Remark by Congresswoman Diane E. Watson
for
The Future of Music Coalition
D.C. Policy Day Closing Keynote Address

Tuesday, April 12 2005
Barbara Jordan Conference Center

Thank you Michael for your kind introduction.  I am truly honored to speak to this outstanding gathering of our nation’s music community. I want to thank each of you for the support you have given to me and my colleagues on Capitol Hill who have been working together to promote diversity, competition, and localism in the media sector.  I want to especially recognize and thank Jenny Toomey and Michael Bracy.  I admire the work you and the Future of Music Coalition have done on behalf of musical artists, and I look forward to working closely with all of you in the coming months on issues such as digital rights management, media indecency, and low power radio.

Today you have heard a series of panels on upcoming issues that will impact musicians, the music industry, and even the public at large for years to come.  What I want to offer you, in closing this day long summit, is a legislative perspective on how to build momentum for change in today’s political climate on media policies that will truly promote and benefit our nation’s musical artists and consumers.

As some of you may know, I represent the 33rd congressional district of California, a district that stretches from Hollywood to Culver City.  It encompasses Sony Pictures, Capitol Records, Raleigh Studios, and the American Film Institute.  Many of my constituents work within the entertainment sector, and whether they are creative talents or skilled laborers, they all rely on the industry for their livelihood.                         

As Chair of the Congressional Entertainment Industries Caucus, my goal has been to promote the interests of the entertainment sector and to provide a forum for dialogue between the creative community and Capitol Hill. There is no doubt that our nation’s creative industries are crucial to our economy, and that their continuing fiscal vitality is essential to support a vibrant marketplace of ideas, where creative products are respected and valued, and their creators are duly rewarded. 

Yet it is also plain to me that our entertainment sector cannot remain strong and competitive if diverse opinions are shut off based on political orientation; if local interests are not defined and addressed because of lack of local reporting, if original and innovative programming is rejected based on financial interests, and if independent artists are denied access to distribution.  To put it simply, the voices of the corporate conglomerates must not crowd out the voices of the creators. 

On June 2nd, 2003, I marched in front of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) protesting the adoption of rules relaxing media cross-ownership.  A year later, we celebrated the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision blocking the new rules.  However, while millions of constituents were motivated to contact the FCC and their Congressional offices to voice their disapproval, the House of Representatives, this “people’s house” that I am a part of, did nothing to address the issue of cross-ownership.  In fact, the majority leadership sought to stifle all debate on media consolidation, refusing to hold one single Congressional hearing or to allow bills or amendments to advance to the House floor.

As the state of media monopolization remains unchallenged, the Administration has taken full advantage of a media market in dire shortage of proper checks and balances.   As recent news reports have revealed, more than 20 federal agencies have spent over $250 million in taxpayer’s money to manufacture fake news clips and to hire so-called “commentators” to secretly promote Administration policies.  There is little doubt that a consolidated media market is increasingly susceptible to not just manipulation by corporate owners, but by government itself.

So how does the current state of media consolidation affect the future of music industry and musicians?

I think most of us are old enough to remember the 80s song “Video Killed the Radio Star” by the Buggles.  I think if the song was written today, the title would be “Consolidation Killed the Radio Star.” Simply put, with nation-wide play lists instituted by corporate owners of radio stations that repeat over and over again regardless of locality, our nation’s radio airwaves are doing nothing to promote independent musicians and to introduce the public to diverse types of music and musical artists.  Seeking out original sound on radio today is like looking for prime time television without a reality show – both are the results of profit driven approach to programming that emphasizes the bottom line at the expense of creativity. 

Indeed, since the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the number of radio station owners has declined by 34 percent, and only 4 percent of the nation’s radio stations were owned by minorities at the end of the 90s. As independent radio stations disappear, so does coverage of local interests and news. Talk radio from both the left and right has become dominant instruments of political attack, leaving no middle ground for actual, substantive discussions of public policy. Meanwhile, the major media conglomerates continue to challenge existing cross-ownership restrictions by buying up more radio stations, newspapers, and television stations within the same markets while seeking ‘waivers” to exempt them from current rules.  It is clear to me, then, that our radio broadcasting sector is facing a crisis where consolidation has not only killed the radio star, but is close to destroying an entire platform for the free and creative expression of ideas.

Nevertheless, thanks to advancements in telecommunication technology, our nation’s artists are able to seek out new outlets to express their ideas and share with the public their products.  I believe it is in this arena of new and expanded technology, such as peer-to-peer file sharing networks, low power FM radio, and internet and satellite radio, where independent voices and creativity may once again thrive.  It is also in this same arena that the greatest policy battles concerning the future of free and open music will be fought and decided.

As I heard from the panel earlier panel, several issues are currently before the Supreme Court that will have tremendous implications for the future of media. On one hand, the Grokster case has drawn national attention on how to balance the tremendous potential of internet file-sharing technology with the need to respect and reward creators.  On the other hand, the Brand X case asks the question of whether cable companies that provide internet access should have to offer that access to other internet service providers.  Both of these issues have tremendous implications for the continuing competitiveness of new media that will impact the distribution of independent products.

Soon, Congress will attempt to revisit the 1996 Telecom Act to address issues regarding broadband regulation, digital television, and transition to Internet Protocol (IP) phone and television services. Many of these issues will have huge ramifications for the vitality of music industry, since this upcoming debate will again center on the design of a regulatory structure best suited to make this nation’s new media competitive and diverse.  In short, what is confronting the courts today, and what will inevitably confront legislators on Capitol Hill tomorrow, are not unlike the questions addressed by the battle over “old” forms of media consolidation that happened two years ago; namely, how to stop the tide of artistic monotony driven by the consolidation of ownership in the hands of few media conglomerates.

What I would like to leave with you now is a way of conceptualizing the upcoming policy debate on digital broadcasting, P2P file sharing, and community low-power radio.  We need to look at this debate in the context of shrinking media ownership and reduced diversity, and build on the existing momentum for media change. 

I am a strong believer that government should not intervene in the innovation business.  Such imprudence could create unpredictable consequences that would politicize and inhibit innovation.  At the same time, I believe that once innovation has the opportunity to grow and mature, the government should play a role in ensuring new innovations will not be blocked by monopolization and anti-competitive business models.

What my colleagues on the Hill need to hear are arguments for why disappointed consumers have turned away from traditional television and radio in search of new mediums, and why such new mediums, while slowly being recognized by media giants,  should not be stifled by the same consolidation of ownership that has made traditional media outlets inhospitable to independent, creative voices. As market competition drives companies to develop superior telecommunication technologies, so should the same competitiveness drive open access and distribution of creative products when technology begins to mature. 

I think we all need to make a stronger case that what we describe as “new media” today, such as internet, digital audio and video, and satellite radio, are susceptible to the exact same market forces that have dominated the old media of broadcast television, radio, and newspaper. For example, we need to understand the potential implications of a consolidated new media market dominated by the control of “data” in the hands of a few conglomerates. Such “data” can be telephone, television, cable, video, internet access, all going through a single, centralized high-speed connection, all provided by a single entity that has effectively blocked access to its own multi-media platform by competitors.

Such a “Citizen Kane” scenario will be possible without proper government policies. It is incumbent upon you and every member of the creative community concerned about the future of music to educate consumers and legislators alike on the serious threat consolidation imposes on new media.  Obviously, we have a lot of work cut out for us.  I want to thank you again for having me today, and I look forward to working with all of you as we advance a progressive media agenda for the 21st Century.