QUOTE
Federal Conglomeration Commission
When French political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville came to the United States in the 19th century, he marveled at the country's "division of the influence of the press." "In America there is scarcely a hamlet that has not its newspaper," he wrote. "All the political journals of the United States are, indeed, arrayed on the side of the administration or against it; but they attack and defend it in a thousand different ways." Yet as Federal Communications Commission (FCC) member Michael Copps observes, two centuries later, the United States doesn't fully have "media capable of keeping democracy strong." FCC chairman Kevin Martin's new plans to loosen media ownership limits -- which are endorsed by billionaires such as Rupert Murdoch and Samuel Zell -- will only worsen this state and smother local voices. These plans are largely opposed by the American public. Nearly 60 percent oppose allowing a company to own both a newspaper and a television station in the same market, and 70 percent describe media consolidation as a "problem."
CONSOLIDATING MORE THAN 120 MILLION AMERICANS: In 1975, the FCC enacted a rule prohibiting a company from owning a newspaper and a television station in the same city. In 2003, President Bush's then-FCC chairman Michael Powell attempted to loosen these rules, sparking a strong public outcry. More than three million people protested his actions, and Congress overturned one of his rule changes. The rest were halted by a federal court "for not being properly justified and sent...back to the FCC to be rewritten." As Common Cause notes, Martin's current proposals are "eerily similar to what happened in 2003." His changes would "enable a media company to own both a newspaper and either a radio or smaller television station in the nation's 20 largest markets." While Martin has tried to portray his proposal as "relatively moderate," Copps and fellow FCC member Jonathan Adelstein, who both oppose the rule change, note that these 20 markets "account for over 43% of U.S. households" and directly affect more than 120 million Americans. Additionally, Martin has rushed to schedule a vote on the issue for Dec. 18, permitting the public just 19 working days to submit comments.
CROWDING OUT LOCAL AND MINORITY VOICES: Martin's rushed Dec. 18 vote comes even though the FCC has not yet finished its study on how the changes would affect local media ownership, nor has it forwarded "comprehensive ideas to increase women and minority ownership of broadcast outlets." Adelstein notes that the FCC has collected 44 recommendations from "expert outside organizations" on this topic, but they continue to sit "on the shelf of the FCC, just gathering dust." Even under the current rules, "[w]omen and people of color -- who comprise two-thirds of the population -- own only about one-sixth of commercial radio and TV stations." African-Americans and Latinos own "only 33 of the nation's 1350 TV stations" and six percent of the 10,000 radio stations. Martin's plan would further shut out diverse voices. Cross-owned stations, which Martin's change would increase, produce less local news and lead "other stations in the market to collectively curtail their news output by about 25 percent." Economists have documented that when stations provide Spanish-language local news, "voter turnout among Spanish speakers increases significantly." Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Mark Lloyd notes that while Martin reportedly conducted 10 studies on "tied to the media ownership review," none focused on "the impact of local media diversity on democratic engagement, or on the diversity of information available to minority communities." Lloyd and Fordham University's Phil Napoli have developed a "Metric for Local Media Diversity" to measure local media diversity and "determine what level of media diversity actually supports strong local democracies."
A 'MISGUIDED AND HARMFUL' PLAN: As in 2003, Martin's rules change has ignited bipartisan outrage from Capitol Hill. Today, "24 House Republicans plan to deliver a letter to Mr. Martin, chiding him for a 'misguided and harmful' proposal that would give the FCC more authority to regulate the cable industry." They further call his plan "inappropriate at best and contradicts the statute at worst." Yesterday, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) wrote to Martin and expressed concern that he may be "selectively collecting and releasing information to support its pre-conceived agenda," citing the fact that the FCC last year decided to not release "two reports that raised questions about potential negative impacts from further media consolidation." Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Trent Lott (R-MS) have introduced legislation to postpone the FCC's vote, ensure 90 days for public comments, and "complete a separate proceeding to evaluate how localism is affected by media consolidation." Contact your lawmakers and urge them to support The Media Ownership Act of 2007.
When French political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville came to the United States in the 19th century, he marveled at the country's "division of the influence of the press." "In America there is scarcely a hamlet that has not its newspaper," he wrote. "All the political journals of the United States are, indeed, arrayed on the side of the administration or against it; but they attack and defend it in a thousand different ways." Yet as Federal Communications Commission (FCC) member Michael Copps observes, two centuries later, the United States doesn't fully have "media capable of keeping democracy strong." FCC chairman Kevin Martin's new plans to loosen media ownership limits -- which are endorsed by billionaires such as Rupert Murdoch and Samuel Zell -- will only worsen this state and smother local voices. These plans are largely opposed by the American public. Nearly 60 percent oppose allowing a company to own both a newspaper and a television station in the same market, and 70 percent describe media consolidation as a "problem."
CONSOLIDATING MORE THAN 120 MILLION AMERICANS: In 1975, the FCC enacted a rule prohibiting a company from owning a newspaper and a television station in the same city. In 2003, President Bush's then-FCC chairman Michael Powell attempted to loosen these rules, sparking a strong public outcry. More than three million people protested his actions, and Congress overturned one of his rule changes. The rest were halted by a federal court "for not being properly justified and sent...back to the FCC to be rewritten." As Common Cause notes, Martin's current proposals are "eerily similar to what happened in 2003." His changes would "enable a media company to own both a newspaper and either a radio or smaller television station in the nation's 20 largest markets." While Martin has tried to portray his proposal as "relatively moderate," Copps and fellow FCC member Jonathan Adelstein, who both oppose the rule change, note that these 20 markets "account for over 43% of U.S. households" and directly affect more than 120 million Americans. Additionally, Martin has rushed to schedule a vote on the issue for Dec. 18, permitting the public just 19 working days to submit comments.
CROWDING OUT LOCAL AND MINORITY VOICES: Martin's rushed Dec. 18 vote comes even though the FCC has not yet finished its study on how the changes would affect local media ownership, nor has it forwarded "comprehensive ideas to increase women and minority ownership of broadcast outlets." Adelstein notes that the FCC has collected 44 recommendations from "expert outside organizations" on this topic, but they continue to sit "on the shelf of the FCC, just gathering dust." Even under the current rules, "[w]omen and people of color -- who comprise two-thirds of the population -- own only about one-sixth of commercial radio and TV stations." African-Americans and Latinos own "only 33 of the nation's 1350 TV stations" and six percent of the 10,000 radio stations. Martin's plan would further shut out diverse voices. Cross-owned stations, which Martin's change would increase, produce less local news and lead "other stations in the market to collectively curtail their news output by about 25 percent." Economists have documented that when stations provide Spanish-language local news, "voter turnout among Spanish speakers increases significantly." Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Mark Lloyd notes that while Martin reportedly conducted 10 studies on "tied to the media ownership review," none focused on "the impact of local media diversity on democratic engagement, or on the diversity of information available to minority communities." Lloyd and Fordham University's Phil Napoli have developed a "Metric for Local Media Diversity" to measure local media diversity and "determine what level of media diversity actually supports strong local democracies."
A 'MISGUIDED AND HARMFUL' PLAN: As in 2003, Martin's rules change has ignited bipartisan outrage from Capitol Hill. Today, "24 House Republicans plan to deliver a letter to Mr. Martin, chiding him for a 'misguided and harmful' proposal that would give the FCC more authority to regulate the cable industry." They further call his plan "inappropriate at best and contradicts the statute at worst." Yesterday, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) wrote to Martin and expressed concern that he may be "selectively collecting and releasing information to support its pre-conceived agenda," citing the fact that the FCC last year decided to not release "two reports that raised questions about potential negative impacts from further media consolidation." Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Trent Lott (R-MS) have introduced legislation to postpone the FCC's vote, ensure 90 days for public comments, and "complete a separate proceeding to evaluate how localism is affected by media consolidation." Contact your lawmakers and urge them to support The Media Ownership Act of 2007.