posted 05-27-2003 02:05 AM            

FCC set to pave way for media monopolies

by Compiled by Shane Perlow
Friday May 23, 2003 at 02:59 PM

Original article is at http://chapelhill.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/5382.php

May 20 (AGR)-- Cheered on by the Bush Administration and powerful media conglomerates, Federal Communications Commission chair Michael Powell is pushing ahead with a June 2 vote to gut longstanding rules designed to prevent the growth of media monopolies. If successful, Powell's push could, in the words of dissident commissioner Michael Copps, "dramatically [alter] our nation's media landscape without the kind of debate and analysis that these issues clearly merit." Copps and the other Democratic commissioner, Jonathan Adelstein, have asked for a thirty-day delay in the vote, but Powell has the upper hand--he and two other Republican commissioners form a majority on the five-member FCC and they are moving ahead.

The final six regulations that prevent media concentration that will be eliminated altogether under the current proposal include restrictions on the number of TV stations a single company may own, as well as a prohibition on owning newspapers and TV stations in the same community. The FCC is under tremendous pressure from corporate lobbyists to remove the rules so firms can get bigger and bigger and have more and more monopoly power, translating into less risk and more profit for them. Powell’s decision to force a vote on rule changes that have not been broadly debated or analyzed has provoked a fierce response from the widest coalition of critics ever to weigh in on an FCC rule-making decision.

Powell's contempt for public opinion, evidenced by his scheduling of only one official hearing on the proposed rule changes, is so great that he refused invitations to nine semiofficial hearings at which other commissioners were present. The hearings drew thousands of citizens and close to universal condemnation of the rule changes. Powell has said he has no interest in attending any more public hearings. He wants to restrict his input to corporate lobbyists.

Lowry Mays, CEO of Clear Channel, a company that owns 1,233 radio stations and dominates radio broadcasting in many of the largest markets of the United States, recently let slip that he has no interest in the public interest—or producing radio that serves it. “We’re not in the business of providing news and information,” he told Fortune magazine. “We’re not in the business of providing well-researched music. We’re simply in the business of selling our customers products.” Clear Channel got big because, with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the US Congress rewrote the rules governing who could own what in the media landscape. That rewrite eliminated limits on the number of radio stations that could be owned by one corporation, and Clear Channel’s portfolio leapt from barely 40 stations in 1995 to more than 1,200 today. If the FCC votes for further deregulation on June 2, Clear Channel and companies like it are going to get a whole lot bigger.

The lobbyists are now working overtime. According to the Center for Public Integrity, the 50 largest media companies spent $111.3 million to influence Congress and the executive branch between 1996 and 2000, paying for 1,460 all-expense-paid trips for FCC bureaucrats and 315 junkets by members of Congress and their staff. The media conglomerates make no secret of the fact that they share Clear Channel’s values. “There’s no longer any public-interest need served by the Commission’s ownership rules,” argued Viacom (CBS) Fox and NBC/Telemundo in their call for elimination of the ownership rules.

An examination of roughly half the 18,000 public statements filed electronically with the FCC show that 97 percent of them oppose permitting more media concentration. Even media moguls Barry Diller and Ted Turner have raised objections, with Turner complaining, "There's really five companies that control 90 percent of what we read, see and hear. It's not healthy."

Local governments are also getting involved; the Chicago City Council urged rejection of the proposed changes in a resolution that declared: "Unchecked media consolidation benefits a small number of corporate interests at the expense of the public interest." Noting that the consolidation of radio ownership that followed passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act has proven disastrous for pop music, journalism and local communities, Bonnie Raitt, Billy Joel, Don Henley, Patti Smith, Pearl Jam and other musicians signed a letter telling Powell they were "extremely concerned as American citizens that increased concentration of media ownership will have a negative impact on access to diverse viewpoints and will impede the functioning of our democracy."

Nearly 300 academics signed a letter to the FCC protesting Powell's refusal to allow an evaluation of the "research" he has talked of using to justify relaxing the media ownership rules. The national associations of Hispanic and black journalists called on the FCC to delay action until more study of threats to diversity could be completed. Leaders of the AFL-CIO, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Consumer Federation of America and many other groups argued that Powell had not allowed enough time to analyze the potential damage to democracy.

"This is giving control of the news and flow of information to a handful of media giants," said Aidan White, General Secretary of The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), an organization that represents more than 500,000 journalists in more than 100 countries. "It is a process that will diminish the diversity of ideas and opinions and will marginalize minority opinions and dissent."

The IFJ says media concentration rules need to be tightened, not relaxed, and cites a worrying trend of conglomerates exercising editorial control over media services at the expense of journalistic independence. "The FCC is supposed to regulate the airwaves in the public interest," said White, "but handing over the jewels of a nation's information and cultural heritage to huge corporations will not satisfy the public need for diverse media sources. This is simply politicians delivering glittering prizes to their friends in the media."

To replace the locally owned newspapers and broadcast outlets that would be gobbled up in a new wave of consolidation, the conglomerates suggest that citizens could still get information about what is going on in their hometowns through “interpersonal communication”—that is, talking to one another.

Source: International Federation of Journalists, Associated Press, The Nation, Adbusters

posted 05-27-2003 02:30 AM            

IFJ Says United States Media Plan "A Dangerous Shift of Power at the Expense of Democracy"

The International Federation of Journalists today called on regulators to "come clean and give full disclosure" over plans to allow the some of the world's largest media groups to tighten their grip on the world's largest media market in the United States.

Michael Powell, chairman of the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC), has proposed changes in media ownership rules that signal a "new and dangerous shift of media power at the expense of pluralism and democracy" warned the IFJ. The IFJ says that there should be full public disclosure of the plans, which are being kept confidential in advance of an FCC vote on June 2.

Under the proposal, it is reported that two existing cross-ownership rules, one that prevents a company from owning a newspaper and a broadcast station in the same city and another involving radio and TV station ownership in a market, would be combined to create a single rule, but most existing restrictions would disappear.

Other changes will allow media companies the right to hold up to 45 per cent of the national television audience - an increase of 10 per cent over the existing limit - while the rule that limits TV station ownership will be altered so a company can own two TV stations in more markets and three in larger cities like New York and Los Angeles.

"This is giving control the news and flow of information to a handful of media giants," said Aidan White, IFJ General Secretary, "It is a process that will diminish the diversity of ideas and opinions and will marginalize minority opinions and dissent."

The IFJ says media concentration rules need to be tightened, not relaxed and cites a worrying trend of conglomerates exercising editorial control over media services at the expense of journalistic independence:

* In Canada the IFJ and media unions have protested over a "one-size fits all" editorial policy imposed on editors by the company CanWest, which owns a network of newspapers and televisions outlets across the country.

* In Italy the conflict of interest of media magnate Silvio Berlusconi who combines his role as Prime Minister with control of most of the country's television networks has caused widespread consternation.

* And in a media network that stretches over five continents, News Corporation chief Rupert Murdoch (who owns Fox Network, one of the prime beneficiaries of FCC changes) has a notorious history of editorial interference, most recently in his support for the US and British line in the Iraq war, a line slavishly followed by his entire network of more than 150 media outlets.

"The FCC is supposed to regulate the airwaves in the public interest," said White, "But handing over the jewels of a nation's information and cultural heritage to huge corporations will not satisfy the public need for diverse media sources. This is simply politicians delivering glittering prizes to their friends in the media."

"Democracy depends upon the capacity of many voices to be heard," says the IFJ, "and the FCC will stifle the expression of different opinions by bowing to industry pressure for change which has its roots in commercial advantage not quality programming."

The IFJ says that the opposition to changes in ownership rules has been particularly strong among media and journalists' trade unions, including the IFJ's affiliates The Newspaper Guild-CWA, the American Federation of Radio and Television Artists (AFTRA), the National Writers' Union and The Writers Guild (East).

"The anger of media staff is well-founded," said White. "They see a massive lobby for change by many big media companies, without the public being properly engaged in the debate. At the same time, the unions are aware that easing media ownership rules often leads to a deplorable decline in professionalism, working conditions and media quality."

On June 2, the FCC's five commissioners will vote on the proposals. The Republican members say that existing rules are obsolete with the emergence of cable and satellite television and the Internet, but the Commission's two Democrats say Michael Powell is rushing through an important process that needs more public comment.

"This process is flawed and dangerous for democracy," said Aidan White. "The role of media as watchdogs is weakened when dominant newspapers merge with major TV stations, and the public need to be brought into the picture before the voting starts."

posted 05-27-2003 02:36 AM            

IFJ Says United States Media Plan "A Dangerous Shift of Power at the Expense of Democracy"

The International Federation of Journalists today called on regulators to "come clean and give full disclosure" over plans to allow the some of the world's largest media groups to tighten their grip on the world's largest media market in the United States.

Michael Powell, chairman of the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC), has proposed changes in media ownership rules that signal a "new and dangerous shift of media power at the expense of pluralism and democracy" warned the IFJ. The IFJ says that there should be full public disclosure of the plans, which are being kept confidential in advance of an FCC vote on June 2.

Under the proposal, it is reported that two existing cross-ownership rules, one that prevents a company from owning a newspaper and a broadcast station in the same city and another involving radio and TV station ownership in a market, would be combined to create a single rule, but most existing restrictions would disappear.

Other changes will allow media companies the right to hold up to 45 per cent of the national television audience - an increase of 10 per cent over the existing limit - while the rule that limits TV station ownership will be altered so a company can own two TV stations in more markets and three in larger cities like New York and Los Angeles.

"This is giving control the news and flow of information to a handful of media giants," said Aidan White, IFJ General Secretary, "It is a process that will diminish the diversity of ideas and opinions and will marginalize minority opinions and dissent."

The IFJ says media concentration rules need to be tightened, not relaxed and cites a worrying trend of conglomerates exercising editorial control over media services at the expense of journalistic independence:

* In Canada the IFJ and media unions have protested over a "one-size fits all" editorial policy imposed on editors by the company CanWest, which owns a network of newspapers and televisions outlets across the country.

* In Italy the conflict of interest of media magnate Silvio Berlusconi who combines his role as Prime Minister with control of most of the country's television networks has caused widespread consternation.

* And in a media network that stretches over five continents, News Corporation chief Rupert Murdoch (who owns Fox Network, one of the prime beneficiaries of FCC changes) has a notorious history of editorial interference, most recently in his support for the US and British line in the Iraq war, a line slavishly followed by his entire network of more than 150 media outlets.

"The FCC is supposed to regulate the airwaves in the public interest," said White, "But handing over the jewels of a nation's information and cultural heritage to huge corporations will not satisfy the public need for diverse media sources. This is simply politicians delivering glittering prizes to their friends in the media."

"Democracy depends upon the capacity of many voices to be heard," says the IFJ, "and the FCC will stifle the expression of different opinions by bowing to industry pressure for change which has its roots in commercial advantage not quality programming."

The IFJ says that the opposition to changes in ownership rules has been particularly strong among media and journalists' trade unions, including the IFJ's affiliates The Newspaper Guild-CWA, the American Federation of Radio and Television Artists (AFTRA), the National Writers' Union and The Writers Guild (East).

"The anger of media staff is well-founded," said White. "They see a massive lobby for change by many big media companies, without the public being properly engaged in the debate. At the same time, the unions are aware that easing media ownership rules often leads to a deplorable decline in professionalism, working conditions and media quality."

On June 2, the FCC's five commissioners will vote on the proposals. The Republican members say that existing rules are obsolete with the emergence of cable and satellite television and the Internet, but the Commission's two Democrats say Michael Powell is rushing through an important process that needs more public comment.

"This process is flawed and dangerous for democracy," said Aidan White. "The role of media as watchdogs is weakened when dominant newspapers merge with major TV stations, and the public need to be brought into the picture before the voting starts."

posted 05-27-2003 02:46 AM            

man I agree with that...another *goody* from the clinton administration....

posted 05-28-2003 04:17 PM            

The Media Companies' FCC Wishlist

by Jeffrey Chester
From Alternet.org website
March 18, 2003

With war looming on the horizon, the U.S. news media are already moving to wall-to-wall coverage of the conflict. But even as the outlets report on the war, their corporate bosses are seeking political favors from the Bush administration -- and the media executives know it.

The Big Four TV networks, other large broadcasting companies, and most major newspaper chains are currently lobbying the Bush-dominated Federal Communications Commission for new policies designed to promote their corporate interests. They want to end critical rules that limit the number of outlets a single company can control, both at the local and national level. These media giants stand to make untold billions of dollars in profits if the FCC safeguards are eliminated or weakened.

While the absence of critical analysis, including dissenting voices, on TV news programs, for example, can be attributed to the narrow, commercial mind-set of the U.S. media, viewers and readers should also be aware that these news organizations also have a serious conflict of interest what it comes to reporting on the policies of the Bush Administration. News organizations like to claim that their reporting and commentary are independent of the profit-oriented goals of their parent companies. But it is likely that decisions about how to cover the war on Iraq -- especially on television -- may be tempered by a concern not to alienate the White House. More so since the FCC is nearing a late spring ruling that may dramatically change the landscape of media ownership in the United States.

The public deserves to know exactly what the industry is asking for. Here's a thumbnail guide to the lobbying aims by some of the news media's most important companies with regard to the upcoming FCC decision. It doesn't include the many other political favors that the cable and broadcast industry are now seeking, including rules that will determine the future of broadband and the Internet.

Viacom/CBS; NBC/Telemundo; Fox (in partnership): Eliminate "cap" on the number of TV stations a single company can control nationally. End the "dual network" safeguard that prevents one TV network from acquiring another network. End the broadcast-newspaper cross-ownership rule that prevents a broadcaster from owning the major daily in the same market. Finally, remove current limits on local radio station ownership.

Disney/ABC: Eliminate all existing FCC rules on broadcast ownership. Oppose a proposed new policy that would open network prime-time to independent producers.

New York Times Company (includes Boston Globe, and eight TV stations): Eliminate the rule that prevents broadcast and newspaper cross-ownership.

Gannett Company (includes USA Today and 22 TV stations): Eliminate the rule that prevents broadcast and newspaper cross-ownership.

Cox Enterprises (includes the Atlanta Journal Constitution, and a number of TV and radio stations): Repeal the broadcast-newspaper cross-ownership rule. Maintain current limit on TV network station ownership (as opposed to what the four networks want).

Tribune Company (LA Times, Chicago Tribune): Total elimination of the broadcast-newspaper cross-ownership safeguard.

Belo (Dallas Morning News, 19 TV stations): Eliminate the broadcast- newspaper cross-ownership rule, and "relax" the rule that now limits ownership of multiple local TV stations.

Clear Channel Communications: Eliminate local radio ownership limits.

To find out what your local media outlet is asking the Bush administration to do, go to the FCC website and fill in the Proceeding No: 02-277 and then the name of your outlet. Be advised that many companies are represented by their trade association, such as the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) or the Newspaper Association of America (NAA) who are lobbying the FCC on behalf of their members.

The failure of US media to effectively analyze and critique the Iraq war policy of the Administration illustrates why the US needs to drastically restructure its media policies. With the most powerful media outlets in the hands of a few commercially-driven companies, the public is being harrmed. For example, polls show that 42 percent of Americans believe Saddam Hussein was responsible for the September 11th attacks. Clearly, readers and viewers are not receiving a range of information and analysis essential for a healthy and vital democracy. The country urgently needs a plan to create an independent and diverse media system that serves the many rather than the interests of a few.

posted 06-02-2003 11:22 AM            

FCC Loosens Media Ownership Limits

Mon June 2, 2003 11:27 AM ET
By Jeremy Pelofsky
http://www.reuters.com/

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. communications regulators on Monday narrowly approved sweeping new rules that will allow television broadcasters to expand their reach, despite fears about reducing the diversity of viewpoints.

posted 06-02-2003 01:02 PM            

If they start regulating the internet though? I expect to see an all out civil war...

The internet is the last bastion of independent media.

TV and radio has become an elitist dog and pony act, an exclusive club.

posted 06-02-2003 02:55 PM            

you must have faith in the system...

trent's gonna do something...relax...I feel better already...

Senators Confident They Can Reverse TV Network Cap

Reuters
Monday, June 2, 2003; 3:19 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A bipartisan group of U.S. senators opposed to television networks expanding their reach expressed confidence they had the votes to roll back a rule adopted by communications regulators on Monday.

The group said it was pressing ahead with legislation to retain limits keeping a network from owning stations that together reach more than 35 percent of the national audience.

The three Republican members of the Federal Communications Commission voted earlier on Monday against their two Democrat colleagues to raise the limit to 45 percent as part of a wider easing of decades-old media ownership rules.

But Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi told a news conference there was no partisanship in Senate opposition to the new cap.

"A lot of Republicans, in fact, probably most of the Republicans in Congress, would not agree with this decision," said Lott, the former Republican leader of the Senate.

U.S. Senate Commerce Chairman John McCain said on Sunday he opposed the bill to preserve the 35 percent limit and doubted it would pass, but stopped short of saying he would work to block it.

A similar measure in the U.S. House of Representatives has been opposed by Rep. Billy Tauzin, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee which has jurisdiction over the FCC, making passage more difficult.

Lott and Sen. Ernest Hollings from South Carolina, the ranking Democrat on the Commerce Committee, both believed McCain would let them have a vote in the Senate committee.

"I'm convinced, just noodling around, that we can get a majority vote and report that out (of committee) and get some action on the floor of the Senate," Hollings told reporters.

Hollings said it was also possible the measure could be attached to an FCC spending bill, making clear no money was to be expended by the agency on the 45 percent cap rule.

The Senate Commerce Committee has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday on media ownership where all five FCC commissioners are due to testify.