Letter to the Senate Urging Support of S.J. Res. 17, Disapproving the Rule Submitted by the Federal Communications Commission with Respect to Broadcast Media Ownership

Dear Senator:

We urge you to vote in favor of S. J. Res. 17, disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission with respect to broadcast media ownership when it comes to the floor of the Senate. Since 1996, there has been a rush to consolidate, at the expense of diversity of opinion and diversity of media ownership. Relaxing those rules, as the FCC did on June 2, further weakens the ability of minorities to enter the marketplace, and will lead to fewer voices being heard. The resolution disapproving the rule would return the ownership rules to the pre-June 2 levels, and avoid further media consolidation.[1]

On June 2, 2003, the FCC changed several rules regarding ownership of the media, as outlined below[2]:

National TV ownership:

Rule prior to June 2: A company could own local TV stations that in total can reach up to 35% of the national TV audience.

Change: Audience cap rose to 45%. A provision favoring UHF stations (those above channel 13) by counting just half their potential audience toward the cap was preserved.

Local TV ownership:

Rule prior to June 2: A broadcaster could own two TV stations in the same market if only one was in the top four and if eight other independently owned stations remained after the merger – effectively limiting “”duopolies”” to big cities.

Change: A broadcaster may own two TV stations in a market if only one is in the top four and there are six independent stations before the merger – permitting duopolies is midsize markets. Ownership of three stations will be allowed in a handful of top markets, such as New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, where there are 18 stations pre-merger.

Multiple media ownership:

Two rules prior to June 2: A company could not own a newspaper and TV or radio station in the same market. Separately, a broadcaster could own a TV station and up to seven radio stations if 20 independent media voices remained post-merger.

Change: The two rules are now combined. Companies will be allowed to own a TV station and a newspaper in any market with four or more TV stations – the majority of U.S. markets. In larger markets with more than eight stations, any combination of newspaper, TV and radio stations will be allowed (subject to limits imposed by the other rules). In mid-tier markets, with four to eight TV stations, combinations will be limited. For example, a company owning two TV stations could not buy the local newspaper.

Radio ownership:

Rule prior to June 2: A broadcaster could own five radio stations in a market with fewer than 14 radio stations and as many as eight in a market with 45 stations.

Change: Caps will be maintained. However, the FCC is expected to redraw the boundaries of some markets to prevent situations that have let some broadcasters own most or all the radio stations serving some small towns. Where this exists now, current ownership may continue, but the owner may not sell them as a package unless the buyer is a small business.

What has happened in the radio industry as the ownership rules were relaxed is instructive. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 greatly relaxed national radio ownership caps. As a result, Clear Channel has become the 800 lb. gorilla in the radio market. Jeff Perlstein, Executive Director of the Media Alliance, described how Clear Channel has homogenized the airwaves: “”Far from fostering a diversity of voices, Clear Channel’s monopolistic mode of operation is accelerating the homogenization of programming on our airwaves. The company syndicates both Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Laura to hundreds of stations nationwide, shuts out independent artists who can’t afford to go through high-priced middlemen, and is responsible for taking the practice of voice tracking to new heights (or depths, depending on your perspective).””[3] Accusations have been made that Clear Channel “”has illegally used its dominance in radio to help secure control of the nation’s live entertainment business. Several cities, including Denver and Cincinnati, have accused radio station managers of threatening to withdraw certain music from rotation if the artists do not perform at a Clear Channel venue. This tactic, “”negative synergy””, has allegedly been used to pressure record companies into buying radio advertising spots in cities where they want to book concert venues.””[4] Thus, relaxing the ownership rules for radio appears to have done little to foster diversity of opinion.

Even with the media ownership rules in place prior to June 2, consolidation in television was occurring. Today, five powerful media companies (AOL Time-Warner, Disney, Viacom, General Electric, and News Corporation) control nearly 90% of the media outlets that Americans watch.

In an interview with Bill Moyers, Barry Diller, a self-described “”contrarian”” and the man who created Fox Broadcasting and ran some of the world’s media giants such as ABC Entertainment, Paramount, and Vivendi Universal, spoke out against media consolidation. (See the interview at: http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_diller.html) As Mr. Diller noted, it would be almost impossible today for a Ted Turner to start an independent network and provide a different voice.

The recent war with Iraq also demonstrated the problems of media concentration and lack of diversity of opinion: most of the war coverage was cheerleading for the war. Americans who wanted more balanced or different coverage turned to Al-Jazeera or the BBC.

Minority ownership of mass media has likewise suffered with increasing consolidation. While the minority population is growing, minority ownership of television stations dropped 14% since the 1996 Telecommunications Act. People of color represent less than 4% of radio and television station owners. Latinos (the fastest growing minority in the country) own less than 2% of radio and less than 0.1% of television stations.[5] Greater consolidation is only likely to make the situation worse.

To allow more media concentration would be counterproductive to maintaining any sort of diversity that currently exists. Television, newspapers, and radio comprise 90% of the public’s source of all news. TV, newspapers, and radio dominate as local news sources (91%). Few cable viewers get their local news from local cable channels and for the small percentage of those using the Internet for local news, TV-affiliated web sites dominate. The Internet has thus far not proven to be significant competition to media conglomerates.

An informed citizenry is the backbone of any democracy. Where all the media voices speak as one, however, there is little diversity of opinion and the citizenry is deprived of varying viewpoints. Allowing greater media concentration will keep new voices from entering the market, and result in more homogenous news and entertainment. As noted above, the rules in existence prior to June 2 were leading to more consolidation. While S.J. Res. 17 will only return the marketplace to its pre-June 2 levels, it at least prevents further consolidation, further erosion of minority ownership, and further diminution of opinion. For these reasons, we urge you to vote in favor of the resolution.

Sincerely,

Laura W.Murphy
Director

Marvin Johnson
Legislative Counsel

[1] Resolutions of Disapproval are authorized pursuant to 16 U.S.C. §470w-6.

[2] http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2003-06-01-ownership-rule-changes_x.htm

[3] See http://www.media-alliance.org/mediafile/21-4/clearchannel.html. The article describes voice-tracking this way: “”As documented in Bill Moyers’ televised report last spring, voice tracking is the practice of creating brief, computer-assisted voice segments that attempt to fool the listener into thinking that a program is locally produced, when in fact the same content is being broadcast to upwards of 75 stations nationwide from a central site. So you have one overworked ‘radio personality’ recording the phrases, “”Hello Topeka!”” “”Hi Springfield!”” “”How you feeling Oakland?”” all day long.”” While the radio show appears to be locally produced, it is just an illusion.

[4] Id.

[5] Statistics obtained from the Leadership Conference for Civil Rights and its testimony before the Federal Communications Commission.