ACTION: Let the FCC and Congress know that you want the rules that limit media consolidation to be preserved and strengthened, not weakened.
Write to your elected officials. You can look up the name and contact information of your Congressional and Senate representatives by entering your zip code at: http://congress.org/ For more info, see: http://www.fair.org/activism/fcc-call-action.html Please forward this message everywhere! ________________ New York Times, Jan 7, 2003 All News Media Inc. By BILL KOVACH and TOM ROSENSTIEL WASHINGTON Without much notice, the federal government is moving toward the most sweeping change ever in the rules that govern ownership of the American news media. This shift could reduce the independence of the news media and the ability of Americans to take part in public debate. Yet because of meager press coverage and steps taken by the Federal Communications Commission in its policy-making process, most people probably have no idea that it is taking place. Having seen how totalitarian regimes moved the world to war through domination of their news media, the government during the 1940's put restrictions on how many news media outlets one company could own, both nationally and in a single city. Though those rules have been relaxed in the last 20 years, companies are still blocked from buying a newspaper and television station in the same city or from owning more than one TV station in the same market. Three weeks after it proposed eliminating those rules, the F.C.C. released a series of reports about the current media marketplace. But the reports focused almost entirely on the economic impact of relaxing the ownership rules. They largely ignore the public's interest in a diverse and independent press. The F.C.C. argues that technologies like the Internet offer Americans access to more information than ever and thus worries about monopolies are unfounded. But studies also show that most Americans receive their news from a handful of outlets. Beyond this, much of what appears on the Internet is repackaged from those outlets. The number of operations that gather original news is small and now may become smaller. The question of concentration is most acute at the local level. In most communities, even those with television and radio stations, the vast range of activities are covered by only one institution, the local newspaper. What will happen to communities if the ownership rules are eliminated? Among the possibilities is that one or two companies in each town would have an effective monopoly on reaching consumers by being allowed to control the newspaper, radio, TV, billboards and more Ð with costly consequences for businesses that need those outlets for advertising. Such a monopoly on information would also reduce the diversity of cultural and political discourse in a community. The precedent in radio is telling. Since the rules on ownership of radio were last relaxed in 1996, the two biggest companies went from owning 130 stations to more than 1,400. The F.C.C. chairman, Michael K. Powell, has scheduled only one public hearing, in Richmond, Va., on the proposal, and the public comment period will close at the end of this month. It is a small and brief opportunity, but one that the public should seize if it cherishes an independent press. Bill Kovach is chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists. Tom Rosenstiel is director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism. ________________ Networks urge FCC to discard old rules BY EDMUND SANDERS LOS ANGELES TIMES WASHINGTON — Three of the nation’s top television networks have urged the federal government to scrap all remaining media-ownership rules, which they say are no longer needed to spur competition among broadcasters and ensure diversity on television. In a lengthy filing Thursday with the Federal Communications Commission, Fox Entertainment, NBC and CBSparent Viacom Inc. cited eight privately funded studies that they said showed how consolidation of television and radio stations had spurred more diversity of programming and local news, not less. "The commission can abandon the current regulatory framework in its entirety and still rest assured that its policy goals will be well-served," the media giants said. "There is no longer any public-interest need served by the commission’s media-ownership rules — in fact, the rules frequently undermine rather than advance the commission’s policy goals." Consumer groups and entertainment unions hotly dispute such assertions, saying that media consolidation is putting TV news and programming into the hands of a few entertainment conglomerates. In their own filings, groups including the Center for Digital Democracy, Writers Guild of America and Consumer Federation of America urged the FCC to strengthen media-ownership rules, which they argued are vital to the nation’s democracy and freedom of speech. "We’ve already winnowed it down to six big entertainment companies," said Victoria Riskin, president of the Writers Guild of America, West. "If we deregulate more, will that become three, or two or one?" The FCC plans to decide this spring whether to modify or eliminate the rules. Thursday was the first deadline for interested parties to offer their comments. (Tribune Co., parent of the Los Angeles Times, has been a leading critic editorially of the rules.) The TV networks took particular aim at an FCC rule that prevents a single TV broadcaster from reaching more than 35 percent of the national market and another that restricts how many stations one company can own in the same market. With recent acquisitions, CBS, Fox and others are bumping against or exceeding FCC ownership limits. Another top network, Walt Disney Co. ’s ABC, is not as close to the FCC limits and did not participate in Thursday’s joint filing. The TV giants said the rules are outdated because of new sources of information such as the Internet and the growth of cable channels, which are not subject to the same ownership rules. NBC, CBS and Fox offered a study by Washington-based Economists Inc. that concluded that local TV stations owned by one of the large networks provide 30 percent more news and public affairs programming than stations owned by smaller affiliates or independent companies, whom the rules were meant to protect. Fox, for example, said it increased local news tenfold after acquiring KSTU-TV in Salt Lake City and doubled news programming after buying KTTV, Channel 11, in Los Angeles. The networks also insisted that joint ownership of multiple TV stations in the same market increases diversity of viewpoints because group owners attempt to differentiate programming in the same market so their stations don’t compete for the same audience. The FCC currently permits joint ownership of two TV stations in the same market — duopolies — under certain circumstances. For example, KTTV and KCOP, Channel 13, in Los Angeles are owned by News Corp., parent of Fox. Critics, however, say joint ownership of TV stations leads to consolidation of newsrooms, layoffs and the loss of independent voices in the community. The issue has divided broadcasters. Smaller TV station owners, concerned by the growth of the networks, favor retaining some ownership limits, including the national 35 percent cap. In a filing Thursday, the National Association of Broadcasters asked the FCC to permit duopolies between smaller, lowerrated broadcasters, but prevent combinations between larger, top-rated stations.
