"The media has to open up, not consolidate." - Amy Goodman

The FCC is chartered to regulate and license our limited broadcast spectrum for the public interest. On June 2 the FCC will be voting on additional deregulation of the broadcast industry, aiming to give large media companies a freer hand with that public interest. (The actual proposal on which the FCC will be voting remains secret as of this date, May 14, 2003.)

The 1996 Telecom Act mentions the phrase "public interest" 112 times. Yet deregulation under the 1996 Telecommunications Act has so far resulted in massive consolidation and homogenization of the broadcast media. Where only a decade ago every community had its own local commercial broadcast stations, now very few communities have a local commercial station and a handful of media conglomerates own most of the broadcast outlets across the country. How does that serve the public interest?

How does it serve the public interest to keep proposed changes secret and to keep the public in the dark? Perhaps because there is nothing for the public interest in the proposed rule-making. Big media lobbyists say the rules are outdated; what does that mean except that they see ways to making more money providing the public less service?

The public deserves to know exactly what the industry is asking for. Here's a thumbnail guide to the lobbying aims of some of big media's most important companies with regard to the upcoming FCC decision. It doesn't include the many other political favors that the cable and broadcast industry are now seeking, including rules that will determine the future of broadband and the Internet or reallocation of radio spectrum for digital broadcasting.

Viacom/CBS; NBC/Telemundo; Fox (in partnership): Eliminate "cap" on the number of TV stations a single company can control nationally. End the "dual network" safeguard that prevents one TV network from acquiring another network. End the broadcast-newspaper cross-ownership rule that prevents a broadcaster from owning the major daily in the same market. Finally, remove current limits on local radio station ownership.

Disney/ABC: Eliminate all existing FCC rules on broadcast ownership. Oppose a proposed new policy that would open network prime-time to independent producers.

New York Times Company (includes Boston Globe, and eight TV stations): Eliminate the rule that prevents broadcast and newspaper cross-ownership.

Gannett Company (includes USA Today and 22 TV stations): Eliminate the rule that prevents broadcast and newspaper cross-ownership.

Cox Enterprises (includes the Atlanta Journal Constitution, and a number of TV and radio stations): Repeal the broadcast-newspaper cross-ownership rule. Maintain current limit on TV network station ownership (as opposed to what the four networks want).

Tribune Company (LA Times, Chicago Tribune): Total elimination of the broadcast-newspaper cross-ownership safeguard.

Belo (Dallas Morning News, 19 TV stations): Eliminate the broadcast- newspaper cross-ownership rule, and "relax" the rule that now limits ownership of multiple local TV stations.

Clear Channel Communications: Eliminate local radio ownership limits.

More at MediaReform.net.

The airwaves are limited public resources. We don't have to give them to the big media corporations. We can insist the FCC regulate them in the public interest. If we make a mistake now it will be very hard for the public to take back its own property.

Are you old enough to remember local news on the radio or a radio station that actually had a presence in your community? If you own a business, you might remember the ubiquitous radio advertising salespeople. Centralized advertising sales is more efficient. Less news rooms and less people in the news room is more efficient. Less news, less information, less opinion, less community: yes, that is more efficient, but is anyone other than the stockholders better served?

If you live in a one newspaper town, do you want the same people to own the broadcast outlets and ISP as well as that one paper, even if it is more efficient for them?

FCC Chairman Powell tells us that media mergers make business more efficient. Efficiency, however, is NOT the responsibility of the FCC; government agencies exist specifically to serve the public interest, to insure values that efficiency and the market will not provide otherwise. If the question were efficiency alone, there would be no need for the FCC at all and a media monopoly would suffice. Chairman Powell and the FCC are shirking their responsibility to the American people when they put efficiency and big business profits ahead of public interest.

Are you old enough to remember "The Fairness Doctrine"? It's unnecessary says FCC Chairman Michael Powell because the Internet provides enough diversity. Wrong! The Internet provides plenty of diversity, but it is absolutely not a substitute for a diverse broadcast media. The Internet is not public, it is not broadcast and it is not a community.

First of all, one cannot realistically replace broadcast with online services. You can learn what's going on if every day you read six papers AND the foreign press. I try to scan The Independent (UK), The New York Times, The BBC, Al Haretz, cursor.org, prospect.org and salon.com, headline lists from another two dozen sources, Democracy Now, Working Assets Radio and Pacifica. Chairman Powell misleading us by calling the internet a replacement for a diverse broadcast media.

Second, free speech is not monitored; the internet is monitored. Free speech does not give preferential access to favored entities; the internet does. If the FCC has its way, and regulates internet access as an "information service" not as telecommunications, then your ISP will not need to support free speech any more than any other private entity. He can carry or ban what he wants; what if he decides to ban all news programs except Fox News? Instead of deregulating, the FCC should be adding requirements for the public interest, requiring cable to carry all local programmers (say for example, those producing more than three hours a week).

Everything anyone does online is trackable. A free press is not free if every eyeball is surveilled and the results sold as marketing data or fed automatically, thanks to the PATRIOT Act, to the FBI data miners without warrant, cause or notice.

Third, the Internet is privately owned; broadcast is public. What is available online can easily be controlled by contract law and code outside of the "public forum". With one hand the FCC says the Internet provides enough diversity; with the other it is promoting more Digital Rights Management (DRM) and Copy Protection on non-broadcast media. (More at EFF)

Censorship by copyright, digital rights, code, filter, surveillance and intimidation. All together, the end of the free press and free speech.

Chairman Powell felt there was no need for hearings and that these rules were better made in private. Under pressure he agreed to hold a single hearing. Commissioners Adelstein and Copps have been able to hold a few semi-formal hearings. From talking to the public, Commissioner Adelstein hears "universally negative response [regarding more media consolidation]". He also finds "getting out to the public is next to impossible because the media does not want to cover [this story]".

Frank Blethen, Publisher and CEO, The Seattle Times, (and a number of papers here in Maine) says

"If we go out 20 years from now with the same pace of concentration of media ownership we've had for the last 20 we will not have a democracy. There's simply no way."

This fourth generation newspaper publisher says consolidation hurts the public and its only benefit is to the bottom lines of a few media conglomerates.

Yet the Blethen papers here in Maine didn't cover this important story until May 14.

Do you care about music? Do you want your choice of music to be limited to that provided on a ClearChannel radio station? Or do you value a wider range of music? Hear (npr) what a number of popular musicians think about this.

While the RIAA and the music industry blame falling sales on file sharing and Napster like services it might be that the limited choices available on ClearChannel, Saga and Cumulus are a direct cause of falling music sales.

Maine's Senators Snowe and Collins have expressed strong reservations about this rule making process:

The senators wrote, "A fully functioning democracy depends on media sources with diverse voices and opinions as well as content relevant to local communities. Over the years, courts have reaffirmed the belief of Congress that independent ownership of media outlets results in more diverse media voices, greater competition among owners, and the production of more local content.

"Please do not proceed with a final rule until the Commission provides both a full description of all proposed changes and the empirical foundation for the changes, as well as provide for an ample public comment period, so that members of the public and Congress will have an opportunity to evaluate the new rules' potential impact," the senators concluded.

Bottom line, the airwaves are public. Is it good for Americans to have only one or two media outlets in each town and for those to be the same across the whole country? Do public interests always coincide with commercial interests? Are we better off as citizens when large media conglomerates control the vertical and the horizontal? What if you can't run your advertising or speak out because what you have to say conflicts with the editorial policy of those few media outlets? That time is upon us.

The FCC has indicated that the new rule making will favor additional deregulation, accelerating the trend of the past decade. Mainers will get more programming from fewer sources. Instead of many broadcasters, consolidation will leave us with only a handful. This is good for Disney, Fox and Time Warner; they will make more money for less work but it's bad news for you as a citizen or small business person. There is nothing in this plan for the public interest.

The Center for Public Integrity released a report showing nearly $3M in "travel gifts" to FCC Commissioners. The report also details how FCC is hiding primary data from the public. See the ownership database for your town.

Contact your senators, get more background at http://www.maine.com/media_consolidation/ and take action at http://www.mediareform.net. Stop this corrupt giveaway.

cfm