Sen. Snowe: We Owe It to the American People
In a guest post, Sen. Olympia Snowe talks about the Senate’s near-unanimous vote to overturn the FCC’s media ownership rule changes.
Last night I and my colleagues in the Senate passed the resolution of disapproval that repeals the recent Federal Communications Commission’s media ownership rulemaking.
Consolidation in the media market has led to fewer locally owned stations, and less local programming and content. Indeed, it speaks volumes that the number of independent radio owners has plunged in the past 11 years by 39 percent. Just in 1996 and 1997 alone, more than 4,400 radio stations were sold following the first round of consolidation following passage of The Telecommunications Act of 1996. Between 1995 and 2003, ownership of the top 10 largest television stations increased from 104 owners to 299 owners.
At the same time, we know that locally owned stations aired more local news and programming than non-locally owned stations–and that is not just me talking. That is according to the FCC’s own studies, which also found that smaller station groups overall tended to produce higher quality newscasts compared to stations owned by larger companies.
So there should be no mistake–fewer independent, local stations mean less local content and programming.
Minority and women-ownership of media outlets is also at perilously low levels–currently only 6 percent of full-power commercial broadcast radio stations are owned by women and 7.7 percent are owned by minorities. Ownership of broadcast television is even lower–5 percent for women and only 3.3 percent for minorities. Instead of being a catalyst promoting localism and ownership diversity, the FCC’s action will actually hasten the decline in these crucial areas.
I must say it feels a little like déja vu all over again, when nearly five years ago the FCC attempted a similar effort to relax another set of media ownership rules. And fittingly, the opposition to the commission’s attempt then mirrors the opposition that is coalescing now. And the action we are considering now is reminiscent of the joint resolution passed by the U.S. Senate in September 2003, which I cosponsored, condemning the Commission’s efforts to rewrite those rules.
So that naturally begs the question–why would the commission continue to attempt to weaken media ownership rules when the American public has vociferously opposed these efforts time and again? When the U.S. Congress in 2004 enacted a statute prohibiting the FCC from raising national ownership limits above 39 percent? When the Third Circuit Court of Appeals rejected as arbitrary and capricious this attempt at revising the rules after finding the FCC had no factual basis for the limits it set? We deserve an answer.
| “Why would the commission continue to attempt to weaken media ownership rules when the American public has vociferously opposed these efforts time and again?” |
Many proponents for relaxing media ownership rules have pointed to the precipitous decline of the newspaper industry as the reason change is mandatory. They have even cited a recent report by the Newspaper Association of America, NAA, which found print ad revenue for the industry fell by 9.4 percent last year–the biggest decline since it started keeping records in 1950. However, what these proponents are neglecting to mention is that the NAA also found that online newspaper advertising revenue increased 19 percent last year. Furthermore the NAA president and CEO John Sturm stated “newspaper publishers are continuing to drive strong revenue growth from their increasingly robust Web platforms.” This hardly sounds like an industry in irreversible peril if this longstanding rule remains in place.
Opponents of this resolution will also argue that the FCC crafted a very narrow revision, lifting the cross-ownership ban for only the top 20 media markets, so this resolution is unnecessary. However, the FCC also adopted “four factors” and two broad “special circumstances” that would allow this ban to be lifted for a station in any media market. These scenarios and factors include evaluating financial condition, possible increased local news, as well as existing market media concentration, and news independency. Given the vagueness and loopholes that exist with the rulemaking, the “high hurdle” that the Commission has supposedly set for proposed combinations could be easily cleared by using only a stepladder.
| “Preventing further media consolidation has been a bipartisan effort.” |
Preventing further media consolidation has been a bipartisan effort, and the resolution before us today is no different. We owe it to the American people to restore confidence in the FCC’s commitment not only to uphold the public interest but to advance it and strengthen it. That is why it is undeniably incumbent upon the commission members to revisit these rules and establish a set of standards that will effectively promote localism and minority and women-ownership, not more media consolidation. We must not allow the indispensable role the media plays in promoting diversity and localism to be further marginalized and miniaturized by unchecked consolidation within the industry.
