Posted March 5th, 2008 by jstearns
This morning Sen. Byron Dorgan introduced a bill (SJ Res. 28) in the Senate that would overturn the FCC’s disastrous December vote to gut media ownership rules. But there is a catch. The bill will expire unless it is passed in 60 legislative days.
So the clock is ticking – we have to act now to protect our communities from a massive new wave of media consolidation.
Take action now or read on to find out more about this important new bill.
Déjà Vu All Over Again
In the days and weeks before the FCC dismantled the 30-year-old rule that prevented one company from owning the major newspaper and a radio or TV station in one town, Commissioner Michael Copps noted that it felt like “Déjà vu all over again.”
In 2003, when the FCC tried to do away with all media ownership rules, nearly 3 million people took action, writing their members of Congress, telling their friends and organizing their communities to speak out on this important issue. With that kind of momentum, lawmakers had no choice but to listen. The Senate voted to overturn the FCC decision, before the courts tossed them out altogether.
“The situation isn’t going to repair itself,” proclaimed Commissioner Copps on the day of the FCC vote last December. “Big media is not going to repair it. This Commission is not going to repair it. 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. … Last time a lot of insiders were surprised by the country’s reaction. This time they should be forewarned.”
Time for Action
In just one week after the FCC vote more than 200,000 people signed on to an open letter to Congress calling on them to overturn the FCC’s holiday handout to Big Media. Now with a bill in the Senate, we need to build the momentum and turn up the heat on our policy makers.
A bipartisan group of 26 senators wrote a letter to the FCC in December vowing to “immediately move legislation that will revoke and nullify the proposed rule” and now is their chance to follow through on that promise.
Here’s what we need to do:
- We need every person who signed on to the open letter in 2007 to write their Senators again asking them to support to Senator Dorgan’s “resolution of disapproval.”
- Spread the word. We need all of you to talk with five of your friends or neighbors and get them to take action as well. If all 200,000 people can get just five other people to take action, we’ll get a million letters into the Senate.
There has never been a more important time to take a stand for quality journalism, strong local news, and diverse and independent voices. Can you help us fight for a better media in America?
Take Action Online Here:
https://secure.freepress.net/site/Advocacy?id=243&pagename=homepage
Send a Message to a Friend Here:
http://free.convio.net/site/Ecard?ecard_id=1109
Then join others from around the country at the Free Press Action Network to talk about other ideas to make your voice heard and get the word out in your community. The discussion is going on now at www.freepress.net/action.
2 Comments »
Posted February 12th, 2008 by jstearns
The Big Media giant that made waves during the last election for its heavy-handed biased coverage, is setting its sites on more local stations in more communities across the US.
Research shows that locally owned broadcast TV and radio stations give more time to local news and public affairs programs that are of concern to local people. Additional research shows that local ownership leads to a greater diversity of viewpoints on the airwaves. And common sense suggests that a large number of local owners in a given community are going to foster more competition than a few mega corporate owners. These three principals – localism, diversity, and competition – are at the heart of the FCC’s mission.
On Dec. 18, the FCC voted to gut the longstanding newspaper broadcast cross-ownership ban that prohibited one company from forming a media monopoly in a city. Although this rule change threatens every core value the agency was created to protect, at least one company doesn’t think they went far enough.
This week, Sinclair Broadcast Group filed suit in the D.C. Federal Court to force the FCC to dismantle another key public interest protection. The law now says that one company can own only two stations in a market if at least eight other voices remain (this is often called the “eight-voices test”). This is the second time in the past decade that Sinclair has tried to use the courts to force the FCC to give them a corporate handout that hurt local communities.
Such a move also threatens our democracy. Some might suggest that I exaggerate, but citizens depend on the media to give them the information, to do the hard digging and in-depth reporting they need to make informed decisions on everything from health care, Social Security, housing, and the environment. The media’s role in our democracy is even more clear in an election year.
Four years ago Sinclair, which controls more stations than any other TV chain in the nation, came under fire for pre-empting local primetime broadcasts at its stations across the country to air the anti-John Kerry documentary Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal two weeks before the 2004 election. At that time Sinclair reached nearly one quarter of American households.
Sinclair has a long history of using its wide reach to promote its own business interests and political bias. Earlier in 2004, Sinclair ordered its affiliates not to broadcast an episode of the ABC evening news program Nightline on which Ted Koppel read the names of the 721 US troops who had died in Iraq up to that point. Sinclair told local stations that the show and its host were unpatriotic.
Regardless of your political affiliation, these kinds of actions highlight the power of one big company to influence elections and the need for independent voices and local owners. The fact that Sinclair is again trying to expand their reach and buy up more local stations in more communities should worry everyone.
Read More on Sinclair Broadcasting:
Rolling Stone: Beyond ‘Fair and Balanced’
Not Necessarily the News
No Comments »
Posted February 5th, 2008 by jstearns
On Feb. 4, the Federal Communications Commission finally released the details of the devastating rule change it voted on back in December. These new rules would allow one company to own both a major newspaper and a radio or TV station in the same media market – tossing out a ban on “cross-ownership” that has been in place for more than 30 years.
The new rules have gone from bad to worse since FCC Chairman Kevin Martin put forward his proposal in a New York Times op-ed and companion press release. The final published rules amount to wine for Big Media, which will get rich off the public airwaves, and vinegar for the public who will be left with less diversity and competition in their local news.
Waivers Sour the Deal
Let’s be clear about one thing from the start. Martin wants us to believe that these new rules represent a “modest” relaxation of the longstanding newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership ban. But there’s nothing modest about this major handout for Big Media. The final text makes clear the extent to which the FCC has abandoned its mission to protect the public interest.
Not content to open the door for massive media consolidation in the future, Martin snuck in a series of controversial waivers that take effect immediately. These waivers amount to a “get out of jail free” card for Gannett and Media General, which have been violating the law for years. In several cases, these companies already own the top-ranked stations in a community. Allowing them to own the daily paper gives them a monopoly over the largest media outlets in a given market. This represents a real threat to the diversity of voices and the quality of the local news in these communities.
 |
In one fell swoop, the FCC buckled to corporate pressure and gave a big gift to a few politically connected media giants. The fact that the Commission decided to go ahead and waive these properties without even a case-by-case review based on its flimsy new guidelines (editorial independence, financial condition, impact on amount of news in the combo, market concentration) shows that the Commission is not serious about protecting the public interest.
A Rotten Process
Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle called on Martin to slow down and account for how these changes would impact local news and female and minority media ownership. Martin refused. “Given that it took the agency over a month to finally release the order, the Commission’s hasty rush to judgment on Dec. 18 is baffling,” said Josh Silver, executive director of Free Press. “Chairman Martin owes an explanation to the members of Congress and groups — liberal and conservative — that urged the FCC to give this critical decision more time.”
Scrambling the night before the vote, Martin left his fellow Commissioners in the dark on major aspects of the new rules. Employing bait-and-switch tactics that have come to define this FCC, Martin portrayed the new rules as a modest change while building in enormous loopholes that put communities across the country at risk of greater media consolidation.
The FCC’s lack of transparency, flawed research and secret timetables have consistently served to silence the public and ignore the concerns of local citizens. Whether tampering with research, announcing public hearings five days before they happen, or policymaking by press release, this FCC has violated the public trust and may have violated the law.
The House of Representatives has launched a full-scale investigation into corruption at the agency. “We have been engaged in internal discussions to try to get our processes back on track,” said Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein in a joint statement. “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.”
Just days prior to the FCC’s vote, a bipartisan group of 26 senators sent a letter to Martin warning that if he proceeded with these changes they would act swiftly to overturn any new rules the FCC established. In the week after the vote, more than 200,000 concerned citizens signed on to an open letter calling on Congress to follow through on that promise. Now that the rules have been published, we’ll be working hard to be sure they do. You can help by signing the letter today and telling your friends.
3 Comments »
Posted January 31st, 2008 by jstearns
In the January 7th issue of Broadcasting and Cable, Gene McHugh, general manager of Fox TV station WAGA in Atlanta, is quoted as saying, “We’ve determined that localism is the future for TV stations.” The article reported that WAGA and other Fox TV stations are adding an extra half hour of late night news to their schedules in 2008. More local news, however, may mean little if it is just more of the same sensational journalism and celebrity gossip that dominates both national and local news. Yet, McHugh’s statement does represent a rare admission that stations could be doing more to serve the local public. Not only could they do more, but people are hungry for it. The statement strikes at the heart of the myth that the junk news that is so prevalent is just “giving people what they want.” McHugh recognizes that the citizens of Atlanta and people across the country are desperate not only for more local news, but also for better local news that addresses the critical issues like health care, the economy, safety, and the environment.
 FCC Chairman Kevin Martin |
Just two weeks after this article appeared, the Federal Communications Commission took action on a long- overdue localism debate that dates back to the previous chairman, Michael Powell. Unfortunately, the FCC did not come to the same conclusion as Gene McHugh and WAGA. It seems the FCC, whose mission is in part to foster localism, thinks stations are doing just fine. The report, released on January 24th, concludes a proceeding that included six public hearings and thousands of comments from concerned citizens. While the comments submitted and the testimony given overwhelmingly suggest that the American people are dissatisfied with the way their local media are serving their community, the FCC barely acknowledged these complaints in their report.
The report, which consistently emphasizes the opinions of broadcasters and relegates public comments to the footnotes (or ignores them entirely), concludes that stations don’t need to provide more or better local news, they just need to better explain the things they currently offer. Don’t change what you do, just change what you say. To this end, the localism report is paired with a request for comment on a series of ideas that would improve broadcaster-community dialogue, but it’s doubtful that any of these ideas would actually improve localism.
 New Jersey citizens reminded WWOR what localism looks like |
For example, the FCC is looking for input from communities about whether broadcasters should be required to post notification of their impending license renewal on their Websites. This is an important question because as we saw with the WWOR license challenge which was mounted by New Jersey citizens, a station’s license renewal can be an important moment for communities to organize and review how a broadcaster is doing. Broadcasters are currently required to announce their renewal period on the air. The FCC is also interested in whether stations should be required to have community advisory boards and seeks comment on several approaches regarding how broadcasters can better get community input.
The FCC is also seeking public comment on whether broadcasters should have to have someone in the station at all times. For the people of Minot, North Dakota, this is a life or death issue whose consideration is long overdue. When a train carrying chemicals derailed in Minot, toxic fumes filled the air, killing one person and harming hundreds of others. Many people pointed to the fact that none of the six Clear Channel stations in Minot had a person in the sound booth to interrupt the piped-in imported playlists and warn the public or help inform the community during this emergency. Somewhat relatedly, the FCC also seeks comments on where a station’s studio should be located. Before 1987, a station’s studio had to be located in the community which it served. Currently, however, a studio can be located as far as 25 miles from the outer-range of its signal.
 Minot train derailment.
Image from www.solberglaw.com. |
Perhaps the most important item that the FCC is seeking input on is the License Renewal Guideline Process. Over the years, the system for license renewals has been gutted of nearly all public interest obligations. Whereas at one time, a station had to provide a detailed accounting of its public service and had to defend its license every three years, current rules have extended that time frame to every eight years and watered down the reporting requirement dramatically. A station now essentially sends in a postcard that gets a nearly automatic rubberstamp approval. The Commission is seeking input on a new rule that could expedite the renewal of licensees that met clear guidelines for public service and for local programming, and could require full Commission action on those who did not. This carrot-and-stick approach is the only item in the report that might have an immediate and meaningful impact on localism. It is encouraging to see the Commission discussing a better-defined and, in some ways, more strict renewal process. However, this report also clearly outlines the limitations to that discussion as it clearly states the FCC’s opposition to shortening the license renewal period to anything less than 8 years.
It used to be that you could travel around the country and in each region you could hear a unique sound on the radio. As Big Media has tightened its grip on the American airwaves, we have fewer and fewer choices on the dial. The local music that once defined different parts of our country has been replaced by national playlists programmed in focus groups and swayed by big record companies’ payola deals. One Chicago producer has said that local musicians are better off playing the lottery than trying to get on the air in their own home town. The FCC had a chance to promote regional and local arts, culture and economies by requiring stations to play local musicians. However, in this report, the FCC decided to support corporate interests over independent artists.
While they at least considered music and the arts as a part of localism, FCC Chairman Martin has consistently insisted on separating the issues of minority ownership and localism. This report did not address the dismal state of media ownership amongst people of color even though research has shown that these owners consistently serve their local communities better and provide more diverse viewpoints. For communities large and small, female and minority ownership is not just a local issue, but also a localism issue. This report did nothing to answer the call of so many people, from main street America to Capitol Hill, who have called on the FCC to diversify the media. As such, many of the concerns of the public about Big Media’s impact on local communities were left unmentioned and unaddressed.
With this report the FCC would like to close the book on localism, but you still have a chance to make your voice heard. If you want to submit comments on any of the issues above visit http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs (Docket No. 04-233).
No Comments »
Posted January 15th, 2008 by caaron
On Thursday, the FCC will have an “Open Meeting.” Usually at such meetings, the FCC announces new rules or modifies old ones.
But Thursday’s Open Meeting will be a “State of the FCC” meeting. The FCC will look back on 2007, and, oh, what a year it was. Every year, the FCC does the same — with the requisite dutiful staff reports to the commissioners that “all is well in FCC-land.”
It’s a glimpse into an alternate reality. Within the confines of 12th Street SW, somehow there is abundant competition and openness where there isn’t — like broadband, wireless service, and, local and national news production.
Check out last year’s PowerPoint fairy tales — and expect the Emperor to be wearing the same clothes this year.
The Real FCC
The real state of the FCC, of course, is far less rosy.
- The real FCC is under investigation by Congress to determine if FCC procedures “are being conducted in a fair, open, efficient and transparent manner.”
- The real FCC has been called a rogue agency by members of Congress.
- The real FCC, according to the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, tips off well-connected insider lobbyists about upcoming actions while closing out the public.
- The real FCC continues to preside over a precipitous decline in America’s international broadband ranking.
- The real FCC just gutted media ownership rules against the will of 99% of the public.
- The real FCC crushed public, educational, and governmental (PEG) cable channels with its unlawful reform of local cable franchising rules.
- The real FCC kowtowed to the wireless industry and left consumers under locked and blocked cell phone plans.
To be fair, the real FCC does get some things right. And when they do — like this week’s announcement that they’re investigating Internet blocking and censorship by Comcast and Verizon — the agency deserves praise.
But the real FCC is not a well-oiled, democracy-fostering, competition-producing, public-interest-serving machine. It is broken. It ignores the public and kneels down before Big Media and Big Telecom — especially when it suspects the public isn’t watching. Even the most glowing reports and fanciest PowerPoint presentations cannot hide the fact that this FCC has often done more harm than good.
1 Comment »
Posted January 14th, 2008 by jstearns
It is hard to talk about the media without someone claiming that “traditional media” is on its deathbed. Every time we turn around, there is another pundit warning Americans about the dire situation facing our broadcast stations and newspapers. Pundits wring their hands about the surge in “citizen journalism” on blogs, and Big Media flacks point to YouTube videos as evidence of a new era in media competition. We want to believe this alluring argument because we want to believe in the democratic promise of new media outlets.
While the Internet offers unprecedented opportunities for individuals to make their voice heard, 70 percent of Americans still get the majority of their news from local stations. Even when they use the Internet, they tend to go to the Web sites of local stations and newspapers for their news. These statistics — along with news that the Federal Communications Commission just approved the massive $19.5 billion buyout of Clear Channel Communications, the country’s largest radio conglomerate, by a private equity group led by Thomas H. Lee Partners and Bain Capital Partners — are stark reminders of the vibrancy and vitality of traditional media sources. While profits from traditional media sources may have slowed, they are still highly valuable properties.
Just last month, the FCC also approved the sale of Clear Channel’s television division to another equity firm, Providence Equity Partners. But Clear Channel is far from unique. These deals are just the latest in a growing trend of private equity firms snatching up broadcast media companies and privatizing the conglomerates. New York Times journalists Andrew Ross Sorkin and Peter Edmonston report: “Some of the largest broadcasters and publishers are being swept into the arms of private equity firms, which are drawn to the rich cash flows these businesses generate and undaunted by their slowing growth. The trend could raise new regulatory concerns as some of the big private equity firms start to weave a complex web of cross-ownerships in the industry.”
 Commissioner Michael Copps |
In fact, such regulatory concerns have been raised before. Last year, private equity firms were trying to out bid each other to buy Univision Communications, the largest Spanish-language broadcaster in the United States. At that time, Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps called on the FCC to carefully study “the impact of private equity on our ability to ensure that licensees protect, serve and sustain the public interest.” But since he made this statement, the only response from the FCC has been to approve one deal after another. The impact of this private equity feeding frenzy is still unclear.
Private equity’s reach has not been limited to broadcast and newspapers alone. Back in 2006 at the Reuters Media Summit in New York, Time Warner chief Richard Parsons described the attention his company has received from these groups. “Probably every private equity firm has approached us about every conceivable idea.”
 Richard Parsons, former head of Time Warner
photo from reuters.com |
Providence Equity Partners, which bought Clear Channel’s TV stations this winter, has also invested heavily in the new online joint venture between NBC Universal and News Corporation. According to the New York Times, Providence Equity Partners and its chief executive Jonathan Nelson have “a long history of investing in media properties like local newspapers, television stations and cable networks.” Between their diverse investments and Nelson’s position on the boards of MGM, Warner Music Group and the Yankees Entertainment and Sports Network, Providence Equity Partners symbolizes a new kind of media consolidation.
In his dissenting statement regarding the Clear Channel-Providence vote, Copps argues that “no one should be under any illusion that Clear Channel’s sale of its 35 full-power television stations strikes a blow for de-consolidation. After this transaction closes and all divestitures have occurred, Providence Equity Partners will have attributable interests in a whopping 86 television stations and 99 radio stations in the United States, as well as interests in media companies around the world such as MGM studios (largest shareholder), Yes Network, Hallmark Channel, and Warner Music Group. You will search this Order in vain, however, for any mention of the scope of Providence’s holdings or how they potentially affect our public interest analysis.”
 John Nelson, Providence Equity Partners
photo: Elaine Thompson/AP |
Copps is not alone in his concern about private equity’s impact on America’s media. On July 12, 2007, Reps. John Dingell (D-Mich.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) wrote to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin to warn the agency about the potential dangers of private equity firms: “History also suggests that private equity ownership is marked by a management structure that is not overly transparent and by fluid asset management where actual holdings and control may vary significantly, as properties are bought and sold. These historical styles may not be consistent with many of the core public interest and localism values that Congress has assigned to local media and may implicitly undermine the Commission’s media ownership rules.”
As Big Media companies and local stations are bought and sold, changing hands and changing owners, our most important sources of information are increasingly seen as mere investments. “The more people disparage ‘old media,’ the happier I am,” said one private equity manager. “These companies don’t require a lot of capital investment. They sell subscriptions, so you get the money up front and deliver the product over time. They generate a lot of cash, so they make great buyout candidates, and you can get them at reasonable prices, because everyone else is focused on buying shares of Google.”
But our media is not just another product; it is a vital component of our democracy. For too long, our media policies have been made by big media lobbyists and big business investors without our consent. As we enter this new era of private consolidation, we should be vigilant and demand a seat at the table and a voice in shaping the media policies that so impact our daily lives.
2 Comments »
Posted January 4th, 2008 by jstearns
It is a new year, and we are on the verge of a new fight for our media, for our communities and for our democracy.
Last year, you fought hard in communities across the country, attending hearings, holding meetings, and making a space for the public to shape the media policies that impact your daily lives. You filled town halls and church basements. You gave passionate testimony and told haunting stories about the ways Big Media has turned their back on your communities.
 We’ll be Fighting Big Media and Fighting for Better Media in 2008 |
Last year, you sent hundreds of thousands of letters to the FCC and Congress. You went to Capitol Hill; you went to policymakers’ district offices. You made them pay attention and got them on the record. You made media an issue at home and in Washington.
However, just two weeks ago, the Federal Communications Commission abdicated its responsibility to protect diversity, localism and competition and voted for more corporate welfare for Big Media.
In the coming year, we’ll work together to keep fighting the FCC’s controversial decision to gut media ownership rules and open the floodgates to greater media consolidation. There are now bills in both the House and Senate that would overturn the FCC vote. With your help, we’ll push Congress to take swift action and stop the FCC’s Big Media giveaway. In partnership with other public interest allies, we’ll take the FCC to court and make them defend this rule change in front of the same judges who threw out their last handout to Big Media.
Together, we will finish what we started last year, but we won’t stop there. Last year, you were fighting against Big Media. This year, you have the chance to fight for a better media. In addition to stopping Big Media from devouring more local outlets in your community, we’ll work with you to create a more robust, vital and diverse media system.
2008 is poised to be a profoundly important year for media reform. Our first priority will be overturning the FCC’s disastrous new ownership rules. Looking ahead, here are a more things we could do with your help:
And who knows, maybe this will be the year we not only stopping Big Media from getting bigger, but actually lay the foundation for rolling back media consolidation and imagining a new media system that serves local communities and builds our democracy.
As we begin to articulate a bold new vision for a better media, we’ll need your help to shape that vision and make it a reality. You can take action now, join the conversation, spread the word and help build this critical movement.
No Comments »
Posted January 3rd, 2008 by jstearns
One of the hardest things about fighting Big Media is its refusal to cover media consolidation as a real issue. In this guest post by Mark Cooper, director of research at Consumers Federation of America, outlines the parallels between the fight for a healthier environment and a better media system.
By Mark Cooper, Consumer Federation of America
Activists in the media reform and media justice movement argue that “media is the issue” because the media influence which issues get aired and how they are represented in public discourse. Many of us work on issues alongside media reform, and we are constantly making the connection between specific issues — like race and gender equity, social justice — and media reform. However, it is rare when a mainstream media outlet makes the connection. Just such a connection was made in the lead editorial in the New York Times on New Year’s Day.
 Guest Blog Post by Mark Cooper |
The editorial, titled “The One Environmental Issue,” opens with the statement that “the overriding environmental issue of these times is the warming of the planet. The Democratic hopefuls in the 2008 campaign are fully engaged. … The Republicans do not go much farther than conceding that climate change could be a problem.”
The editorial goes on to note that “polls suggest, however, that voters are increasingly alarmed. … There is also a growing appetite for decisive action, everywhere, it seems, except the White House. Governors in more than two dozen states are fashioning regional agreements to lower greenhouse gases, the federal courts have ordered the executive branch to begin regulating these gases, and the Senate has begun work on a bipartisan bill.”
Big Media Misses the Big Issues
Actually, the editorial points out that there is another major institution that has failed to take notice of this important issue — Big Media. “In a recent study, the League of Conservation Voters found that as of two weeks ago, the five main political talk-show hosts had collectively asked 2,275 questions of candidates in both parties. Only 24 of these questions even touched on climate change.”
The editorial points out one of the important consequences of the failure of the press to play its proper role. “One result is that even candidates who urge comprehensive change have not been pressed on important questions of cost,” but it misses the more important consequence. The public is not made fully aware of the differences between the candidates on this critical issue. It is called agenda setting, and it is just another example of a conservative slant in TV land.
Big Media’s failure to cover environmental policy properly parallels its failure to cover media policy. For years, the media regurgitated the junk science funded by the oil industry, without exposing it as paid PR, just as big media hypes the research bought and paid for by their corporate parents.
The Role of Regulators
The agencies responsible for implementing policy also get cream puff treatment. Just as the FCC has the responsibility to set one of the most important policies affecting the media, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has responsibility for setting one of the most important aspects of environmental and energy policy — the fuel economy of cars and trucks.
And just as the FCC has done a horrible job and got reversed by the courts, NHTSA has done a horrible job and got reversed by the courts.
In 2004, when NHTSA decided to increase the fuel economy standard for pickups and SUV by a paltry 1.3 miles per gallon, it used a gasoline price of $1.50 per gallon (when the pump price was well above $2.00). Eighteen months later, it could no longer stand behind such an obvious mistake, so it raised price of gas to $2.27 (when the pump price was already over $3.00). However, in spite of raising the economic value of the benefits by 50%, it failed to raise the standard any higher. The press barely noticed the absurdity.
Cases in the Courts
The FCC and NHTSA had parallel problems in court. You may recall that in 2003 the courts found Chairman Michael Powell’s diversity index arbitrary and capricious:
We do not object in principle to the Commission’s reliance on the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission’s antitrust formula, the Herfindahl-Hirschmann Index (HHI), as its starting point for measuring diversity in local markets. In converting the HHI to a measure of diversity in local markets, however, the Commission gave too much weight to the Internet as media outlet, irrationally assigned outlets of the same media type equal a market shares, and inconsistently derived the cross-media limits from its Diversity Index results. …
Additionally, there is no dispute that the assignment of equal market shares generates absurd results. For example, in New York City, the Dutchess Community College TV station and the stations owned by ABC each have an equal 4.3% market share. Or compare the Dutchess Community College station’s weighted share of 1.5% (4.3% times the 33.8% multiplier to television) to a mere 1.4% weighted, combined share assigned to the New York Times company’s co-owned daily newspaper and radio station. A Diversity Index that requires us to accept that a community college television station makes a greater contribution to viewpoint diversity than a conglomerate that includes the third-largest newspaper in America also requires us to abandon both logic and reality.
NHTSA’s cost-benefit analysis had a similar problem, beyond the bogus price of gasoline. The court accepted the idea of cost-benefit analysis, but objected to the fact that NHTSA refused to place any value of the reduction of emission of carbon dioxide, which results from the burning of gasoline in automobiles. The court wrote:
We hold that the Final Rule is arbitrary and capricious, contrary to EPCA in its failure to monetize the value of carbon credits, failure to set a backstop, failure to close the SUV loophole, and failure to set fuel economy for all vehicles. … Even if NHTSA may use a cost-benefit analysis to determine the “maximum feasible” fuel economy standard, it cannot put a thumb on the scale by undervaluing the benefits and overvaluing the costs of more stringent standards … assigned no value to the most significant benefit of more stringent CAFÉ standards reductions in carbon emissions. … Thus, NHSTA’s decision not to monetize the benefits of carbon emissions reductions was arbitrary and capricious.
 FCC Chairman Kevin Martin in the Hot Seat |
December 18: A Day of Reckoning
The fate of these two issues took parallel paths on December 18. When the FCC voted out its new proposal to allow newspapers to own TV stations in the same market, it ensured a continuing battle at the agency and in the courts.
On the same day, President Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which sets a goal of increasing the average fuel economy of cars and trucks by 7.5 miles per gallon in 12 years. NHTSA will be in charge of the rulemaking, ensuring another fierce fight over cost-benefit assumptions and providing an opportunity for the public, which is increasingly concerned, to weigh in for the first time. (NHTSA got 45,000 comments in the 2004 truck rule proceeding, a piddling sum compared to the 2.5 million the FCC got in the 2003 media ownership proceeding).
Will Big Media do a better job of covering these next rounds? Stay tuned, but don’t hold your breath.
For more information on the recent FCC decision check out: http://www.freepress.net/press/release.php?id=323
For more information on energy policy see this report from Consumers Federation of America: A Step Toward a Brighter Energy Future: Policymakers Break the Logjam, But Vigorous Implementation Is Crucial (PDF link)
No Comments »
Posted December 20th, 2007 by jstearns
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.
1 Comment »
Posted 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.
In solidarity,
Louise M. Slaughter
7 Comments »
