The Daily Snow Job by FCC Chairman Kevin “Stinky” Martin

Posted by Mary Mancini on November 13, 2007 under Uncategorized |

Eighteen months ago, Kevin Martin and his merry and band of FCC commissioners began a review of its media ownership rules. It’s was a big deal when they brought one of only six public hearings to Nashville and here, just like in the other five cities, the response to media consolidation was undeniably one-sided - the public is against it.

But that fact is just one of many that FCC Chairman Kevin “Stinky” Martin leaves out of his editorial in today’s New York Times. Instead he proposes that in response to the clamor to reform media ownerships rules the right thing to do is - you guessed it - relax them.

Martin starts out with a couple of relative truisms, at least - the daily newspaper is a vital source of information for many and the publishing landscape has changed dramatically over the last 30 years:

In many towns and cities, the newspaper is an endangered species. At least 300 daily papers have stopped publishing over the past 30 years. Those newspapers that have survived are struggling financially. Newspaper circulation has declined steadily for more than 10 years. Average daily circulation is down 2.6 percent in the last six months alone…If we don’t act to improve the health of the newspaper industry, we will see newspapers wither and die. Without newspapers, we would be less informed about our communities and have fewer outlets for the expression of independent thinking and a diversity of viewpoints. The challenge is to restore the viability of newspapers while preserving the core values of a diversity of voices and a commitment to localism in the media marketplace.

However, each point after is a lesson in obfuscation and denial.

After six public hearings, 10 economic studies and hundreds of thousands of comments, the commission should move forward. The commission should modify only one of the four rules under review — the one that bars ownership of both a newspaper and a broadcast TV or radio station in a single market. And the rule should be modified only for the largest markets.

Sure the commission should move forward, but if Martin was sincere in referencing the public hearings, studies, and comments he would have mentioned that the overwhelming majority of people are not in favor of any relaxation of media ownership rules, no matter how small.

A company that owns a newspaper in one of the 20 largest cities in the country should be permitted to purchase a broadcast TV or radio station in the same market. But a newspaper should be prohibited from buying one of the top four TV stations in its community. In addition, each part of the combined entity would need to maintain its editorial independence.

And what might be left to purchase after the top four TV stations in its community? The more affordable properties owned by small local minority-owned businesses. How would this add to diversity in a market? And who will guarantee that the “combined entity” will “maintain its editorial independence?” Historically, left to their own devices, media conglomerates have done just the opposite.

The cross-ownership rule is the only media ownership rule that has never been modified since its inception in the mid-1970s. For the last decade, F.C.C. chairmen — Democrats and Republicans alike — have said this rule needs to be revised.

Yeah, dude, but you’re revising in the wrong direction.

The ban on newspapers owning a broadcast station in their local markets may end up hurting the quality of news and the commitment of news organizations to their local communities. Newspapers in financial difficulty often have little choice but to scale back news gathering to cut costs. Allowing cross-ownership may help to forestall the erosion in local news coverage by enabling companies that own both newspapers and broadcast stations to share some costs.

Allowing cross-ownership can also mean that in addition to scaling back news gathering to “cut costs” in the newsroom, precious independent and local television news gathering will also be scaled back to “cut costs.”

Since 2003, when the courts told the commission to change its media ownership rules, the news media industry has operated in a climate of uncertainty. Many newspapers and broadcast stations are operating under waivers of the ban on cross-ownership. The F.C.C. needs to address these issues in a coherent and consistent fashion rather than considering them case by case, making policy by waiver.

In 2003, the courts told the commission to change its media ownership rules because the FCC had tried to force through the relaxation of these rules despite an overwhelming outcry from the owners of the airwaves - the public. You ignored it then and you’re doing the same thing now.

I confess that in my public role, I feel that the press is not on my side.

Neither are the American people, my friend.

A colleague on the commission, Michael Copps, for whom I have the utmost respect, has argued that our very democracy is at stake in the decisions we make regarding media ownership. I do not disagree.

Commissioner Copps has also been arguing tirelessly for the people against the relaxation of these rules. Do you have the respect to listen to him?

From FreePress.org: You can help stop Kevin Martin’s rush to gut media ownership limits. Tell Congress to Stop Big Media.