Under intense lobbying pressure and lawsuits brought by corporate media,
the federal government is now considering removing the last few media-ownership
limits. These rules--intended to protect diversity of viewpoints, competition
and local ownership-- keep major TV networks from merging into one
and prevent a single company from dominating the local TV market or owning
a town's local newspaper, TV and radio station.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the agency that regulates electronic
media, is required by law to seek public comments before eliminating these
rules. But the FCC has refused to hold public hearings, the comment process
is arcane and technical and the clock is rapidly ticking.In response, activists
and organizers are quickly building coalitions and preparing their petitions
against what Former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt has called "the most radical
view of media consolidation that any democracy has ever supported ... exclusively
driven by ideology and business interests."
Big media see the current FCC as an ally. Running the show is FCC Chairman
Michael Powell, along with two other Republican commissioners and two Democrats.
(The second Democratic seat was just recently filled, after being held up
in Congressional crossfire over appointing judges). Michael Powell is the
son of Colin Powell, not only the Secretary of State, but a former AOL board
member who resigned the day before his son and other commissioners voted
to approve the AOL-Time Warner merger --- which increased dad's AOL stock
value by around $4 million. Appointed by George W. Bush to oversee the agency
that regulates all U.S. electronic media, Michael Powell is an outspoken
opponent of government regulation who has dismissed the concept of the public
interest as "an empty vessel" and swears "the market is my
religion."
What's Wrong With This Picture?
Media regulation should be a prominent public policy issue. The First Amendment
is designed to protect the public's right to be informed through uncensored
media and diverse voices. In this digital age defined by the Internet, cell
phones, satellites and wireless technologies, the FCC has become one of the
most powerful bodies in Washington, and media policy is one of the most high-priced
issues in politics. In the 2000 election cycle, Communications and Electronics
industries donated over $132.5 million to candidates and parties. Lobbying
expenses for the communications industry stand at roughly $125 million, more
than twice the amount spent by defense firms, according to the Center for
Responsive Politics.
But for all the attention inside Washington, media regulation is rarely
treated as an issue of public concern. Media File's article on the FCC's
rapid moves to privatize the public airwaves was chosen by Project Censored
as the most important news story not reported by the mainstream media in
2001. Perhaps it should be no surprise that media policy debates aren't covered
by big media.
FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, a Democrat who has dissented from many of
his agency's pro-merger decisions, called for public hearings as part of
the media-ownership review process. But FCC chair Powell rejected the idea,
despite a petition in support of public hearings from 40 local and national
consumer groups. Now Copps plans to hold his own, unofficial hearings in
major cities around the country.
The FCC asserts that market research, not public comment, is the most important
factor in reconsidering media ownership rules. The agency recently released
the results of 12 studies which suggest media concentration may not be a
problem. But critics, including Commissioner Copps, say the FCC is getting
that answer by asking the wrong questions. The studies don't examine the
implications of concentration for informed democracy, access for independent
producers or creative and cultural diversity. Several labor and advocacy
groups are currently analyzing the FCC data and conducting their own studies,
although the FCC has allowed them less than 60 days --over the holidays--
to respond.
Gene Kimmelman of the Consumers' Union worries that Powell's FCC will eliminate
rules "with selective review of facts in the marketplace, disregarding
the importance of independently-owned, separate media outlets to our democracy."
What The Critics Say
Ever since this latest wave of ownership deregulation began with 2000, public-interest
advocates, consumer groups and labor unions dedicated to these issues have
been waging resistance. Ownership charts showing increased concentration
are passed around in classrooms and conferences. Activist groups such as
the Billionaires for More Media Mergers and the Angels of the Public Interest
have been strategizing campaigns and protests, including a March, 2002, demonstration
at the FCC headquarters (see sidebar). The Center for Digital Democracy and
the Media Access Project, the leading D.C.-based media advocacy groups, have
been working overtime to coordinate FCC filings, letters to Congress and
legal challenges. A new coalition of children's advocates and medical groups,
led by Children Now, is organizing parents and teachers and petitioning the
FCC to examine how media concentration impacts children's programming.
Media-workers unions have warned that media mergers mean lost jobs and that
ownership limits may be needed to protect diversity of views in the media. "The
FCC is considering eliminating the rules that prevent a few corporations
and wealthy individuals from gaining a veritable chokehold on free expression
and public discourse over America's public airwaves," argued Victoria
Riskin, president of the Writers Guild of America, west. A report prepared
in 2001 for the Leadership Conference of Civil Rights concluded that deregulation
has not only led to reduced media ownership by women and minorities, but
also less community-driven programming.
Writers and musicians groups argue that media concentration blocks out independent
artists and prevents cultural diversity. The Future of Music Coalition just
released their major study of radio industry consolidation, which found that
the deregulation of the 1996 Telecommunications Act has resulted in less
competition, fewer viewpoints, and less diversity in programming.
The erosion of U.S. journalism in the corporate media has sounded alarms
from veteran news anchors, publishers and J-school deans. Eliminating ownership
limits could accelerate this trend, driving up the price of media outlets
and increasing demands for profit returns, leading to fewer foreign news
bureaus, investigative reporters and resources for journalists. "We
already have seen the adverse impact of media conglomerates on the quality
and depth of journalism," said Linda Foley, President of TNG-CWA. "Any
relaxation of ownership restrictions will further denigrate the quality and
diversity of information received by the public and will have grave consequences
for the free and open debate necessary to sustain a democratic society." Says
media historian Robert McChesney, "There's no possible argument that
this could be good for the quality of journalism. There's no upside. The
only question is how bad the downside will be."
The leading rationale for ownership deregulation, much touted by the broadcast
industry, is that the Internet has transformed the media landscape, providing
the needed diversity. But the facts belie this conclusion: Of the top 20
news sites in the US this summer, according to audience statistics from Nielsen/NetRatings,
the only ones not associated with newspapers or television networks were
Slate, which is owned by Microsoft (which in turn co-owns MSNBC with General
Electric), Yahoo!, which primarily features news from AP, Reuters, The New
York Times, USA Today, etc., and the Drudge Report (listed at #20) which
also mostly links to mainstream news sources. The rest were all owned by
major media corporations and mostly represent the online versions of existing
newspapers and TV news stations. So much for the Internet as a bastion of
alternative voices or a challenge to old media power. ABCNews.com and CNN.com
are advertised for free on their parent TV stations all day long. Indymedia.org
or GVNews.Net might provide vital alternative news but it matters little
if audiences don't know about these sites or can't access them. And with
media conglomerates increasingly controlling Internet access through broadband
cable monopolies, their self-promotion and preferential treatment for their
own content will only increase.
These are vital concerns, certainly worthy of public debate. But with almost
no coverage of these issues in the mainstream media and a government agency
that's not designed for or interested in citizen participation, the FCC may
forge ahead with its decisions, behind closed doors with no accountability
to the public.
How To Get Involved: What You Can Do
For more information, visit MediaChannel's Issue and Action Guide on U.S. Media http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/index.shtml
SPREAD THE WORD!: Copy this article and hand it out. Print additional articles
from the Web. Share this information with friends and colleagues. Talk to
the press. Write op-eds and letters to the editor, call talk shows and speak
out about media concentration and FCC deregulation. Ask reporters to cover
this issue.
Write or call Congress: Tell your representatives that you are concerned
about media concentration and urge them to hold public hearings on the issues
and ensure the FCC upholds its public-service mandate.
File a comment with the FCC: The public comment period on eliminating ownership
rules was extended to January 2nd. You can file a comment directly at www.fcc.gov
or use the simple form at www.democraticmedia.org, which also has suggested
questions to consider. Read comments from other concerned citizens on ReclaimTheMedia: http://www.reclaimthemedia.org/
Support public hearings: Find out how you can attend a media ownership public
hearing or advocate for one in your town. Contact jeff@democraticmedia.org.
GROUPS: Join the Media Diversity Campaign. For more information visit www.reclaimthemedia.org
or contact inja@mediatank.org.
ACTIVISTS: Join the Angels of the Public Interest: Stage a street demonstration
in your community or help plan public events. To organize protests and discuss
strategies, sign up for the Media Activist email list at www.mediatank.org.
Donate Your Time Or Money: Groups working on these issues need your support.
To find out how you can give money or volunteer, contact Media-Alliance or
your local media advocacy group.
Aliza Dichter (liza@mediachannel.org)
is the Senior Editor of MediaChannel.org,
a nonprofit public-interest Web site connecting more than a thousand groups
worldwide concerned about media. A shorter version of this article appeared
in the NYC Indypendent.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hymn of The Angels of The Public Interest
'God Bless Ye Bold Commissioners'
God Bless Ye Bold Commissioners.
Deregulation Rules You've abandoned public service.
You are corporations' tools We won't let you kill
Democracy -- do you think that we are fools?
CHORUS
No more ru-lings that just serve industry. industry
No more ru-lings that just serve industry
Radio has been destroyed,
TV news is now a joke
Diversity is not the same as Pepsi versus Coke
We won't stand by and let you hide
the mandate that you broke
No more rulings that just serve industry. industry
No more rulings that just serve industry
With every word that Powell speaks the
Moguls they rejoice
But O the poor con-su-mer
who never has a choice
Minorities, Communities are left without a voice
No more rulings that just serve industry. industry
No more rulings that just serve industry
Cor-por-ations bought and wrote the Act of '96
With money and their lobbyists they're up to same old tricks
What must we do to prove to you it's something we must fix?
No more rulings that just serve industry. industry
No more rulings that just serve industry
You must protect the media made independently
Monopolies repress debate and creativity
The Angels Cry From Up On High:
Information Must Be Free!
NO MORE RULINGS THAT
JUST SERVE INDUSTRY | 
