FCC Republicans again attempt to weaken media ownership rule

Senate to examine FCC media rules
Senate to examine FCC media rules
By Brooks Boliek
Dec 13, 2007

WASHINGTON -- FCC chairman Kevin Martin goes into the firing line again Thursday as the Senate Commerce Committee takes a hard look at his plans to reshape the media landscape.

Martin is likely to find himself under attack from both the left and the right over proposals he is pushing the commission to approve on Dec. 18 that would significantly unfetter media companies that wish to own both newspapers and TV stations in the same market, while at the same time he is pushing a rule that would prevent any cable company from serving more than 30% of pay-TV subscribers nationally

His push to alter the rules, in a particular the newspaper-TV station cross ownership ban, are garnering considerable controversy as no one seems to like the plan.

Broadcasters and newspaper publishers have criticized the Martin plan to allow one company to own a newspaper and TV station in the top 20 markets if the TV station is not among the top four stations in that city as being too tame. The Tribune Co., which has the most at stake in the cross-ownership battle, has asked the federal appeals court to strike down the order, even as Martin's proposal appeared to be a gift to the company which numbers the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune and several TV stations among its properties.

The company argues that temporary waivers allowing the combinations should be permanent. The waivers were necessary because FCC rules generally prohibit one company from owning both a broadcast station and a daily newspaper in the same market. The commission has allowed exceptions but does not permit any existing cross-media combinations to be transferred to new owners.

Tribune's lawsuit amounts to a legal maneuver to get the court strike down the cross-ownership ban entirely.

The FCC's waivers required Tribune to sell properties within two years or until six months after all litigation related to the agency's overall media ownership rules is complete, whichever takes longest

The affected combinations are in New York, Los Angeles, Hartford-New Haven, Conn., and Miami-Fort Lauderdale, Fla. Tribune received a permanent waiver in Chicago.

At the same time people who fear that easing the rule will concentrate too much media power in too little hands contend that the proposal is too bold.

In a late filing with the FCC a coalition of consumer groups attacked the proposal.

"Unless Chairman Martin remedies procedural flaws, eliminates dangerous and vague exceptions, and thoroughly expands meaningful minority ownership and local programming needs, his plan will not serve the public interest or meet minimum legal fairness requirements for FCC rules," said a statement from Free Press, Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union.

While the debate over media concentration issues does not break down exactly on party lines, more Democrats appear to support tougher controls than do Republicans.

Martin likely to run into a tough time before the committee as it has already approved legislation that would require the FCC to postpone action for up to six months.

The chairman's plan to impose the 30% ceiling on cable subscribers has also come under attack.

FCC Democrats Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein are expected to join Martin, giving him the 3-2 vote he needs to get it through the commission. It is unclear whether FCC Republicans Deborah Taylor Tate and Robert McDowell will end up voting with Martin.

The 30% cap was struck down by a federal court in 2001. Comcast has denounced Martin's cable ownership cap as totally unjustified given a video market that is far more competitive today than it was six years ago. Comcast is highly likely to take the FCC to court.

In another late filing with the commission, Comcast argued that imposing a de-facto ownership limit on cable operators while lifting the newspaper-TV cross ownership ban makes no sense.

"The very same types of concerns that appear to be animating the chairman's proposal to relax the newspaper-broadcast cross ownership rule compel the conclusion that a 30% cap on cable ownership can no longer be justifies," the company wrote.

Defiant FCC chief refuses to delay vote
Defiant FCC chief refuses to delay vote
By Jim Puzzanghera, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
December 14, 2007

Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission Kevin J. Martin endured three hours of aggressive questioning from the Senate Commerce Committee, with lawmakers accusing him of rushing to help big media companies at the expense of the public.

Kevin J. Martin tells senators that adopting new rules for media cross-ownership will help newspapers.

WASHINGTON -- Facing growing criticism of his agenda and tactics, a defiant Kevin J. Martin, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, refused senators' requests Thursday to delay a vote next week on his plan to loosen restrictions on owning a newspaper and broadcast station in the same city.

Martin endured three hours of aggressive questioning from the Senate Commerce Committee, with members accusing him of rushing to help big media companies at the public's expense.

"If you move ahead and do it, you're a braver man than I am," said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.). She accused Martin of having an "obsession" with changing media ownership rules that was distracting the FCC from the more important issue of guiding the nation's 2009 transition to digital television.

Amid complaints from within the commission and Capitol Hill about a lack of openness at the FCC, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) called for Congress next year to overhaul the agency's procedures and alter its deregulatory bent.

"I am becoming increasingly concerned that the FCC appears to be more concerned about making sure the policies they advocate serve the needs of the companies that they regulate and their bottom lines rather than the public interest," Rockefeller said. "We cannot allow this to happen."

Martin was grilled about pushing the FCC to vote Tuesday on his plan to ease a 32-year-old restriction on the ownership of a newspaper and broadcast station in the same market. Martin wants to lift the so-called cross-ownership ban in the top 20 U.S. markets and allow such combinations in smaller markets if the FCC determines that they would be in the public interest.

Critics say the FCC chairman is moving too fast and failing to take into account public opposition to the plan. Asked by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) if he would delay the vote, Martin replied, "No."

Martin, a Republican, said the FCC had been reviewing its ownership rules for 18 months and that the commission needed to act to help the financially struggling newspaper industry.

He said he was open to making revisions to his proposal, such as tightening what critics have called loose standards for determining if a newspaper/broadcast combination would produce more local news.

But when Kerry urged him to seek consensus on cross-ownership before voting on a rule change, Martin responded, "I'm not convinced on media ownership there ever will be consensus."

Lawmakers and public interest groups had expected the FCC's periodic review of its media ownership rules to extend into next year. But Martin accelerated the process in October, rushing to hold the final two public hearings with minimal notice and proposing to vote on a plan Tuesday, just a week after public comments were due at the FCC.

The moves outraged the FCC's two Democrats, Michael J. Copps and Jonathan S. Adelstein, as well as many members of Congress, who accused Martin of short-circuiting the process.

Fearing the consequences of more media consolidation, they said the FCC first should complete a long-pending review of ways to ensure that broadcasters serve their local communities and take steps to increase ownership of radio and TV stations by women and minorities.

The Senate Commerce Committee unanimously approved legislation last week that would force at least a six-month delay in the cross-ownership vote and summoned Martin and the other commissioners to testify.

"The FCC is poised to make some bad decisions, and it seems to me at this point only congressional oversight can get us back on track," Copps said, acknowledging that Martin had the votes on the five-member commission to approve the rule change.

After the FCC recently granted waivers to Tribune Co. of the cross-ownership rule in Los Angeles and four other cities, allowing it to close its $8.2-billion deal to go private by year-end, Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said there was no reason to rush a vote on such a controversial issue.

"Why give us an argument to attack you all?" Lott said. "I would plead with you to take a little more time."

If Martin carries through, and it looks certain he will, it goes to a federal appeals court. I'm uncertain how that plays out.

I'm confused too as regards the relative power here between the chairman and the committee.

OK...apparently the authority question is answered here. Such a committee, by itself, can't prevent Martin from going ahead.
http://www.reuters.com/article/mediaNews/idUSN1324303220071213?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

Blatham
Blatham, could someone have the standing to file for an injunction?

BBB

No idea.

Also, the Tribune has a legal action going presently as regards the cross ownership limit presently in place.

"If Martin carries through, and it looks certain he will, it goes to a federal appeals court. I'm uncertain how that plays out."

Blatham and BB - S. 2332 was passed by Congress and enacted 11/8/07.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s2332/show

Lott is the author of the bill. Given Martins unjustified reasoninigs for the mergers to the Commerce Committee, we may see more than just a few months delay.

stradee

I'm confused, I'm afraid. The hearings yesterday seem to portray the senators as hoping to pressure or cajole Martin into a delay, and that he gave no indication he would.

You are correct. At most the Committee can promise revenge in subsequent legislative actions. Very likely Martin knows full well he won't be around in the next term and is therefore thoroughly immune to their threats. Undoing this action - even with a Democrat Congress and Administration - will have its political costs, so the battle is well worth the fight now.

Sometimes Bernie the forces of freedom, light and happy virtue triumph over those of regulation, tyranny and darkness.

Are you so sure that Regulation should be lumped in there? I have little doubt that Regulations exist which benefit you personally; the vast number of different rules, laws and restrictions imposed by government makes this a near-certainty. Are those somehow good, while other regulations are evil?

Cycloptichorn

Bernie, don't be confused - the Commerce Committee won't sit idly by if Martin chooses to go ahead with the ruling.

really?

yup

Congress Asks FCC to Answer Questions about Private Equity Ownership of Media Properties
In March, we wrote about the concurring opinion of Commissioner Copps in connection with the sale of Univision Communications, where the Commissioner asked whether it was in the public interest to allow the sale of broadcast companies to private equity firms. That theme has now been picked up by Congress, as Congressman John Dingell, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Ed Markey, Chairman of the Telecommunications Subcommittee, jointly sent a letter to the FCC asking for answers to a series of questions about the impact of private equity ownership of media and telecommunications facilities. The letter, here, cites the Univision case, the acquisition of Clear Channel and the sale of a number of Radio One radio stations to private equity firms, and suggests that these firms may be more interested in cutting expenses and maximizing profits to the detriment of the public interest. The letter asks a number of questions about whether the FCC has adequate information about such ownership to assess its impact on the public interest.

The questions posed by the letter include the following:

Whether the FCC currently tracks ownership of media properties by private equity companies.
Whether the FCC has assessed the impact of private equity ownership on localism and, if it has not, should it
Whether the FCC has adequate information to assess the impact of media ownership by these companies on multiple ownership considerations
Whether the Commission's Equity-Debt Plus rules need to be revised to take account of private equity ownership
If the ownership of these entities is sufficiently public and transparent for the Commission to review that ownership.
The letter was addressed to Chairman Martin, and he was given until July 20 in which to respond.

As we wrote before, one wonders if the Commission has the manpower and expertise to assess the true impact of private equity in the broadcast field. How could the Commission make distinctions between private equity funds and other companies that provide financing and investment to broadcast entities? Don't all companies have the same incentive to maximize profits? Various banks, finance companies and investment funds have invested in broadcast properties forever, and the Commission's rules seem to have been able to deal with such investment without serious problem. Why would these investment vehicles be any different? The Commission has rules, like the Equity-Debt Plus rules that limit the financial investments that companies can have in competing media outlets. One would think that the enforcement of these rules would be sufficient to govern any potential for anitcompetitive effects of private equity. Similarly, private equity should not affect localism any more than any other non-local management.

Nevertheless, these issues will no doubt be considered in the upcoming proceedings on localism and multiple ownership (whenever those issues are ultimately considered by the FCC). As Congress examines the role of private equity in other sectors of the economy, expect that these issues won't disappear anytime in the near future.

Divided FCC Enacts Rules On Media Ownership
Divided FCC Enacts Rules On Media Ownership
By Frank Ahrens
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 19, 2007; D01

The Federal Communications Commission relaxed one media-ownership rule yesterday and held the line on another. Both decisions are likely to be challenged in federal court.

By a 3 to 2, party-line vote, the commission partially lifted a 32-year-old ban that prevents a newspaper owner from also owning a radio or television station in the same city.

In a separate, 3 to 2, split-party vote, the FCC reestablished a national cable television ownership ceiling at 30 percent, meaning one company cannot have more than 30 percent of all cable subscribers.

The meeting lasted more than three hours and included some heated language among commissioners. One, Michael J. Copps, called the newspaper-broadcast ruling "today's terrible decision."

The partial lifting of the ban would allow a newspaper in one of the nation's top 20 media markets to merge with a radio or television station in the same market, as long as the television station is not among the four highest-rated in that city. Mergers could occur in smaller markets, but they would have to pass a number of tests, including a demonstration that the newspaper was in financial distress.

The commission also approved waivers in a number of cities, including Phoenix and Myrtle Beach, S.C., that will allow existing newspaper-television combinations to continue.

The relaxation of the so-called cross-ownership rule was championed by FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin and supported by his fellow Republican commissioners, Robert M. McDowell and Deborah Taylor Tate. Copps and fellow Democratic commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein opposed it.

Adelstein called the new rule "a monumental mistake" and, with Copps, called it a gift to media companies that will enable consolidation and restrict the diversity of voices on the airwaves.

Martin responded by taking the unusual step of directly addressing Copps's and Adelstein's complaints that the process was conducted without sufficient public comment, citing instances in the past where he said each of them had negotiated deals that were outside the public's view. Martin said he would never achieve a commission consensus on media ownership and that Copps and Adelstein were determined to delay action on the matter to avoid a resolution.

"I don't raise these issues to attack any of my colleagues," Martin said, detailing the many months of study that led to yesterday's vote. "Every time as I was crossing the goal line, the goal posts were moved."

The cross-ownership rule met with criticism from Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine), House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) and some anti-consolidation groups. All said the rule would lead to fewer local voices in news and information.

Kerry and other senators have threatened congressional action to overturn the cross-ownership rule or deny federal funding to the FCC to implement it.

Proponents of the rule change said it would mean more local news, with television stations drawing on newspaper reports and newspapers able to offset the cost of newsgathering with television advertising revenue.

Newspaper companies fought hard for the rule change five years ago, but showed less interest in it this time because of changing market conditions in the television business. In the past, newspapers saw the high profits of television stations and envisioned significant cost-saving synergies between the properties. But that strategy was crippled by the rise of Internet video, which ate away at newspaper readers, television viewers, and the revenue of both mediums.

The Newspaper Association of America offered mild applause to the cross-ownership ruling. It is "a baby step in the actions needed to maintain the vitality of local news, in print and over-the-air, in all communities across the nation," association President John F. Sturm said in a written statement.

This was the FCC's second attempt to relax the rule. A broader attempt in 2003 was remanded to the FCC by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in Philadelphia, which said the agency did not adequately justify its reasoning. The new rule is expected to face legal challenge from a number of groups, including the Media Access Project.

A 30 percent national cable ownership cap was struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit several years ago. Yesterday, Comcast, the nation's largest cable company, with about 27 percent of all subscribers, predicted that it would be reversed in court again, calling the FCC vote "perverse."

Copps and Adelstein joined Martin in voting for the ownership cap, while Tate and McDowell opposed it.

In an interview, Copps predicted that yesterday's vote would withstand a court challenge because the FCC has better justified its reasoning.

http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/mark_cooper_on_crossownership.php

Bernie, here's the latest info {i've read} regarding Senate action

Senate Rejects Media Consolidation
By Christopher Kuttruff
t r u t h o u t | Report

Friday 16 May 2008

On Thursday night, the US Senate initiated the process of overturning an FCC ruling made in December to allow for greater media consolidation.

The joint resolution (S.J Res. 28) passed by an overwhelming margin in a voice vote on the Senate floor.

The resolution, originally sponsored by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-North Dakota), was cosponsored by Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-New York), Barack Obama (D-Illinois), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), and a long list of others.

"Today, the Senate stood up to Washington special interests by voting to reverse the FCC's disappointing media consolidation rules that I have fought against," said presidential candidate Barack Obama. "It is essential that the FCC promotes the public interest and diversity in ownership."

Senator Dorgan's communications director Justin Kitsch noted to Truthout, "The next step is for the House to take up the resolution. Senator Dorgan certainly hopes it will move quickly."

Congressman Jay Inslee (D-Washington) has introduced a measure similar to Dorgan's in the House.

The vote demonstrated a strong rebuke of the FCC's controversial rule, (FCC 07-216), which eliminated the 1975 ban on a company from owning both a newspaper and broadcast outlet within a single market.

"The FCC is supposed to be a referee for the media industry, but instead they've been cheerleaders in favor of more consolidation," Dorgan said in a statement regarding the Senate resolution. "Diverse, independent and local media sources are essential to ensuring that the public has access to a variety of information."

The FCC's decisions in December, and its policies since early in the Bush administration, have drawn a flood of criticism from individuals angered by what they see as an irresponsible and partisan stance of broad deregulation.

Chairman Kevin Martin has been accused of divisive leadership, lacking in accountability and transparency.

Martin has become the subject of a Congressional investigation headed by Congressmen John Dingell (D-Michigan) and Bart Stupak (D-Michigan).

Staff members of the FCC voiced their discontent with Martin's tenure in a memo to Dingell and Stupak. "The bottom line is that the FCC process appears broken and most of the blame appears to rest with Chairman Martin," the memo said.

The December FCC ruling on media ownership was split 3-2 along party lines and prompted fervent disapproval from citizens and government officials (both Republicans and Democrats). STOPBIGMEDIA.com claimed that the Senate received thousands of calls and around 250,000 letters urging response to the FCC's actions.

"The FCC must not be allowed to relax its media cross-ownership rules," Dorgan said. "More consolidation means fewer choices for consumers, and that is not in the public's best interest. There has been massive public outcry to these new rules, and they must be overturned."

President Bush has threatened to veto any legislation that overturns the FCC's decision.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Democrats, or leftists, are unhappy that they can't control the media, and folks, lookout, they will try all angles to stifle free speech via the airwaves. Of course in the supposed interest of "balance." Balance to them is one leftist talking to another one. A bunch of little dictators, with small minds.

And just where is this massive public outcry? This is the first I've heard any, right here. It is so massive and public that it finally made one lousy thread on A2K. Wow!

Massive public outcry to a Democrat means a bunch of their leftist whacko organizations that call them to give them their marching orders have called them alot lately.

Bill Moyers "Moyers on Democracy" was just released.

An excerpt and final paragraph:

"I wish I could say that journalists in general are showing the same interest in uncovering the dangerous linkages thwarting this democracy. It is not for lack of honest and courageous individuals who would risk their careers to speak truth to power--a modest risk compared to those of some journalists in authoritarian countries who have been jailed or murdered for the identical "crime." But our journalists are not in control of the instruments they play. As conglomerates swallow up newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, and networks, and profit rather than product becomes the focus of corporate effort, news organizations--particularly in television--are folded into entertainment divisions. The "news hole" in the print media shrinks to make room for advertisements, and stories needed by informed citizens working together are pulled in favor of the latest celebrity scandals because the media moguls have decided that uncovering the inner workings of public and private power is boring and will drive viewers and readers away to greener pastures of pabulum. Good reporters and editors confront walls of resistance in trying to place serious and informative reports over which they have long labored. Media owners who should be sounding the trumpets of alarm on the battlements of democracy instead blow popular ditties through tin horns, undercutting the basis for their existence and their First Amendment rights."

Doesn't get any clearer than that!