Crunch Time at the FCC by Michael Copps

Jan. 30, 2003

Type: discussion

This article can be found on the web at
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i 030203&s=copps
Crunch Time at the FCC

by MICHAEL COPPS

[from the February 3, 2003 issue]

One of the most important votes of 2003 will be cast
not in Congress or in voting booths across the country
but at the Federal Communications Commission. At stake
is how TV, radio, newspapers and the Internet will
look in the next generation and beyond. At stake are
core values of localism, competition, diversity and
maintaining the vitality of America's marketplace of
ideas. And at stake is the ability of consumers to
enjoy creative, diverse and enriching entertainment.

But most people and most journalists are ignoring this
momentous vote. Last year FCC chair Michael Powell
announced that the commission would vote this spring
on whether to scrap, modify or retain our media
concentration protections. These rules currently limit
a single corporation from dominating a local TV
market; from merging a community's TV stations and
newspapers into one voice; from merging two major TV
networks; and from controlling more than 35 percent of
TV households in the nation. And now we are on the
verge of dramatically altering the nation's media
landscape without the national debate that this issue
merits.

What will happen if these rules disappear or are
significantly loosened? We have some history to guide
us. The FCC eliminated many of its radio consolidation
rules in 1996. This action has already caused real
problems, according to numerous media experts.
Conglomerates now own hundreds of stations across the
country. One company, Clear Channel, owns more than
1,200. Today there are 30 percent fewer radio station
owners than there were before the commission abandoned
its rules in 1996. Most local radio markets are
oligopolies. More and more programming originates
outside local stations' studios–far from listeners
and their communities.

Media watchers like the Media Access Project, the
Center for Digital Democracy and Consumers Union argue
that this concentration has led to far less coverage
of news and public interest programming and less
localism. A study by the Future of Music Coalition
strongly suggests that consolidation has led to the
homogenization of music. Many observers say that radio
now serves more to advertise the products of
vertically integrated conglomerates than to inform or
entertain Americans with the best and most original
programming. In addition, the work of the Parents
Television Council shows that offensive and indecent
programming has grown more pervasive on radio. As
programming decisions are wrested from our local
communities and made instead in distant corporate
headquarters, our children are exposed to more and
more offensive material.

Despite this history, we are now about to decide
whether to eliminate the rules that govern the rest of
the media world. If all these rules are scrapped or if
the FCC seriously weakens them, one company could
dominate a region's access to information by
controlling its radio stations, television stations,
newspaper and cable system. And those who believe the
Internet will save us from this fate should realize
that the dominant Internet news sources are owned by
the same media giants who control radio, TV,
newspapers and cable. The fate of cable television and
the emerging fate of the Internet should teach us that
new technology alone, without rules that protect
against its being co-opted by media giants, will not
guarantee healthy, independent local media.

Yet the FCC is charging ahead without adequately
studying the vast consequences of its actions. It has
resisted calls to hold public hearings. Only under
pressure did it agree to hold one lone official
hearing in Richmond, Virginia. Most Americans don't
even know that momentous decisions are about to be
made. It is the FCC's responsibility to tell them and
to solicit their thoughts. Failure to do so disserves
the public interest and makes it appear that the
commission is trying to eliminate concentration
protections in the dark of night.

But it is also the media's responsibility to bring
this story to the public. That hasn't happened yet.
Indeed, some very important media enterprises have
financial interests riding on the outcome of the
ownership proceedings. The very institutions we rely
on to be a forum for this debate are the institutions
most affected by its outcome. The media are at pains
to assure us their newsgathering operations are
independent of their corporate interests. Here is an
opportunity to test that claim.

Suppose for a moment that the FCC votes to remove or
significantly modify the concentration protections.
Suppose that turns out to be a mistake. How would we
ever put the genie back in the bottle? The answer is
that we could not. That's why we need a national
dialogue on the issue and better data and analysis. We
need this debate in Congress, at the commission, among
concerned industries, in the media and all across
America. The future of the media, a key part of the
infrastructure of democracy, hangs in the balance.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com