Senators Deflate Big Media’s Ownership Myths
Last week, the Senate stood up for localism and media ownership diversity even as Big Media and corporate interest groups tried to malign the concepts.
In a resounding commitment to stopping further media consolidation, the Senate near unanimously voted for a “resolution of disapproval,” which nullified earlier FCC rules allowing for cross-ownership of newspapers and TV stations in a single market.
Since the vote, Big Media has groaned and griped.
The Newspaper Association of America’s President and CEO John F. Sturm called it “incomprehensible,” saying it ignored “well-established benefits that cross-ownership brings to local communities.”
The National Association of Broadcasters has called efforts to overturn the FCC’s decision “unnecessary.”
Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal piped up to protect consolidation, saying that today’s media landscape offers Americans “far more media choices than ever before, including ever-growing cable, satellite and Internet offerings.”
The White House, which has threatened a veto, claimed “citizens now have access to a multitude of additional sources of information.”
But in reality, the only thing well-established about cross-ownership is its disastrous repercussions for local communities – a fact that senators echoed in their testimony in support of the resolution.
Senator after senator expressed support for the resolution, debunking and dethroning Big Media’s “woe is me” appeal.
Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) said she supported the resolution because “fewer independent, local stations mean less local content and programming,” particularly as minority and women-owned media outlets is extremely low.
“Instead of being a catalyst promoting localism and ownership diversity, the FCC’s action will actually hasten the decline in these crucial areas,” Snowe said.
In his support of the resolution, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) pointed to the loopholes in the rules that could allow companies to increase cross-ownership through arbitrary FCC waivers. “The standards for granting these waivers are vague at best,” he said.
Menendez added that the FCC rules were “nothing more than a wolf in sheep’s clothing” for corporations.
Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), the chairman of the Commerce Committee, said he voted for the resolution, in part, because he is troubled by the lack of quality journalism brought by media consolidation.
“In recent years, we have seen an increase in coarse and violent programming, coupled with a decrease in local news and hard-hitting journalism,” Sen. Inouye said. “To say these trends are not in the best interest of the American people, and especially our youngest citizens, is clearly an understatement.”
Thousands of Americans voiced their opposition to the FCC’s rule, and Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) heard them loud and clear when he voted to support the resolution. “It isn’t more consolidation and homogenization the American people want from their media — it is less. No one can seriously argue that the consolidation of the media in recent years has been a good development for the fourth estate. As coverage has become increasingly superficial, people wonder more than ever about the quality of the information they are receiving from the media. And quite frankly, I do not blame them.”
The resolution has now moved to the House for approval before it will appear on the president. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who co-sponsored the bill, released a statement, saying, “I urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to expeditiously pass the legislation.”
