FCC Loosens Media Regulations and Unleashes Fury
By Monali Patel
Winter 2004
Volume 40, Number 1
Activists around DC were more than a little frazzled about the upcoming vote by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to decide if it was time to alter the old media rules and allow for more ownership by one single company.
On May 29, 2003 CODE-PINK, a women's peace activist group led a protest outside the Clear Channel Communications office in DC. Along with about twenty other concerned citizens, they voiced their opinions on the dangers of corporate monopolies. Currently, the media giant Clear Channel owns over 1,200 radio stations and 37 stations, and stations in 247 of the 250 major radio markets. These statistics makes them one of - if not the - largest radio companies. Now we know why the same five songs play on the radio all day. Protestors cried out, "Now does that sound like democracy to you?" Absol-utely not, because when one company owns hundreds of chan-nels, what you are hearing is one voice and one point of view, not a hundred.
Soon after, on June 2, the day the Federal Communications Commission was going to vote on the decision to deregulate, there was a larger protest directly outside DC's FCC headquarters. It was held by Black Voices for Peace and leader Damu Smith started off by talking about the implications of further media monopoly. The chairman of the FCC, Michael Powell pushed for media deregulation, the argu-ment being that old media regu-lations, which prohibited companies from owning both a TV and radio station or newspaper in the same market, are restrictive.
Protestors adamantly rallied against further media deregulation because it will stifle diversity, create monopolies, and weaken the sense of community connection. The goal of the protests was to persuade the FCC to delay their vote. Unfortunately, even with the presence of Reverend Jesse Jackson voicing his stance on the importance of independent media, the FCC voted, three Republicans to two Democrats, to ease rules and allow for more ownership by one company of multiple media outlets. Now, in larger markets such as NYC and LA, a single media company can own a cable system, three TV stations, a major news-paper and eight radio outlets. In addition, the FCC also hiked up to 45% (from 35%), the number of U.S viewers TV stations can reach. This is quite disturbing given that the American media prides itself on being free and assorted.
NAB President-CEO Eddie Fritts said: "The 35% ownership cap has been critically important in preserving the network-affiliate relationship that has made the U.S. system of free over-the-air broad-casting the envy of the world." He added that this rule "has been instrumental in promoting localism and diversity."
Democratic FCC commis-sioner Jonathan Adelstein was also against the regulations and said: "I'm afraid a dark cloud is looming over the future of American media." He revealed that the majority of the 750,000 letters that flooded the commission were in fact opposed to further media mergers. There is no denying then, that there was a blatant disregard for the public opinion on the part of the FCC heads. The excuse that in this age, with the advent of new technology, there is no danger of monopoly, is not comforting because who knows what will happen next? With this new found freedom, more mergers may appear, the small businesses and minority media will have even less of a voice, and eventually, there really could only be a handful of media people controlling what we listen to, read, and watch. Not to mention that the new methods of communication available today, like internet, direct satellite, and cable are not accessible to the majority of American viewers, so the news they receive is limited.
Clear Channel also organ-ized many pro-war rallies and they didn't just stop there. Any singer who spoke a harsh word against war or the government was suddenly never played on the airwaves again. A well known example is the Dixie Chicks who, while on tour in London, made the comment that they were ashamed President Bush hailed from their state of Texas.
But activists have not given up the fight. The Washington Peace Center, Global Exchange, and True Majority, to name a few, were involved in outreach to urge everyone to contact their repre-sentatives before Congress voted on June 19 to possibly overturn the FCC rulings. The Senate Com-merce, Science and Transportation Committee discussed the issue in great length and did, in fact, decide to overturn some of the FCC rulings and reexamine the regulations. The Committee adopted a bill spon-sored by Senators' Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.) that would prevent newspapers from owning tele-vision and radio stations in the same city, halt broadcast networks from buying more television stations at the local and national levels, and force radio companies to divest some of their stations.
Senator Stevens (AK) proposed the amendment allowing cross-ownership in the nation's sixty smallest markets if it would enhance and support local news, as well as promote public interest. The return of the ban on news-paper-television cross-ownership, (in place since 1978), would allow exceptions if a merger was neces-sary to keep small media properties in business. According to the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the FCC was supposed to consult with Congress before making changes in their regulations. As a result of their failure to do so, the bill would also require the FCC to hold at least five public hearings before voting on future ownership changes. The Act also requires the FCC to study the rules every two years and to modify the rules if they are no longer in the public interest. Nowhere does it say that the rules should be modified to fit corporate interests.
In addition, as reported by Stephen Labaton of the New York Times, the legislation reinstated the rule that would prevent the television networks from owning stations reaching more than 35 percent of the nation's households. (The FCC raised that limit to 45 percent.). Taking this into consideration, Chairman of the Commerce Com-mittee, John McCain signed an amendment which may force Clear Channel to sell off some of its 1,250 radio stations. Two networks - CBS, part of Viacom, and Fox, part of the News Corporation - that now own TV stations reaching about 40 percent of households would also have to sell some stations to conform to the 35 percent cap.
There was much oppo-sition regarding the FCC actions. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R- Texas) said she wanted the FCC to start all over and many were in favor of guarding media diversity. Finally, John Nichols, in the most recent edition of The Nation, wrote that Rep. Bernie Sanders (Ver-mont) thought the momentum on behalf of legislation to reverse the FCC is growing. "The Democrats in Congress have started to take these issues a lot more seriously," said Sanders, an advocate for media diversity. Sanders said in recent meetings with his Vermont constituents, the question of whether the FCC changes are reversed rests with the American people. If the level of opposition that has been witnessed in recent weeks is maintained, Sanders says, "If the mail keeps coming, if people keep complaining, members of Congress are going to recognize that they can't hide from this issue."
The matter still has to go through the Senate and then the House. But there is lots of hope, so continue contacting your congress representatives and push for the issue. If the new rulings aren't passed, activists will rally around the FCC headquarters once again, in early August, when the new regulations will be implemented. Media freedom is a cause that needs to be fought for. The airwaves belong to the people, and everyone should demand that this remains so. What we see, hear and read should not and cannot be controlled.
For more information on the FCC, Clear Channel and media deregulation, you can check out:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/02/national/main556441.shtml
http://www.ruminatethis.com/archives/001396.html
http://www.democracynow.org/FCC2.shtml
http://www.commoncause.org
http://www.adage.com/news.cms?newsId=34067
http://www.reclaimthemedia.org
http://www.commondreams.org
