FCC Looks Set to Support Media Tycoons

With The FCC To Vote On June 2 Regarding Sweeping Deregulation Of The U.S. Broadcasting Industry, Citizens Remain Largely Unaware Of What's At Stake

By Michael Mehas, The Inquisitor's United States Editor

The Federal Communications Commission's upcoming vote on proposed changes to the rules governing ownership of the US media will likely prove to be of historic importance. Yet critics argue that deliberation and debate have been rushed in order to prevent careful study of proposals that will give media conglomerates sweeping new powers to control the markets for television, radio and newspapers. And the public remains largely unaware that critical decisions are even being made.

One simple solution would be to extend the deadline to allow for enough time to enable a cross-section of the public to participate in the creation of the new guidelines. However, FCC commissioner Michael Copps - a dissident voice opposing rapid liberalization of media ownership - does not think that will happen. "The (FCC) chairman seems determined to stick to the deadline," says Copps.

Commissioner Michael K. Powell, appointed chairman of the FCC in January 2001 by the incoming Bush administration, is leading the charge towards the June 2 vote. The son of US Secretary of State Colin Powell, the FCC chairman is widely thought to favor sweeping relaxation of the rules regarding broadcast media ownership. As for the rest of the panel, most FCC observers believe commissioner Kathleen Abernathy walks in lockstep with Powell in support of liberalization, while fellow Republican Kevin Martin plays the wildcard and could potentially vote down the proposed changes.

Pressure to stick to the June 2 vote has not only come from within the FCC. House Commerce Committee chairman Billy Tauzin (Rep-Lousiana), recently warned the FCC in writing against any slowdown in its current review process. "I would appreciate your renewed commitment that the commission is operating within this specific time frame and that final resolution of all the outstanding broadcast ownership issues is indeed on the horizon," wrote Tauzin. "If such a commitment cannot be made, I would similarly appreciate a detailed explanation of the circumstances and obstacles that are impeding the commission's ability to meet that deadline."

It was just this kind of pressure that caused commissioner Copps to conduct his own hearings. "We can't pretend everyone reads the Federal Register or has lobbyists to make their voice heard at the FCC," he complained recently. "We have a responsibility to reach out." Which, with the help of fellow dissident commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, is exactly what he's done. Adding to the record being established by the commission's field hearing in Richmond, Virginia on February 27, commissioner Copps conducted hearings in the states of North Carolina and Washington. Further debate has been provoked by a special hearing hosted by the University of Southern California's Annenberg School for Communication.

Critics of the proposed deregulation and potential media consolidation believe there will not be enough time to prepare a satisfactory record in which a cross-section of the public's interests have been represented. "The public owns the airwaves," Congressman Xavier Becerra, member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) and chairman of the CHC's Telecommunications and Technology Task Force, told those attending the recent USC hearing. "Congress gave the power to the FCC to help manage the airwaves and protect the public's interest. I just wish all the commissioners were participating."

Becerra likened the race to the June 2 deadline to a runaway train driven by a "hear no evil, see no evil" mentality. He called on the media to inform the public. "Diversity of ownership within media ownership includes ethnic, racial and gender diversity, not just big versus small, rural versus urban," Becerra said. "Congress needs to find ways to address what the FCC brings to the table regarding expertise and resources of people of color and women."

More than 13,000 filings have been made to the FCC since it first called for public comment on the media ownership rules review. The documents have ranged from crude handwritten letters to multi-page documents fielding sophisticated economic and legal analysis - all of which the Commission will have to sort through before its upcoming vote. Yet, the FCC appears to have spent little time exploring the impact increased media consolidation will have on important stake-holders like independent film and TV producers. The likely result is that such independents will have fewer markets for their programs. With fewer niche broadcast markets available, small businesses will probably be obliged to pay higher prices for advertising time.

Dr. Martin Kaplan, associate dean of the USC Annenberg School for Communication, believes the debate concerns the very principles upon which the United States and its constitution were founded. "Since most Americans today say they get most of their news from local television stations, the kind of attention that those stations pay to campaigns and elections - not in paid ads, but in journalism - is a good measure of the health of our democracy," says Kaplan.

Since 1998, Kaplan and his colleague, Dr. Matthew Hale, have conducted empirical studies of the content of local TV news in the US. They have concentrated, in their words, on the "quantity and quality of political campaign coverage by stations across the country, in races at all levels of government, in both primaries and general elections."

The fruits of this research provide some fascinating insights. One study of the 2002 US general election season found that "nearly a majority of the broadcasts in our sample contained no campaign coverage at all," explains Kaplan. "When campaign stories did air, they mostly were less than ninety seconds long; they mostly contained no sound bites from candidates; they mostly came in the last two weeks before election day; they focused on strategy and polls nearly half the time; they focused on state-wide over local races by almost 7 to 1; and they were outnumbered by paid campaign ads by nearly 4 to 1." In other words, during the entire election campaign, Americans were more likely to see entertainment programming or paid political ads than election news overage on any given night while watching local television.

Today, the FCC claims to be searching for an objective formula governing media ownership that will balance the requirements for competition, diversity and local interests. Kaplan believes any such formula must be firmly based on careful study and measurement. "Until the FCC has chosen empirical tools to measure local news, and until it has rigorously used those tools in a broad sample of the nation's media markets," he insists, "it will not be possible to conclude that current policies achieve the FCC's goals." In fact, it would be a "riverboat gamble to overthrow those policies" before careful study has been completed.

So why gamble? And why rush to a soft deadline that is unrealistically near, with so much at stake? It would be in the public's best interest, Kaplan argues, to examine how consumers use the media, how advertisers view different media outlets, and how media ownership affects diversity, localism and competition before making sweeping changes.

In their Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopted late in 2002, the FCC claimed they had not reached any tentative conclusions because the notice's objective was to gather data that would "build the foundation for media ownership regulation." The Commission's stated desire was to create a comprehensive and consistent analytical framework that would avoid future criticism by the courts. For the FCC had already been the subject of frequent and expensive legal attacks from various media giants pursuing deregulation.

Any rush to adopt a new ownership structure based solely on the interests of big business, however, will likely lead to more court cases rather than fewer. Only this time the attacks will come from consumer groups, family and parents' organisations and other public lobbies concerned that the quality and choice of news and information in America is being undermined.