Northern California Hearing on FCC Media Ownership Rules

San Francisco City Hall

April 26, 2003

"Citizen Kane for the 21st Century?

The Defining Moment for Media Ownership"

Thank you for that warm welcome. It’s a real breath of fresh air

to get outside Washington, especially back to the Bay Area, to hear your

views about media consolidation. This hearing gives your voices the

opportunity to join the emerging national dialogue on an issue that

impacts everyone who lives here.

I’m especially thankful to the Media Alliance for the legwork in

setting this up, and for the leadership – and cosponsorship – of a

number of the Bay Area’s leading institutions of higher learning – the

USF Media Studies Department; the UC Berkeley Graduate School of

Journalism; the Hastings Law School’s Communication and Entertainment

Law Journal; and the Stanford University Communication Department – my

alma mater, I might add.

The FCC is about to make historic changes to our media ownership

rules that will affect each of us as media listeners and viewers. The

current rules are designed to prevent individual companies from gaining

too much control over what we see, hear, and read.

The public – that’s all of you – own the airwaves. We at the FCC

are responsible for overseeing the airwaves in your interest – not in

the interests of the corporations that profit by using them. That’s not

just the moral thing to do – it’s the law. I’m afraid that we are about

to forget that.

If we make the tragic mistake of allowing too much further media

concentration, we won’t be able to undo it. Once companies merge, the

FCC never asks them to undo it. You can’t put the toothpaste back in

the tube. The FCC could unalterably change the face of the American

media for generations to come. This proceeding is so big, it feels like

we’re going to straight to the Superbowl without having even begun the

regular season.

The current FCC media ownership rules are grounded in the three

basic public policy goals that form the foundation of American

broadcasting – competition, diversity, and localism. They now make it

difficult for one company to own both a newspaper and a television

station serving the same community. They also cap the number of

television or radio stations that one owner can control in a single

area, as well as the number of television stations that one company can

own nationwide. Another rule bars the four major TV broadcast networks

from merging with one another.

All these rules are now up for grabs. The decisions we will soon

make will have profound implications for our culture and our society.

They will affect the diversity of voices that are heard across this

country and in each of our communities every day.

Regretfully, many Americans have heard nothing at all about the

potential rule changes. I hope we can change that, and that’s why I’m

here.

But it’s almost too late.

FCC Chairman Michael Powell has vowed that nothing will stop the

agency from overhauling these rules by June 2. He even dismissed recent

Congressional requests for more information and more time. Earlier this

month, a bipartisan group of fifteen Senators, including your own

Senator Barbara Boxer, asked the Chairman to hold off on any changes

until the FCC discloses more detail about its proposed rules so that

Congress and the public can have an opportunity to respond.

A similar letter followed from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus,

which is concerned about protecting and promoting minority ownership in

media, as well as the impact of media consolidation on the Latino

community.

The Chairman cast aside these Congressional requests, announcing

he will go forward full steam ahead despite these mounting concerns. So

June 2d will become the defining moment for American media ownership

rules.

This issue is as important as any other the country faces, apart

from war and peace, but the network media aren’t covering it. It’s

critical for us to hear from the public before then. But to comment on

the vital issues at stake, the American public and its representatives

in Congress need more information. Many rumors are swirling around the

Capital about the use of a so-called "diversity index" and other

approaches the FCC could take to overhaul these rules. Given that June

2 is now only 37 days away, many people are understandably bewildered

about what framework they will face on June 3rd.

Since we are charged with serving the public interest, the FCC

should never be afraid of public comment. It only strengthens the

ultimate product. It could help us avert unintended consequences.

Perhaps most importantly, public comment on a new plan is required by

law, as the Office of Advocacy of the US Small Business Administration

recently alerted Chairman Powell.

Chairman Powell has stated that the public had every opportunity

to comment on a notice the FCC sent out last year. The problem is, now

that we are crafting a new proposal, the public has never had

opportunity to comment on the specifics. On an issue of this magnitude,

the FCC has a legal and moral obligation to provide the public with more

specific information before sealing it into federal regulations.

That’s why, as a backstop, I recently asked the Chairman to alert

the public to at least the broad outlines of the plan in an open forum.

I even suggested we could hold a public briefing soon to accommodate his

June 2d timeframe, despite my concern about a rush to judgment. Even

something like this – which would fall short of the Administrative

Procedure Act’s full notice and comment procedures – would go a long way

toward helping the public understand what is happening within the

confined walls of the FCC. He rejected my proposal, along with the

others.

The stakes of this proceeding couldn’t be higher. The mass media

shapes our thoughts, decisions, and values more than we might imagine.

Since our media ownership rules were established, Americans have more

forms of media than ever. But does the availability of a greater number

of channels necessarily translate into a greater number of diverse

voices for accessing local news and information? I’m not so sure.

I think our local communities are better served by hearing many

voices discussing the issues of the day on various outlets -- rather

than a handful of giant voices booming loudly across a range of media

outlets they own. Diverse views fuel our public debate and strengthen

our democracy. We need more voices in the nation’s media, but not from

one ventriloquist.

A big issue before us is allowing a single company to own a

variety of different forms of media outlets, which is currently

addressed by our cross-ownership rules. If the FCC jettisons these

rules, what would it put in their place? I happen to believe that a

properly-crafted framework for assessing viewership across media in a

particular local market could serve as a proxy for cross-ownership

rules. But any gauge of diversity the FCC employs must recognize the

singular importance of the media in civic discourse, and protect against

too much concentration.

Because the media isn’t like other consumer goods. Unlike cereal

or ketchup, mass media has viewpoints attached to it. Control of the

media affects the vibrancy of what the Supreme Court has called the

"uninhibited marketplace of ideas." It affects the very health of our

democracy. The Supreme Court has said that the FCC may not abridge the

right of Americans to have access to ideas and to creativity.

Critics say that loosening the media ownership rules will unleash

media giants to intensify their grip on the news business, drive local

voices off the air, and block a variety of political viewpoints from

reaching the airwaves.

While consolidation can have positive effects, such as economies

of scale, our job is to protect the public, not corporations that

naturally seek efficiencies. And consolidation carries tremendous

risks, like the loss of localism. Television and radio stations in the

U.S. are licensed to serve individual communities, both as outlets for

local expression and local artists and as sources of local news and

information. The public deserves – and the laws require – programming

that serves the unique needs of local communities. Consolidation, on

the other hand, often leads to the homogenization of programming.

Evidence shows that television and newspapers are by far the most

important sources of local news and public affairs information.

Newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst understood the key power of

local news outlets. You here in the Bay area know a bit about Mr.

Hearst and the power of local media. When asked why he preferred

concentrating on newspapers with their limited, regional appeal, rather

than spending more energy on motion pictures and their worldwide

audience, he pithily replied, "I thought of it, but I decided against

it. Because you can crush a man with journalism, and you can’t with

motion pictures."

We may be on the verge of creating a 21st Century Citizen Kane, or

maybe a handful of them.

I’ve heard the arguments made by those seeking to abolish the

newspaper-television cross ownership rule that common ownership is

needed for newspaper companies to stay afloat, or to produce better

quality news. But we need to question if mergers are the only way to

accomplish this. If efficiencies are gained by merging a newspaper with

a TV station, then wouldn’t the same benefits come from a joint news-

gathering agreement between the two entities? That arrangement could at

least preserve separate ownership and separate editorial and managerial

control – which would help to ensure diverse viewpoints. We should

decide if some of the claimed efficiencies can be gained short of an

outright merger.

Even assuming newspapers are cash-strapped, as some claim, what

does this tell us? To me, it means there is slim hope that any new

newspapers will get created. That means we better tread very carefully

with ownership of the precious few daily newspapers that still exist.

If you don’t think changes in these rules can affect you, tune

into today’s radio. In 1996, Congress, not the FCC, relaxed the rules

governing who can own radio stations, prompting an unprecedented wave of

consolidation. In the first year after the Act passed, more than 2100

of the approximately 11,000 commercial radio stations in the U.S.

changed hands. And most of these stations were sold to companies that

already own stations, many of them former competitors in the same

markets. Radio conglomerates now centralize broadcasting from remote

headquarters and pump homogenized playlists to stations across the

country. The largest radio station group owns 1,240 stations, up from

40 before the rule change.

A town in North Dakota called Minot felt the effects recently.

When a train carrying ammonia derailed and released a noxious cloud of

gas, police sought to alert the community to steer clear. So the police

called the local radio stations, all six of which are owned by Clear

Channel Communications. But the company had pared down its local

operations and nobody was there to pick up the phone. Three hundred

people were hospitalized. For that community, the loss of localism and

diversity in the media affected every resident in a very tangible and

devastating way.

I’ve compared the experience of the radio industry to the canary

in the coal mine. Miners would send a canary down first to see if it

survived before they dared enter. We’d better examine the health of

this canary carefully before we take any steps that might lead to

consolidation in other media outlets like TV, cable and newspapers.

What’s the rush to make major changes now? The FCC should focus

on putting in place a workable structure, one that survives scrutiny by

the courts, and then over time adjust the levels to allow for greater

consolidation after it’s proven that the initial levels didn’t hurt the

public. The law provides a structure for the FCC to review these media

rules periodically. Why not focus now on implementing a workable

structure, and then work towards greater loosening in the years to come,

as we learn more about the implications of greater consolidation on

localism and diversity.

The FCC should proceed with enormous caution. Our rules are

intended to prevent a Citizen Kane-like figure from amassing too much

control of the media and dominating civic discourse. But caution and

speed tend not to mix well in any context, and particularly not when the

safeguards of our democracy are concerned.

As we proceed at lightning speed now towards June 2d, I hope that

Chairman Powell will provide the public with an inkling of what’s to

come, so that we can debate the effect of any concrete proposal he

discloses – that’s what a public rulemaking proceeding should be all

about.

Each of you here today should be a part of that dialogue. I can’t

emphasize enough the importance of your participation. If we are to

craft media ownership rules that best serve the public interest, we must

hear from the public, and that’s why I’m here to listen to you.

So let’s get to it and begin our discussion.

FIGHTING MEDIA MONOPOLY: APRIL 26 SAN FRANCISCO FORUM ON MEDIA OWNERSHIP

[Commentary] After prodding by the Center for Digital Democracy and Media

Alliance, the FCC will take part in a San Francisco public hearing over the

proposed deregulation of US media ownership rules. The San Francisco Bay

Guardian implores local residents to take part in it: "This liberal city,

with its historic traditions of freewheeling publications and open debate,

is now under the thumb of a handful of out-of-town media corporations that

don't come close to reflecting the political, cultural and artistic

diversity of the community," they write. The Guardian lays out the "local"

statistics: 10 San Francisco radio stations are owned by Texas-based Clear

Channel; NY-based Hearst owns the one major newspaper; the local cable

franchise, Comcast, has no local roots; and none of the major broadcast TV

stations have local owners. "And if Powell gets his way, the situation will

just get worse," they add. The event will begin at 10am on Saturday, April

26 in the main rotunda at San Francisco City Hall, and is open to the

public.

[SOURCE: San Francisco Bay Guardian]

http://www.sfbayguardian.com/37/30/news_ed_fcc.html

================================================================================

---------------------------------04-23-2003-------------------------------------

================================================================================

Fighting media monopoly

IT TOOK A concerted effort from media activists led by the Center for

Digital Democracy and Media Alliance, but the Federal Communications

Commission will actually hold a public hearing in San Francisco April

26 on plans to further deregulate the nation's major news media. In a

sense, San Francisco is the perfect place for one of the very few

public hearings on a plan that FCC chair Michael Powell is hatching

almost entirely in secret. This liberal city, with its historic

traditions of freewheeling publications and open debate, is now under

the thumb of a handful of out-of-town media corporations that don't

come close to reflecting the political, cultural, and artistic

diversity of the community.

There's one major daily paper in town, owned by New York-based Hearst

Corp. Texas-based Clear Channel Communications owns 10 radio stations

in the Bay Area, including two at the top of the FM market. The

cable-TV system has gone from Viacom to AT&T to Comcast, none of which

have any local roots. There's not one major locally owned broadcast TV

station. And if Powell gets his way, the situation will just get

worse: Hearst, for example, could buy a couple of TV and radio

stations. Clear Channel could buy the San Francisco Chronicle or the

San Francisco Examiner. Ultimately, almost all of the major media

outlets in town could be owned by one or two giant, locally

unaccountable companies that have no interest in or concerns about the

San Francisco community - except as a place from which to extract

money.

It won't be easy to derail this steamroller. As Camille T. Taiara

points out on page 14, Powell has a 3-2 majority on the commission,

and whatever he puts forward will probably be approved. The ultimate

battle may be in Congress, where activists will be pushing to overturn

the FCC decision and write strong federal laws against accelerating

media megamergers and cross-ownership.

But the only way that will happen is if there's a clear, extensive,

and powerful record of opposition to any relaxation of the ownership

regulations. That means everyone who cares about the quality of media

coverage in the country ought to testify at the FCC hearing Saturday,

April 26, in the main rotunda at San Francisco City Hall, starting at

10 a.m. It may be the last chance to prevent a truly bad media

situation from quickly becoming a whole lot worse - and to lay the

groundwork for real reform.

================================================================================

---------------------------------04-23-2003-------------------------------------

================================================================================

Saturday, April 26, the Federal Communications Commission (headed by

Michael Powell, son of Secretary of State Colin Powell) is holding a

public hearing on the issue of deregulating the media industry even

further. Public hearing, 10 a.m.-4 p.m., City Hall, Main Rotunda, 1

Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, S.F. Free. Rally and press conference,

noon, steps of City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, S.F. Free.

(415) 575-5555.

TELL THE FCC TO LET BLACK RADIO LIVE

[Commentary] Harrison Chastang, news director at KPOO 89.5 FM in San

Francisco, says it's imperative for Bay-Area African Americans to take part

in this Saturday's public hearing on FCC proposals to deregulate media

ownership rules. Chasting cites the cover story of the latest issue of Black

Enterprise magazine, which explores how recent media deregulation has

already allowed many African American radio stations to be taken over by

non-black corporate owners. "[T]otal deregulation of the broadcast industry

could encourage the extinction of the few remaining Black-owned stations,"

he says. And with less than one percent of people in radio management being

African American, it's becoming even more difficult for radio stations to

program news and entertainment of specific interest to the African American

community. The public forum will be held from 10am to 4pm in the Board of

Supervisors Chambers at San Francisco City Hall. Chasting's station, KPOO

89.5 FM, will carry a broadcast of the event live, and will stream it over

the Internet via their kpoo.com website.

[SOURCE: San Francisco Bay View; AUTHOR: Harrison Chastang]

http://www.sfbayview.com/042303/tellthefcc042303.shtml

http://www.kpoo.com

MEDIA OWNERSHIP

EVENT: TELL THE FCC TO LET BLACK RADIO LIVE