Broken Process = Bad Policies
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
[…] That would be years of flawed research, biased research, and research that was from the start guided by foregone […]
July 11th, 2008 at 9:06 pm