Background
The Federal Communications Commission is the agency charged with managing
the public spectrum, which includes radio, TV, satellites, cable, wi-fi,
and telephones.
Decisions about the rules governing the use of the public spectrum have,
for many years, rolled through Congress and the FCC without much public
debate. Even with the diligent work of media justice organizations and
key academics, these crucial decisions about how the public spectrum is
used have been made with very little input from citizens themselves.
But the landscape is changing. Over the past year and a half, there’s
been an unprecedented amount of attention on media ownership issues; the
result of more scrutiny in the mainstream press, fantastic investigative
journalism, and the insistence of key policymakers that the FCC must not
make these decisions hastily or without significant public comment.
What’s At Stake: The Future of Media and Democracy on the Airwaves
What’s currently on the table at the FCC is a forthcoming vote on
whether to relax or eliminate longstanding rules preventing media consolidation
at both the local and national levels regarding TV, radio, newspapers
and cable. Currently these rules:
prevent one broadcast network from owning another broadcast network;
limit the number of local broadcast stations that any one broadcaster
can own to systems serving 35 percent of the TV-viewing households
in the US;
prohibit a company from owning cable TV systems and TV stations in
the same community, and
prohibit ownership of newspapers and TV stations in the same community.
Why You Need to Act Now
FCC Chairman Michael Powell has announced that the FCC will vote on these
rule changes on June 2, 2003. If all
or some of these rules are thrown out, we can expect another wave of media
consolidation similar to what happened with commercial radio following
the 1996 Telecommunications Act. This means even fewer owners could control
vast swaths of the media landscape, affecting the distribution of news,
information, and music on a national scale, and delivering a sucker punch
to democratic discourse.
Click here
to learn what you can do. To learn more, read on.
Why The Rule Changes? Why Now?
The original rationale for these rules was to guarantee a multiplicity
of voices and prevent concentrations of power. The argument for removing
them now is that many of these rules are out of date and need to be reexamined
under current conditions where consumers have access to a multitude of
information sources – newspapers, cable, TV, radio and the Internet.
Coincidentally, big media companies argue that the rules are artificially
constricting their ability to grow and serve their consumer base, and
have thus damaged their capacity to compete in the free marketplace. The
Internet poses a particular threat, they claim, as a new source of competition
that has eaten into their advertising revenue and pulled away their customers.
These circumstances, coupled with court challenges in recent years by
incumbent broadcasters and publishing interests, have changed the prevailing
tune at the FCC from serving the public interest to “validate, or
eliminate”.
If The Rules Go: Three Predictions
1. A flurry of mergers and buyouts between
existing media companies
If most or all of the rules are eliminated, big media companies with
sufficient capital will buy out their competitors or acquire more media
outlets in different sectors to expand their reach. This will lead the
prices of TV station groups and newspaper chains would zoom up as they
maneuver to absorb each other, and/or became tantalizing targets for
media giants such as News Corporation, Disney, GE, and Viacom.
2. Bottom Line Businesses
The resulting heavy debt incurred by buyers -- so goes the scenario
-- would bring excruciating pressure to increase profit margins and
stock prices, thereby causing cutbacks, layoffs, and an urge to pander
to mass tastes at the expense of traditional, substantial journalism.
Those in favor of eliminating the rules argue that this doomsday scenario
is alarmist. However, even the most unnerving predictions made by the
media justice community make business sense. If these rules were abandoned
and media companies were allowed to merge with or buy out competitors,
natural economic pressures would lead even the most responsible media
companies to centralize their news gathering, TV and radio production/newsrooms
because it’s inefficient to replicate news across multiple platforms/media.
3. A radical transformation of news delivery
in local markets
These mergers and buyouts would have the greatest impact on the local
market where some big media company, whose main allegiance is to its
advertisers and stockholders, owns the local daily newspaper, two local
TV stations, the cable system, the alternative weekly, the primary portal
for the Internet, and up to eight radio stations. In a typical metro
market, that’s all the media available to citizens, by any reasonable
measure. This would not only decrease the number of antagonistic viewpoints
in the market, but also allow endless cross-promotions of the owner’s
interests, and probably very little hard news about anything having
negative impact on advertisers or on the company itself.
The harm to democratic discourse and the public at large is clear.
Not only would there be fewer antagonistic voices in the community,
but the elimination of these longstanding rules would signal the end
of localism at the regional level and the end of diversity on the national
level.
The Train is at the Station
Large media conglomerates, expecting partial if not complete dissolution
of the existing rules, have already begun to map out their territories,
trying to develop “clusters” where they can become the dominant
player in the market.
Meanwhile, the media reform movement – galvanized by the obvious
failures of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the enormity of the
changes at stake – is gathering momentum. Artists, writers, consumer
groups, labor unions, religious organizations and elected officials who
are concerned that the FCC's vote will forever change the way media is
controlled in this country have filed comments, written letters and participated
in unofficial FCC hearings all across the country. Over
15,000 comments have been filed at the FCC on this proceeding –
far more than any other proceeding in the commission’s history. Yet,
even with this vast public record, many in Congress are particularly concerned
that Chairman Powell refuses to let Congress or the public comment on
the specific plan he hopes to enact.
What You Can Do
The FCC and Congress need to hear from concerned citizens and musicians
about the potential impact that the lifting of these rules might have
on your livelihood, your access to news and information, and your community.
With the vote coming on June 2, it's crucial that citizens act now.
1. Educate Yourself
On our website we provide links to recent press
clips about the upcoming FCC decisions. Read a few to understand
what’s at stake. Visit the Free
Press site for more information about media ownership issues.
Senate Panel Votes to Change FCC Decision Senate Committee Approves Bill
to Roll Back FCC Changes in Media Ownership Rules AP,
June 19, 2003
Write Letters to your Members of Congress and Key Policymakers
Even though the FCC voted 3-2 on June 2 to relax media ownership rules,
the fight is not over -- it hust moves over to Congress where a number
of key Senate Committees are considering legislation that would roll back
some of the FCC's recent rule changes.
If you have a story or an opinion on these issues, contact your members
of Congress. This can happen by phone or email. To find your representatives’
addresses visit http://www.congress.org
Here are some additional policymakers who need to hear from citizens who
are concerned about media consolidation:
Senator John McCain
241 Russell Senate Office Bldg.
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510 McCain is chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, which
deals with these matters.
Senator Ernest Hollings
125 Russell Senate Office Bldg.
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510 Hollings is the minority chair of the Senate Commerce Committee and
would most likely support legislation restraining further consolidation
Senator Russell Feingold
506 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-4904
Feingold has already introduced the Competition
in Radio and Concert Industries Act -- legislation that would curb
the negative impacts of radio consolidation.
more news stories...
The big blackout Surprise, surprise: The TV networks that will benefit from the new
FCC rules on media ownership have been keeping their viewers in the dark
about the changes.
By Eric Boehlert Salon.com,
March 22, 2003
