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.”

No Comments »

Sen. Kerry: Senate Win ‘Great Sign for Future’

In a guest post, Sen. John Kerry talks about the historic victory in the Senate to overturn the FCC’s media ownership rule changes.

As you guys probably know by now, we had a great victory last night in the fight against the FCC and media consolidation.

The battle isn’t over, of course, but the win last night — especially the way we won — is a great sign for the future, and a real testament to all of your hard work pushing this issue.

Guest Blog Post by Sen. John Kerry

We went in expecting to prevail, but we expected a fight. What we got was a voice-vote approval, only possible when the support is near-universal. This is important because the overwhelming Senate support for this resolution shows the political momentum is running strongly against the FCC on this.

The signal was sent loud and clear that Americans across the ideological spectrum oppose the FCC’s hasty and unwise actions around this rule.

From here, the resolution goes to the House, and considering the action in the Senate, I’m optimistic about what can happen there. But as you know, the most unpopular President in history has once again placed himself on the other side of the issue from the American people by threatening a veto.

The reasons given by the Administration are really nothing more than rehashing the justifications Chairman Martin and others have already put forward for this bill, justifications that were roundly rejected by the Senate yesterday.

Keeping diversity of ownership over local news outlets is as important as ever, and the American people understand that. And, thanks to the great work of activists like yourselves, the voices of ordinary Americans have overcome the entrenched media interests to get this historic victory yesterday.

If the President carries through with his veto threat, I’m prepared to fight for an override of this veto. If we get that far, I’ll be urging my Republican Senate colleagues to side with the American people over the wishes of this lame-duck Administration.

1 Comment »

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.

Guest Blog Post by Sen. Olympia Snowe

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.

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, 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.

No Comments »

The Senate Stands Up Against Big Media

Thursday night, the Senate cast a near-unanimous vote to reverse the Federal Communication Commission’s December 2007 decision to let media companies own both a major TV or radio station and a major daily newspaper in the same city.

Activists Celebrate

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), who introduced the rarely used “resolution of disapproval,” said last night that “the FCC is supposed to be a referee for the media industry, but instead they’ve been cheerleaders in favor of more consolidation. … We already have too much concentration in the media.”

Senator Barack Obama added his support to the resolution saying, “I urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to expeditiously pass the legislation.”

The Senate vote is good news for everyone who is fed up with a media system, that, in the words of Jon Stewart, is “hurting America” with propaganda pundits, embedded journalists, horse-race election coverage, and celebrity gossip posing as news. It reflects growing awareness — in Congress and with average Americans — of the perils of concentrated media ownership. Namely, insatiable profit pressures that gut newsrooms, replace labor-intensive investigative news with salacious, cheap-to-cover stories, and encourage the dumbing-down of the most pressing issues into 30-second sound bites and partisan shout-fests.

Media concentration is also central to the rise of extremists like Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, who overwhelm the dial on conglomerates owned and run by businessmen with radical partisan politics.

Back in 2003, Senator Dorgan and then-Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) passed a similar resolution of disapproval to overturn the last effort by the Bush FCC to loosen ownership limits after 3 million Americans - both liberal and conservative - decried the FCC’s handout to the largest media companies. That resolution languished in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives, and the proposed rules were later rejected by a federal court.

The “newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban” that the FCC is trying to get rid of has been in place since 1975. It keeps media outlets from merging already stripped-down local newsrooms in the name of “synergy” and protects diversity of viewpoints in the local press, something the Supreme Court has recognized is critical to the health of our democracy. Thursday’s vote sends a clear message to media executives and the FCC that further media consolidation will not be tolerated.

The resolution of disapproval now moves to the House, where it already has bipartisan support. President Bush has threatened to veto the measure. A statement from the White House yesterday called the FCC’s new rules the product of “extensive public comment and consultation” but failed to mention that only 1 percent of the public that testified at public hearings or sent letters to the FCC supported the administration’s position.

Typical of most Bush appointees, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin disregarded the will of the American people and granted another handout to the largest companies. A veto-proof majority in Congress supporting the resolution would stop Bush from doing the same.

The fight is far from over. But last night’s vote is a historic victory for the public interest over one of Washington’s most powerful lobbies.

*Originally posted at the Huffington Post.

1 Comment »

Historic Senate Vote Rejects FCC’s Rules

In a near-unanimous voice vote tonight, the Senate passed a “resolution of disapproval” that would nullify the Federal Communications Commission’s latest attempt to dismantle longstanding media ownership limits.

It was your dedication that made this Senate win possible.

Last December, the FCC voted to remove the “newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership” ban that prohibits one company from owning a broadcast station and the major daily newspaper in the same market. The resolution of disapproval (Senate Joint Resolution 28), introduced by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), would nullify the FCC’s new rules if passed by Congress and signed by the president. The House version of the resolution was introduced by Reps. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and Dave Reichert (R-Wash.) in March.

Today, the Bush administration issued a statement opposing the resolution and threatening to veto it. The statement called the FCC’s new rules the product of “extensive public comment and consultation” but failed to mention that only 1 percent of public comments supported the administration’s position.

Josh Silver, executive director of Free Press, which coordinates the StopBigMedia.com Coalition, made the following statement:

“Today’s historic Senate vote is a resounding victory for the vast majority of Americans who oppose media consolidation. We applaud the bipartisan leadership of Senators Dorgan and Snowe for acting in the public interest. But to stop Big Media from polluting our local airwaves with more junk journalism and propaganda, we need the House to move this legislation forward quickly.

“At this watershed moment, public outrage against Big Media has reached a breaking point. The Bush administration’s threats to undercut this bipartisan effort in Congress show how out of touch this president is with the will of the American people. But we’re not going to stand idly by and let the White House green light Big Media’s expansion. The great pendulum of political change is swinging away from corrosive consolidation and toward better media.”

UPDATE:

“The Senate’s complete rejection of the FCC’s attempt to permit greater media concentration represents a great victory of the people over the powerful,” said FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein. “In light of the Senate’s action, any proposed transaction seeking to exploit the new rules will likely face intense scrutiny. The unanimous vote reflects a strong consensus across the ideological spectrum against further media concentration, from left to right and virtually everybody in between. The FCC veered dangerously off-course from the American mainstream, so our elected representatives are trying to steer us back. This unequivocal, bipartisan rebuke of the FCC is a wake-up call for us to serve the public rather than the media giants we oversee. Chairman Inouye, Senator Dorgan, Vice Chairman Stevens, Senator Snowe and the many other Senate leaders and public interest organizations who pushed this forward deserve our congratulations and the thanks of the American people.”

Read the FCC’s cross-ownership order: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-216A1.pdf

Learn more about the FCC’s new rules: http://www.stopbigmedia.com/files/devil_in_the_details.pdf

6 Comments »

Debunking The White House’s Media Ownership Myths

On May 15th, on the verge of a full Senate vote on the “resolution of disapproval” that would overturn the FCC decision to gut media ownership rules, the White House released a formal “Statement of Administration Policy” defending the FCC and threatening to veto any bill designed to nullify the FCC’s rule change.

However, the administration got some of their facts wrong. Below is a copy of their statement, with a few notes and clarifications.

“The Administration strongly opposes Senate passage of S. J. Res. 28, a resolution disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with respect to broadcast media ownership.”

Surprise, surprise.

“The FCC rule, which is the product of years of study and extensive public comment and consultation, modestly and judiciously modernizes decades-old media ownership regulations that highly restrict cross-ownership of newspapers and broadcast stations.”

• Fact: That would be years of flawed research, biased research, and research that was from the start guided by foregone conclusions.
• Fact: 99% of the public comments were against media consolidation. The public is overwhelmingly against further consolidation in the media market.
• Fact: The rule is not a modest change but rather a wholesale gutting of the cross-ownership rule, a good rule that is not outdated but rather has lasted the test of time because it is important.

“As a result of technological advances that have led to a dramatic and permanent transformation of the media marketplace in which citizens now have access to a multitude of additional sources of information, these outdated restrictions are not necessary. The new rule more accurately reflects this changing media landscape by taking into account the abundance of news and information outlets that exist today, and furthers the public interest by providing greater financial flexibility to newspaper and broadcast outlets struggling to survive in today’s intensely competitive media environment.”

• Fact: New technologies have had a limited impact on local news. The vast majority of people still get their local news from traditional broadcast outlets (or go to the Web sites of those traditional broadcast outlets).
• Fact: Newspaper profits have been declining, but they are still making boatloads of money and their profits are better than many Fortune 500 companies.

“In addition to reducing the prior rule’s excessive regulation of well-functioning markets, the new FCC rule includes substantial constraints to guard against excessive concentration.”

• Fact: There are no “substantial constraints” in this rule. The waivers and loopholes in this rule make it weak and toothless, leaving communities big and small open for further media consolidation.
• Fact: Ideas and information are not widgets. The role of the media is not just to make profits; those using the public airwaves have a responsibility to give us the information we need to hold our leaders accountable.
• Fact: The media has always been regulated and always will be. The question is who do the rules benefit? This rule change just twists the rules to protect corporate interests instead of protecting the public interest.

The administration’s statement on media ownership reads like a set of industry talking points and illustrates a dogged insistence to ignore the facts and the will of the people. The fact is, Big Media is bad for local news, bad for competition, and bad for democracy.

1 Comment »

Senate Vote on FCC Veto Imminent

As early as tonight, the Senate will have its last chance to roll back media consolidation, and your senators could cast the deciding vote. All of our work to stop runaway media conglomerates could come down to your senators!

Your senators could make the difference by voting to reject the FCC giveaway. Take Action Now

Their vote would overturn a disastrous FCC giveaway of local news outlets to Big Media. If the giveaway stands, it would open the floodgates to the type of consolidation that has allowed tycoons like Rupert Murdoch to stifle diverse voices and skew America’s political agenda.

We need you to stop whatever you’re doing right now, pick up your phone, and tell your senators to vote against more media consolidation:

Call Your Senators Now!

Tell them to vote for the bipartisan “resolution of disapproval” (S.J. Res. 28), which rejects the FCC ruling. If the resolution passes, our fight will move on to the House. If it doesn’t, then Big Media gets to move into your neighborhood, gobbling up more local outlets.

Join the more than 250,000 people who have urged Congress to reject the FCC and stop the handover of the media to a cartel of corporate owners. The resolution may go before the full Senate as early as tonight. Your senators could cast the deciding vote!

Now’s Your Chance to Make the Difference: Call Your Senators.

You can win a historic victory by simply picking up your phone and dialing. Your phone call carries as much weight as 100 e-mails.

Your call now could tip the balance against Rupert Murdoch and other media giants. Urge your elected officials to support the resolution of disapproval.

Thank you!

No Comments »

Murdoch Loses But Consolidation Continues

Rupert Murdoch — an aged and male version of a pouting Veruca Salt — didn’t get his umpa lumpa. He lost the bidding war for Newsday this week when Cablevision swooped in to plunk down more cash than Murdoch was willing to cede.

Anti-Murdochs are celebrating that News Corp’s talons couldn’t extend long enough to pluck up the paper. His giant corporation already owns the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, two New York television stations and dozens of small papers in New York. It certainly is a relief that Murdoch’s empire didn’t expand.

Newsday’s new owner will be Cablevision, the fifth-largest cable provider in the country, which also owns Madison Square Garden, the NBA’s New York Knicks and the NHL’s New York Rangers. The company is based in Long Island, which is also Newsday’s home turf.

Cablevision may just have begun to dabble in the newspaper business – Newsday will be its first – but we should still be worried about the emergence of a new media conglomerate.

We shouldn’t necessarily be celebrating when the same company who owns the local News 12 Network, a string of movie theaters, and several cable TV networks (AMC, IFC and We), suddenly gets a hold of one of the country’s biggest newspapers.

This scenario has the ill effects of consolidation – from lack of diversity in the newsroom to stale and streamlined coverage – written all over it.

No Comments »

Congress Begins to Take Action on Propaganda

One by one, members of Congress are demanding an investigation into the Pentagon’s covert scheme to sway public opinion about the Iraq war by placing propaganda pundits in the media.

Since we first launched our petition urging Congress to act, 41 representatives have appealed to the Pentagon’s inspector general to investigate the Defense Department. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) called the propaganda program an “unethical, and potentially illegal, propaganda campaign aimed at deliberately misleading the American public.”

Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) also chimed in with his support for an investigation during a live blogging session at Firedoglake.com. In response to a question about whether he would hold hearings on the Pentagon’s propaganda program, Sen. Reid said, “The answer is yes. I have personally spoken to Chairman Levin and he is [as] tremendously concerned as I. And we are proceeding accordingly.”

And Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) has submitted a letter to the Government Accountability Office demanding an investigation. He’s asking the public to co-sign the letter.

Recognizing that the Pentagon did not act alone, some in Congress don’t want to allow the military analysts and the media networks to slink out the back door. Rep. Delauro and Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) are appealing to the Federal Communications Commission to probe whether networks violated the FCC’s “sponsorship identification rules” when analysts working from Pentagon talking points and working for military contractors appeared in broadcasts.

Their letter to the FCC states, “When seemingly objective television commentators are in fact highly motivated to promote the agenda of a government agency, a gross violation of the public trust occurs.” The letter continues, “The American people should never be subject to a covert propaganda campaign but rather should be clearly notified of who is sponsoring what they are watching.”

The Society for Professional Journalists has also expressed its concern, and urged the nation’s media to use ethical standards of journalism – such as vetting and disclosure – when using military analysts as sources. In a press statement, SPJ said, “The nation’s news networks have an ethical responsibility to conduct ethical autopsies on their own coverage, explaining and analyzing how sources were selected, what perspectives they conveyed and to whom they were beholden.”

And the Pentagon’s actions became all the more real – and all the more frightening – when it released 8,000 pages of documents last week related to the propaganda program. One transcript shows an unidentified analyst suggesting they “parrot” then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

The documents are a clear indication of how far the government went to lead the American people into war and should make it obvious to Congress that those members who haven’t done so yet, should stand up now.

No Comments »

Big Media Protest Wall Goes to Washington

Just in case Congress hadn’t heard your voices shouting out against media consolidation, we thought they should see your faces, too.

Last fall, more than 5,000 people posted their photos and comments on our virtual wall of protest against the Federal Communications Commission’s move to relax media ownership rules even further. This week, we’re delivering many of these photos and comments to the Hill, asking members of Congress to look their constituents in the eye before voting yes or no on whether Big Media should be allowed to get even bigger.

More than 5,000 people posted their picture on the Stop Big Media Wall

Passing the “resolution of disapproval” would allow Congress to reject the FCC’s decision to allow media companies to own both a major broadcasting station and a newspaper in the same market.

We’ve strung together many of the most inspiring quotes, stories and photos, and Free Press staffers will be delivering these protest packets to 27 Hill offices.

Sen. Wayne Allard will be hearing from Colorado constituent John L., who said, “Media consolidation hurts local community voices in media, and compromises a free, independent press that speaks truth to power and demands accountability. The effects are all too clear in this country. Keep corporate media monopolies at bay.”

Dan L. will tell his Kansas Sens. Pat Roberts and Samuel Brownback, “I live in Kansas City, and most of our media outlets are owned by people who have no stake in the welfare of our community. We don’t need more consolidation.”

And Jayme W. from Nebraska will speak up to Sen. Benjamin Nelson, saying “The freedom of the press is one of our most important freedoms. The rush to allow even more consolidation of media in the grip of large corporation is one of the greatest threats to our national freedoms.”

These photos and voices aren’t just another brick in the wall — they’re messengers of the media reform movement. And the message is clear: we don’t want more media consolidation.

No Comments »