Why the FCC is wrong on media ownership

Special From ZDnet

David Coursey, Executive Editor,

AnchorDesk May 30, 2003

On Monday, the Federal Communications Commission is expected to dramatically ease current limits on media ownership. The move is supported by FCC Chairman Michael Powell, a majority of FCC commissioners, and the handful of megacorporations--Disney, AOL Time Warner, Clear Channel Communications, and Viacom, among them--that already dominate what we see on TV, hear on the radio, and read in print and online. Who's against it? Dozens of groups--from Common Cause and the Consumers Union to the Family Research Council and the National Rifle Association--representing tens of millions of members and spanning the political spectrum. Two of my favorite media moguls, Ted Turner and Barry Diller, have also come out against it.

WHY DOES this matter? Because, in a democracy, the media isn't just another business. Instead, it's what we turn to for the ideas and information that make it possible for us to perform our duties as citizens, such as voting and being involved in community issues. Furthermore, I don't think media control should be concentrated geographically--which is what happens when local owners are bought (or forced) out by media monoliths that aren't part of the communities their properties serve.

In 1989, according to L. Brent Bozell III in The Washington Dispatch, "The Big Three networks--ABC, CBS and NBC--held a 17 percent share of TV programming." By 2002, he writes, relaxed rules increased that percentage to 48 percent. "Add Fox, AOL Time Warner and ATT/Liberty, and these six megacorporations today control two-thirds of all programming on television."

Today, a single company can own television stations capable of reaching 35 percent of the American public. Under the proposed new rules, that limit would rise to 90 percent. There would be other changes as well, but that gives you the flavor of the proposal.

It's hard to get similar figures for Internet properties. But if you exclude technology-specific companies like CNET, IDG, and Ziff Media, many of the major Web sites I can think of are owned by the same group of megacorporations.

Clear Channel has been the target of much of the anti-deregulation protest. The San Antonio-based company went from owning 40 radio stations in 1996 to over 1,200 today. Protestors say the company banned Dixie Chicks records from its stations after a member of the group criticized President Bush's war policy. (The company denies the charge.)

CONSERVATIVES CRITICIZE the FCC proposal because it destroys any remaining semblance of "community standards" in broadcast programming. Under the proposed rule changes, those local standards would be replaced by whatever goes in places like New York and Los Angeles.

I think the people who run broadcast companies should live in the communities they serve. And the ownership, as much as possible, should be there as well. Why? Because, once upon a time, local licensees of radio and TV stations were sensitive to local community groups, which might protest offensive programming or a lack of news, public affairs, and public service announcements. Owners should be responsible to their fellow residents, not enthroned in a New York or Hollywood office complex, protected by a squadron of lackies and handlers.

Should the FCC loosen ownership restrictions on media companies? Yes No Don't know/don't care

Some people say it doesn't matter what happens to TV, radio, and print, because the Internet will remain free. But, as lawyer Lawrence Lessig pointed out on his Web log, "At the same time that media concentration restrictions are being removed, such that three companies will own everything...those same three companies--who will also control broadband access--are totally free to architect broadband however they wish."

Take, for example, the success of Google's beta news site, which automatically scans thousands of sources and compiles the top stories, often with more than a hundred links to related stories on all sorts of media sites. Under more concentrated ownership, I think that breadth of information could well disappear.

MEDIA DIVERSITY is important, and the FCC should be doing more to protect it. There's still time to raise your voice in protest. An easy way to do this is to visit this site--run by Consumers Union--and send an e-mail to your representatives in Congress.

Sure, the FCC will probably go ahead with its decision on Monday. But the ruling could still be challenged in the House and Senate. You can urge your representatives to do just that.

Many people find this issue sleep-inducing. But I can't stress enough how important it really is. Please take a few moments today or over the weekend to educate yourself and make your feelings known. Many organizations are pushing for last-minute action by their members to stop the FCC from making this terrible decision. I hope AnchorDesk readers will do their part as well.