FCC Promotes Media Monopolies

As my friend and colleague John Nichols wrote last week, "Bush's chairman of the Federal Communications Commission has initiated a scheme to radically rewrite media ownership rules so that one corporation can own the daily newspapers, the weekly 'alternative' newspaper, the city magazine, suburban publications, the eight largest radio stations, the dominant broadcast and cable television stations, popular internet news and calendar sites, billboards and concert halls in even the largest American city."

Essentially, Martin wants to get rid of the cross-ownership ban, which has been on the books in this country since 1975. It's a rule that prevents any one company from owning and operating both a newspaper and a broadcast television station in the same town. The idea that we've had in this country for thirty-some years, informed by the ideas of the Founding Fathers, is that it would be unhealthy for one corporation to control all of the most popular outlets for news and information in a given area. That would be bad for democracy. Apparently Kevin Martin doesn't think that way.

FCC Commissioner Martin's latest attempt to curb as much diversity and democracy from the nation's media as possible is both a mogul's dream and a citizen's nightmare. In 2003 Martin's predecessor Michael Powell tried to do the same thing (with Martin voting with him) but was stymied by a cross-partisan grassroots uprising that saw more than three million citizens, including many Nation readers, protest the FCC and Congress and force the monopolizers back on their feet. But they're back and a renewed and reinvigorated citizens' movement is the only thing that can stop them again. Encouragingly, there are already legislative allies in the unlikely tandem of Democrat Byron Dorgan and Republican Trent Lott. "We do not believe the commission has adequately studied the impact of media consolidation on local programming," the two Senators, a North Dakota Democrat, and a Mississippi Republican, said last Thursday in a letter to Martin. "The FCC should not rush forward and repeat mistakes of the past."

The media reform group Free Press has been leading the opposition with the formidable help of two of the five FCC commissioners, Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein. Go to the Free Press Action Center and let your elected reps know that Congress should hold hearings on media ownership before any decision is made; file a comment before the FCC and write to your local paper and website. Free Press is also hosting live online chats with both dissident Commissioners--Adelstein takes questions tonight, October 22, at 8 pm EST and Copps next Monday, October 29 at 7 pm EST. Just click here to join the conversation.

Comments (19)

1. Soooooo....we put Frankgtits in charge?

   Posted by JoMa at 10/22/2007 @ 8:26pm

2. Hope not...but here's what I think will happen.

   The GOP Leadership will go to Lott, as well as Big Media, and grease his palm or threaten him. He'll back out, then it'll be Dorgan...and Reid will let the whole thing drop as enough support in the Senate falls to the same trick.

   Again, based on previous incidents.

   Posted by Mask at 10/22/2007 @ 8:33pm

3. PETER: ...Martin wants to get rid of the cross-ownership ban, which has been on the books in this country since 1975.

   I paid next-to-none attention to the media's intricacies before 1975....too busy toking, drinking, studying (really!), and p****-hunting!

   That said, I can't imagine the lifting of the cross-ownership ban today, would lead to less media sources than pre-1975. Besides, the marketplace will lead to far fewer national news jobs....with the internet, why do we need 500 Op-Ed writers saying mostly the same things or 200 reporters covering the White House or the Super Bowl? I don't even see the need for 4 local TV stations converging on a 4-alarm apartment fire!

   Watch what has happened to the NYT, "Newspaper of Record" as it records its own withering away....at least the print newspaper that no longer knows how to report facts or indulge in revealing national secrets!

   Posted by Happy at 10/22/2007 @ 8:35pm

4. Posted by HAPPY 10/22/2007 @ 8:35pm

   while it is true sources of information are changing rapidly, the thought of having all local outlets owned by one or two corporations does not forebode well.

   most people are just not interested enough to search for their news. they like to turn on channel 7 and watch. they like to unfold their paper and drink some coffee.

   when my local newspaper was bought by a large corporation, the editorial page was suddenly transformed to match the right wing corporate line, a viewpoint not in accordance with my town's blue collar attitude.

   the headlines have essentially become propaganda for mr. harper.

   despite the obvious financial benefits consolidation will bring investors in the short-term, this is something you should truly be troubled by.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2007 @ 9:50pm

5. when my local newspaper was bought by a large corporation, the editorial page was suddenly transformed to match the right wing corporate line, a viewpoint not in accordance with my town's blue collar attitude.

   Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/22/2007 @ 9:50pm

   Similar thing in reverse happened in Houston after The Hearst Corp. liberal to the core) took over our only daily, The Houston Chronicle....We are a Red town and the HC's editorials are quite often at odds w/my views....I've thought about canceling it on several occasions...but at least it carries a good balance of national columnists' views.

   The thing is, even if the FCC says, let's say 3 newspapers are to be owned by 3 separate entities, my hunch is that eventually, one or two will just shut down due to the market. My city is the 4th largest and at when I came, it had two papers, the (morning) Houston Post and the evening Chronicle...now just one! In my case, on national issues, my WSJ more than make up for what Hearst Corp. tries to ram up my butt!

   You can carve ownership all you want, but if the customers prefer one version much more than the other, well, have the Gubberment allocate subscriptions that YOU HAVE TO BUY....like the BBC in Britain....everybody pays based on no. of TV sets?

   Posted by Happy at 10/22/2007 @ 10:18pm

6. I wonder why George Bush is pushing the idea of media monopoly. Think it has something to do with Rupport? Thank God democrats control Congress. If they didn't win in '06, this would be a done deal aready.

   Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/22/2007 @ 10:18pm

   The senior managing editor of our daily newspaper is married to our Democratic Governor. Bush's fault?

   Posted by Sliver at 10/22/2007 @ 10:25pm

7. Thank God democrats control Congress. If they didn't win in '06, this would be a done deal aready.---Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/22/2007 @ 10:18pm

   Yeah...because they've been so good at stopping Bush uptil now, huh?

   Posted by Mask at 10/22/2007 @ 10:32pm

8. Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/22/2007 @ 10:18pm

   Fucking idiot.

   Posted by JoMa at 10/22/2007 @ 11:10pm

9. F... idiot.

   Posted by JOMA 10/22/2007 @ 11:10pm

   FRANKG is so damned serious that he's SERIOUSLY FUNNY! LOL!

   Posted by Happy at 10/22/2007 @ 11:24pm

10. Bottom line: the Democrats don't have the votes, BECAUSE, not enough Americans have the intelligence.

    Americans are actively ignorant, believing the lies they want to believe, it's always easy to sell the public on a new war. The Conservative media pushes a fanatical authoritarian corporatist agenda and it's easy to do, because Americans have a problem. Americans are in serious, serious trouble, because ignorance is deadly for a Democracy. Idiots are a dime a dozen in America - just look at the people who still watch Fox, still buy into Authoritarianism after it's been proven to be a stupid idea. George Bush is alot smarter than the people who support him.

    Posted by conshame at 10/22/2007 @ 11:58pm

11. Two types of Americans still support Bush:

    1. Stupid People

    2. People on the take

    (remember when, it used to be that every now and then you would encounter a Conservative who could at least articulate an argument?)

    Posted by conshame at 10/23/2007 @ 12:04am

12. democrats, time to take spineocrat! [tinyurl.com]

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/23/2007 @ 01:11am

13. I think relaxing ownership rules is actually a good thing because it allows local TV and radio stations to stay afloat. I've done some work with NAB, and I've seen countless local outlets kept alive thanks to corporate resources.

    My instincts are always to be suspicious of this administration, but I think in this case, relaxing ownership rules makes sense.

    Posted by Chinook22 at 10/23/2007 @ 09:29am

14. Posted by CONSHAME 10/22/2007 @ 11:58pm

    Ever get the thought that CS is actually pseudo-normal most of the time, surfing the net, buying shoes online, and....

    then she gets like a dozen Three Muskateers and a six-pack of root beer in her and she becomes...

    CORNHOLIO! And then starts posting here!

    Posted by Mask at 10/23/2007 @ 09:30am

15. JOMA -- As insightful as your two comments in this thread are, simple obscenities are not welcome. So try to think of something semi-coherent to say or stay away.

    Posted by Peter Rothberg at 10/23/2007 @ 10:56am

16. cross posted @ http://www.standingbeforethefire.com Some may say(those who are wrong) that the government should play no role in regulating news media consolidation. They should allow the free market to dictate how much of a city's media is controlled by one corporation. If say, one man wants to own all the local newspapers, local television stations, local radio stations, then so be it. An alternative, including the view of the federal government until yesterday, was that the government needs to prevent this type of media consolidation, the dangers of which are evident. The media(albeit not as often as it should) traditionally has played a role in checking local corruption. Sure, many media outlets will fail in this duty. It might be because of corruption,lack of ingenuity, or not having the will to stand before the fire. However, If you only have one media organization in a given local, the chances of weeding out corruption decreases greatly due to a media organization having no competition and having only one organization investigating a story instead of several. Further, having one group(or one man) control all the media in the city is inviting corruption like Marilyn Manson Concerts invite clowns who cut themselves to feel alive.

    It invites corporations who have something to hide to dominate the a city's media. Don't want anyone to find out you are polluting the city's river with cancer causing pollutants? Not as much of a problem if you control all the city's media. Want to push for the law that allows your corporation not to pay retirees promised pensions? Becomes easier if you own the media. Worst of all, we will live in a nation full of "fair and balanced" type news outlets which is really politicians owning the media, using it to push the corporate agenda. Why fight for influence in the media when you can just buy it?

    The administration through the office of the Federal Communications Commission is working to make this nightmare media monopoly scenario a reality. The current rules troubled too many of the Bush Administration's wealthy benefactors. It seems Mr. Bush thinks he is the President of the United Corporations of America, not the people of America.

    Posted by omachoomar at 10/23/2007 @ 7:40pm

17. the beautiful thing is that anything that can be done...

    can be undone

    Posted by Will C. at 10/23/2007 @ 7:52pm

18. though in this case there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth coming from hamsterland when the hamsters realize they simply can't have it all for themselves

    Posted by Will C. at 10/23/2007 @ 7:54pm

19. It seems Mr. Bush thinks he is the President of the United Corporations of America, not the people of America.

    Posted by OMACHOOMAR 10/23/2007 @ 7:40pm

    What happens when the one major newspaper in a given area is stacked, editorially, with more big govt/public sector advocates, and spouses of govt. officials?

    Would govt. oversight act as a "check and balance" in that case?

    Last I checked, it wasn't Bush or the Republican party that was taking in more corporate money from donors.

    Posted by Sliver at 10/23/2007 @ 9:56pm