonathan Adelstein. “As a result of newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership, there is less local news in the market as a whole and there is less competition for stories and ideas since two competing entities become one. There is also less diversity, as a voice in the market is lost, and broadcast outlets are taken even further out of reach of women and people of color.”
Chairman Kevin Martin is ignoring the public will and defying the U.S. Senate. But the fight is far from over. In his comments at today’s FCC meeting Commissioner Michael Copps called on Congress and the American people to fix this broken and corrupt agency and put Chairman Martin in his place.
“The situation isn’t going to repair itself. Big media is not going to repair it. This Commission is not going to repair it,” said Copps. “But the people, their elected representatives, and attentive courts can repair it. Last time the Commission went down this road, the majority heard and felt the outrage of millions of citizens and Congress and then the court. Today’s decision is just as dismissive of good process as that earlier one, just as unconcerned with what the people have said, just as heedless of the advice of our oversight committees and many other Members of Congress, and just as stubborn—perhaps even more stubborn—because this time it knows, or should know, what’s coming. Last time a lot of insiders were surprised by the country’s reaction. This time they should be forewarned.”
In the past few months, more than 100,000 Americans spoke out against media consolidation. Just yesterday, more than two dozen senators vowed to throw out these new rules. And the courts won’t look too kindly on the broken and corrupt process that brought us to today’s vote.
The public simply won’t stand for another massive corporate handout. They are sick and tired of junk media and celebrity gossip being passed off as news. They want more choices, more variety, more diversity — not more of the same.
Today’s vote is not the end of a corrupt process, but rather, the beginning of a hugely important fight to fix a broken system and renew the public trust.
In a guest post, Sen. John Kerry calls on the FCC to delay its vote on new media ownership rules that would allow the largest media companies swallow up more local newspapers and TV stations. Join the conversation in the comments section below. Then take action.
It’s great to be back addressing you here at the Free Press online community. You’ve all done a great job taking what used to be arcane telecommunications policy and injecting a very healthy dose of democratic activism into the mix.
As most of you probably already know, today is the day that Chairman Kevin Martin has decided the FCC will vote to relax the newspaper radio cross-ownership rule, which allow for greater concentration of ownership over the local media outlets across the country. The proposed rule is bad on the merits, and the process Martin has undertaken has been nothing short of disgraceful. He has ignored the duties chartered to the Commission, and he’s abrogated duties not chartered. He has undertaken a rush to judgment without any particular justification, choosing to ignore evidence that shows this rule change to be a step down the wrong path.
Kerry Challenges Martin
But we don’t have to take this lying down. I know a lot of you have already called or e-mailed your opposition to Chairman Martin’s proposal, and today’s your last day to try to delay the vote. And I just want you to know we’re doing all we can in the Senate to put some pressure on the FCC as well.
One particular problem with this rule is that studies have shown that greater consolidation of ownership discourages minority and women ownership over the media outlets. The FCC is specifically obligated to take that into account when considering these rule changes, but they haven’t given these questions nearly the attention they deserve. In fact, the Commission’s own studies show that the data collection on minority and female ownership of broadcast and telecommunications properties are incomplete and inadequate. Because of this, the Senate Commerce Committee made its intent clear by unanimously reporting out a bill that would expressly require the FCC to establish a panel investigating this issue and act on that panel’s recommendations before implementing the cross ownership rule change.
So far, the FCC has ignored this demonstrated intent. That’s why Senator Obama and I wrote a letter to Chairman Martin last week saying:
We believe that moving forward with this change will have a direct and detrimental impact on the state of media diversity. Should you decide to move forward with this vote against the expressed bipartisan, bicameral intent of Congress, we will approach Appropriations Committee Chairman Byrd with a request that funds be denied for the implementation of this rule.
Hopefully Chairman Martin will take seriously our recommendation. But to make sure he hears Congress’s message loud and clear, Senator Dorgan sent a letter which I cosigned along with 25 of my Senate colleagues raising a broader objection to the process undertaken by the FCC Chairman. In no uncertain terms, this letter states our intention to reverse through legislation any harm done should Martin push ahead with his ill-conceived proposal. The FCC just announced the rule in a press release on November 13, 2007 and set a comment period of just 28 days. As it says in the letter:
When you proposed a new rule on the effects of communications towers on migratory birds, you allowed for a 90 day comment period. How could you decide to allow 90 days for a migratory bird rule and then shortchange the public on the media ownership rule?
In that letter, we let Chairman Martin know that, even if he goes ahead with it, this fight is not over:
With this in mind we are writing to notify you that if you proceed to take final action on this rule on December 18th without having given a reasonable opportunity for comment on the actual rules and study the related issues, we will immediately move legislation that will revoke and nullify the proposed rule. We are notifying you and others of this proposed action in order to make certain you understand the consequences of ignoring the need for and the right of the American people to play a constructive role in attempts by a federal agency to change rules that have a substantial impact on the American people.
In light of this, we request and expect that you will postpone the action scheduled for December 18, 2007.
Chairman Martin has decided to try to ramrod his through agenda despite widespread public and congressional disapproval, ignoring the explicit bipartisan intent of the Senate Commerce committee. I truly hope Chairman Martin and the rest of the FCC realizes the mistake they are making. You have made your voices heard, but if the FCC doesn’t listen, we’ll have to take the fight right to them.
I’ll keep you updated.
= = = = Update from Sen. Kerry:
= = = =
Well, despite broad bipartisan Congressional and public disapproval, Chairman Martin rammed through his rule change on a party line vote.Let me say right here that this fight is not over. These were not idle threats made by me or by my colleagues, and now that Chairman Martin has chosen to ignore our intent, we will be pressing ahead. Stay tuned.
What will it take for FCC Chairman Kevin Martin to deal with the crisis in minority ownership?
Despite repeated requests from civil rights groups and congressional leaders, and despite pending legislation to address the issue, the Chairman continues to ignore all calls to slow down to address the crisis. Instead, he is pushing ahead with a vote today to lift the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule that will result in greater media consolidation, effectively placing the future of minority ownership in greater jeopardy.
Last Friday, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) called on Martin to deal with minority ownership and to postpone the Dec. 18 vote because of the harm the proposed rule change would cause minority owners: “We believe that moving forward with this change will have a direct and detrimental impact on the state of media diversity. Should you decide to move forward with this vote against the expressed bipartisan, bicameral intent of Congress, we will approach Appropriations Chairman Robert Byrd [D-W. Va.] with a request that funds be denied for the implementation of this rule.“
But Martin is determined to vote on allowing for greater consolidation even though both Republican and Democratic senators have urged him to postpone the vote. He plans to move forward even though he admitted during a Senate Commerce Committee oversight hearing that media consolidation has been harmful to minority ownership. (Watch the video below.)
Martin is also attempting to shield himself from criticism that he has not dealt with the issue of minority ownership. He is seeking on Dec. 18 to vote on proposals that he claims will increase the number of minority owners.
But many are concerned that Martin will define too broadly the type of companies that will benefit from the rules to aid minority owners. Groups have asked him to use a small and disadvantaged business (SDB) definition to be eligible to benefit from the new rules. But Martin reportedly refuses. Instead, he plans to adopt the broader small business definition would actually harm minority owners.
This is precisely the reason why the Chairman must postpone the vote. His cross-ownership plan would harm minority owners, and his support for rules that claim to boost minority ownership are nothing more than an attempt to deflect the political pressure.
Communities of color deserve better from commissioners who are suppose to represent the public interest. But Dec. 18 may turn out to be a day in which their public interest concerns were betrayed once again.
Over the past few weeks, we’ve been counting down the “10 Facts Kevin Martin Doesn’t Want You to Know” about his new media ownership rules, as chronicled in our report Devil in the Details.
With just four days to go before Martin insists he’ll vote to gut longstanding media ownership limits, the last fact may be the most obvious and the most important: The American people overwhelmingly oppose letting a few media giants swallow up more local media.
Fact No. 10: The public doesn’t want more media consolidation
It’s déjà vu all over again. The unprecedented public outcry sparked the last time the FCC tried to change the rules in 2003 hasn’t
diminished. Then, under former Chairman Michael Powell, millions contacted Congress and the FCC to oppose the changes, which were ultimately thrown out by the courts. Some 99 percent of the public comments received by the FCC opposed changing the rules.
Since the FCC announced its latest review of media ownership rules in June 2006, hundreds of thousands of public comments have been filed with the FCC. Once again, 99 percent of them oppose loosening media ownership limits. When’s the last time 99 percent of us agreed on anything?
In addition, between October 2006 and September 2007, the FCC held six official public hearings across the country on media ownership and localism. At these events, the vast majority of speakers opposed changing the rules. In fact, Martin admitted at the Oct. 31 FCC meeting that he remembers “only one” public witness calling for relaxation of media ownership rules at the hearings.
Merry X-Mas, Big Media
Yet this undeniable record of public opposition hasn’t slowed down Martin. He scheduled the FCC’s final two public hearings with little public notice, giving communities in Washington, D.C., and Seattle barely a week’s advance warning. Though the two events may have been nothing more than a charade to Martin, hundreds of citizens turned out anyway to make their voices heard.
Chairman Martin has demonstrated an unyielding determination to ignore the public will and any evidence that challenges his predetermined conclusions. And he’s pulling out all the stops to wrap up this early Christmas present to Big Media next week before most people find out what’s happening.
It’s time the FCC and its chairman started listening to their real constituents — the American people — and doing their job to ensure that the public airwaves actually reflect America’s diverse local communities.
Kevin Martin, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, is just days away from voting on a new ownership rule that would allow for greater consolidation and further jeopardize the future of minority ownership.
Chairman Martin is seeking to lift the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban. This would allow a newspaper to purchase a TV station ranked outside the top 4 in the 20 largest markets in the country. Martin’s plan has been criticized by civil rights and public interest groups for its lack of transparency and for not addressing the crisis in minority broadcast ownership.
Martin called his proposal a modest change to the ownership rules. But his proposal is anything but modest. Free Press examined Martin’s proposal in a recent report and found that it contains a giant loophole that would allow newspapers to easily receive a waiver from the FCC in every market. This would place minority ownership in greater jeopardy.
Nearly half of all minority-owned TV stations operate in the top 20 markets and all are ranked outside of the top four. This would reduce opportunities for people of color to own broadcast stations in our nation’s largest markets. In addition, 90 percent of all minority-owned stations are ranked outside the top four.
The FCC is seeking to relax our the newspaper-broadcast ownership rule even though minority TV ownership continues its decline. Free Press released Out of the Picture 2007 on Nov. 27, an updated study on minority TV station ownership. The study found that minority TV ownership declined by 8.5 percent this past year, including a 60 percent drop in the number of African-American owners.
NCLR President Janet Murguia criticized Martin for rushing to issuing new rules “regardless of the certain harm it will cause to the already fragile state of minority media ownership.”
Martin received a grilling from members of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Technology and the Internet during a Dec. 5 hearing to examine his ownership plan. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) challenged Martin over the commission’s flaw studies that failed to deal with diversity issues, including minority ownership. Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif.) and Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) also took the chairman to task for failing to deal with the crisis in minority ownership. Journalist Juan Gonzalez, former president of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, also called on Congress to prevent Martin from implementing new rules.
Meanwhile, on Dec. 4, the Senate Commerce Committee approved the Media Ownership Act of 2007 (S. 2332), which would prevent the FCC from considering new ownership rules before dealing with the issues of localism and minority ownership. The bill is co-sponsored by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.). It currently has 20 co-sponsors, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-N.Y.).
A Congressional Research Service report released Dec. 5 that examined the FCC’s ownership studies, outlined the failure of the commission to conduct an accurate count on minority ownership. The report said:
Several gaps remain in data collection, however. Most significantly the databases on minority and female ownership of broadcast and telecommunications properties are incomplete and inaccurate, and statistical analysis based on those data would not be reliable.
It is possible that the Third Circuit would not approve any FCC media ownership rule until the Commission has developed a minority ownership database of sufficient accuracy to allow for reliable testing of the impact of the rules on minority ownership.
As the FCC once again moves to relax media ownership rules, it has become clear that the agency has turned its back on people of color. Over and over, we have heard from local communities that the media is a life-and-death issue. We have less than one week to tell the FCC and Congress that we won’t stand for being pushed off the airwaves and out of the picture.
Reading the tea leaves at the FCC isn’t always easy, but this can’t be a good sign.
Tonight Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein issued the following statement in response to Kevin Martin’s apparently unwavering determination to push through new media ownership rules on Dec. 18:
We are deeply disappointed that the announced agenda for the December 18 open meeting includes media ownership. This is a huge mistake. The FCC should have heeded the calls of Congress and the American people to conduct a credible process on an issue of this importance to our very democracy. That means providing a meaningful opportunity for public input, rather than the callous disregard exhibited thus far – most recently, the Chairman circulated a draft decision on his proposal two weeks before public comment was even due! And it means taking meaningful action on minority and female ownership and broadcast localism, rather than the mish-mash of half-baked ideas currently before us.
Which brings us back to our ongoing countdown of the “10 Facts Kevin Martin Doesn’t Want You to Know” about his new ownership rules …
No. 9: A Broken and Corrupt Process Creates Bad Policies
The FCC’s lack of transparency, flawed research and secret timetable have tossed aside basic fairness and accountability in the rush to change media ownership rules. At every turn, the FCC — whether through omission, incompetence or malice — has kept the public in the dark about its true plans.
The FCC’s process in reviewing the new rules has been skewed toward foregone conclusions from the start. Overwhelming evidence suggests that the commission wanted to dramatically relax or eliminate the cross ownership rule. It buried studies demonstrating the harmful impact of consolidation and then commissioned studies to support its preconceived notions.
The FCC started from the results the chairman wanted, and then worked backward. A paper written in June 2006 by the FCC’s then-chief economist, Leslie Marx, leaves little doubt as to the agency’s motivations. Marx wrote: “This document is an attempt to share some thoughts and ideas I have about how the FCC can approach relaxing newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership restrictions.”
Facts vs. foregone conclusions
Also in June 2006, the FCC announced it was reviewing the nation’s media ownership rules but didn’t detail any specific rule changes. In August 2007, after more than a year of inaction, the commission finally released a series of 10 official studies — including three that focused on cross-ownership and followed the bogus methodology outlined by Marx. Trying to pass off junk science as legitimate research, the FCC failed to conduct a proper peer review and the supporting data wasn’t initially made available to the public.
Making matters worse, the FCC gave the public barely two months to independently analyze and comment on the studies. Despite the time crunch, Free Press, Consumer Federation America and Consumers Union filed a detailed refutation of the studies, which dismantled the agency’s claims about the supposed benefits of media consolidation.
Among other things, this original research detailed the FCC’s slanted agenda and flawed process; accurately counted the number of female and minority owners for the first time; and used the FCC’s own data to show how cross-ownership negatively impacts local news. Without offering any substantive critique of this groundbreaking research, the commission is moving full-speed ahead with more consolidation.
Policy by press release
Perhaps the most glaring example of the FCC’s corrupt process is the manner in which Martin unveiled his latest cross-ownership proposal. Policymaking by press release (or op-ed) is not the normal procedure at the FCC. There was no vote by the rest of the commissioners on whether to issue a final rule, and no notice was posted in the Federal Register.
And the arbitrary Dec. 11 deadline for public comment is completely Martin’s own invention, aimed at sneaking through new rules by the end of the year. At a minimum — as both members of Congress as well as Copps and Adelstein have demanded — the public should have 90 days to evaluate and comment on any new rules. Anything less could be grounds for the courts to toss out the rule changes entirely.
Time is tight
Copps and Adelstein closed their statement today with a plea for help:
We have been engaged in internal discussions to try to get our processes back on track. We wish those discussions had led to better results. At this point, given the lateness of the hour, we hope that either we can turn this around internally, or that Congress can save the FCC from itself.
The clock is ticking.
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.
Next: The public doesn’t want more media consolidation
Too often in the give-and-take of media policymaking, it’s government officials that are giving, corporate giants that are taking, and the public that’s left with nothing in the exchange.
This is certainly the case at the Federal Communications Commission, where Republican Chairman Kevin Martin is trying to brush aside mounds of evidence and ignore vast public opposition to hand a sweetheart deal to media owners with whom he seems to share a common agenda.
The decision in question — allowing one company to own broadcast station and a major daily newspaper in the same market — is so unpopular and wrong-headed that one wonders what really motivates Martin to defy common sense and the democratic process.
Despite intense pressure to stop his headlong rush for more consolidation, Martin has called for a vote next week the ban on “newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership” and let a few companies swallow up more local media in hundreds of cities and towns.
Giving ‘Short Shrift’
As FCC Commissioner Michael Copps has said, Martin’s plan gives “short shrift” to pressing problems such as the sorry state of female and minority media ownership of U.S. media and the decline of quality local news coverage on TV and radio.
When the idea of more media consolidation was put before Americans — during a series of public hearings and requests for public comment — more than 99 percent said bigger media were bad for them, bad for their communities and bad for our democracy.
Can you remember the last time 99 percent of Americans agreed on anything?
When the FCC asked for evidence of the impact of consolidation on localism, diversity and competition in media, Free Press and its allies responded with a comprehensive series of reports that found Martin’s consolidation plan amounted to little more than corporate welfare for Big Media.
Lifting the cross-ownership ban would unleash a buying spree in the local media markets, making it easier for companies like Gannett Co., News Corp. and Tribune Co. to push out independent, local owners.
Moreover, Free Press used the FCC’s own data to show how such local consolidation would result in less local news, less minority control of local news outlets, and less diversity of perspectives and opinion in local media.
The Public Takes Notice
Chairman Martin has never disputed — or even acknowledged - this research; he would rather it be swept under the rug in hopes that the rest of us wouldn’t notice.
Fortunately, many have noticed.
Right now thousands of people over at StopBigMedia.com are building a virtual “wall” of opposition. Martin, who has spent plenty of time staring across his desk at industry lobbyists, should check out the faces of his real constituents.
Martin’s proposal also triggered criticism from the Hill. Rep. John Dingell, (D-Mich.), the powerful head of the House Commerce Committee, last week wrote Martin informing him that the House was launching an investigation into the way the FCC was operating.
And bipartisan legislation, now winding through the Senate, would impose a six-month delay on the Martin’s plans to gut ownership limits and mandate that the agency deal with the crisis in minority media ownership before changing any rules.
Big Media’s Drive-Thru
In the face of all of this why is Martin still determined to push through his rule change?
The chairman himself wrote recently in a New York Times op-ed that he’s changing the rules to save journalism — that newspapers and television stations need to join up financially in order to survive editorially. (Never mind the legions of newsroom layoffs that have resulted from similarly merged “economies of scale.”)
That Martin is willing to employ blatant illogic to save us from ourselves shows what passes for public service in an agency that’s little more than a drive-thru for corporate giveaways.
That people are rising up in numbers to oppose him is a hopeful sign that “business as usual” at the FCC is destined for bankruptcy.
This guest post is by Andrew Slack, the founder of the Harry Potter Alliance, a movement dedicated to bringing together Harry Potter fans to apply the book series’ lessons of love, tolerance and social justice to our own world. He made headlines for his hit viral video and activist Web site “Waldemart Watch,” and is the driving force behind “Rock Out Against Voldemedia,” a compilation of ten original songs by ten Harry Potter-themed “Wizard Rock” bands. The compilation album and accompanying Web site draw the link between the perils of media consolidation in the Wizarding World — and our own.
Harry Potter series presents a world where media consolidation continues to fail the Wizarding World.
The Daily Prophet Ignores the Real Issues
When the Daily Prophet denied Voldemort’s return, Voldemort grew stronger: freeing Death Eaters, putting people under the Imperius Curse, forming dangerous alliances with giants, and killing innocent people left and right.
Once “Dumbledore’s Army” finally made them admit that Voldemort was back, the Daily Prophet refused to question the arrests of Stan Shunpike and Mundungus Fletcher and the fact that like the late Sirius Black, neither had received fair trials.
Finally, the Daily Prophet did not report on the fact that Voldemort had infiltrated the Ministry.
Our World
In our world, the U.S. media continue to do inadequate reporting by cutting over 80% of foreign news coverage over the last 20 years and replacing it with sports, weather and celebrity gossip. Many of the horrors that are happening in the Middle East as well as the genocide in Darfur are a gory testament to Big Media’s inability to properly inform the American people.
And like the Daily Prophet — which continued to spout the popular idea that Muggleborns were second class citizens — the U.S. is made up of 33% of racial and ethnic minorities yet only a little over 3% of television stations and around 7% of radio stattion are owned by minorities. Furthermore, while 60% of our country is made up of women and minorities, they only make up 12% of who we see on the news. The other 88% is composed of white men.
But rather than acting in the public’s interest, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is trying to get Big Media companies to own even more of the news.
Potterwatch
Once Voldemort took over every form of media in the Wizarding World, Dumbledore’s Army and the Order of the Phoenix formed an independent media movement called “Potterwatch.”
Now the HP Alliance and Wizard Rock have come together to fight for a Potterwatch movement in the real world to fight back against Big VoldeMedia from further pushing out local and foreign news, minority representation, and the right to a Free Press.
Although Kevin Martin has chosen to ignore the public, Congress is taking notice. Twenty-six senators sent a letter to Martin last week vowing to “immediately move legislation that will revoke and nullify the proposed rule.”
When Martin’s rush to change this rule was first uncovered by the New York Times, Sen. Byron Dorgan promised that there would be a firestorm of protest and he would be “carrying the wood.” However, the public outrage at Martin and the FCC was smoldering long before his secret plans were revealed.
Those denied the opportunity to voice their opposition directly to all five FCC took their protest online. More than 100,000 individuals have contacted Congress and the FCC and thousands more have posted their pictures on a virtual wall of protest at StopBigMedia.com. A broad-based coalition of organizations has taken up this issue, including more than 20 civil rights groups that called upon the FCC to first address the media diversity crisis before considering any new rules. These diverse faces and voices are a powerful reminder that media consolidation is not just an inside-the-Beltway issue.
In a guest post, Sen. John Kerry calls on the FCC to delay its vote on new media ownership rules that would allow the largest media companies swallow up more local newspapers and TV stations. Join the conversation in the comments section below. Then 
