FCC media ownership debate getting snarly - Lasar's Letter on the FCC (LLFCC)

by Matthew Lasar Mar 25 2007 - 9:06pm Media Ownership

Judging from the latest filed comments, the gloves have come off on the Federal Communications Commission's media ownership proceeding.

"Every FCC member voting for media consolidation should be fired and removed for cause immediately," begins one recent submission from an attorney in Chappaqua, New York.

"GO TO HELL," the message concludes.

It has been over five years since the FCC issued its Third Biennial Review of its broadcast ownership rules, limits on how many radio, TV stations, and newspapers a single entity can own in the United States. After a long, tumultuous debate, the FCC in 2003 issued an Order relaxing many of those rules, only to see the decision struck down by the courts a year later.

Now a new proceeding on the same issue has passed its seventh month. Hearings have been held across the country, with more in the offing. New studies on the problem have been promised, with controversies over suppressed studies still raging.

Not surprisingly, public patience has worn a bit thin.

"I beseech you to roll back all media ownership rules to pre-1996 levels," concludes another missive. " . . . Anything else, is criminal conduct and would only be engaged in by criminally perverted minds that lust after profits over our once grand democracy."

The pathology angle seems to be popular among filed remarks.

"How can you look yourself in the mirror and say that a few corporations can control what everyone hears?" asks a filer. "That IS what you want. Why? [Former FCC Chair] Michael Powell was a sick, heartless man. Don't follow in his footsteps."

On the other hand, some submissions take the opposite approach, sending present FCC Chair Kevin Martin Valentines Day messages.

"Will you be our Valentine?" these comments begin "We're sending you this Valentine's Day card with the hope that you will put the public's interests before those of Big Media and their lawyers and lobbyists."

Fat chance, suggests a minister from Gettysburg, Pennsylvania who attended the FCC's latest media ownership forum, held at Harrisburg. Her comments expressed outrage that three of the FCC's Commissioners—Republicans Martin, McDowell, and Tate—left before the public comment section of the event began.

"I shall never forget your obvious and shameful play for news coverage through this hearing and how the news media made you all appear to be dedicated to the public voice," the filer writes. "Yet, I will always know the truth of the matter. You listened to the representatives of corporate news - and 'blew off' the public as soon as you had an opportunity to run from the hearing!"

Another commenter from the area submitted a similar complaint.

"It was frustrating that some commissioners missed the best comments by concerned citizens because so much time was wasted praising the media for its support of non-profits, which doesn't seem to be related to consolidation," she observed.

Some commissioners have won praise in recent comments. A young multimedia company owner thanked Democrat Michael Copps for his talk at the recent Media Reform conference in Memphis, but decried the lack of partnership opportunities for minority entrepreneurs.

"How can we work together to change this situation?" she asked. "I've appealed to CTIA [a cell phone trade group] and others for even diversity of speakers at the conventions and can't even get that, and today is where it stops for me and my multimedia company. I'm fed up as a Black, female ivy league grad. What do you have to do? Stand on your head?"

These remarks show impatience with a telecommunications stalemate that shows no sign of ending. Even when the FCC has concluded all its promised hearings, and published all its promised studies, the deeply divided Commission will still have to face a skeptical Congress, controlled, at least at this point, by Democrats.

Meanwhile the overwhelming majority of citizen commenters consistently oppose any and all proposals to relax media ownership rules. They wonder why their nearly unanimous voice has not settled the matter.

"You have a lot of power and responsibility in your job," writes a resident of Seattle, Washington. "It would be good to see you do the right thing and truly act in the interest of all citizens, not just a handful of individuals who control a lot of capital."

ARunnymeade Mar 28 2007 - 9:05am

The complaints about the Harrisburg media ownership hearing are off base, and mostly untrue. Broadcasters are tired of being bashed at these hearings. For Harrisburg, they simply responded by asking local leaders to step forward, and defend the role of broadcasters in the community. It's remarkable how quickly these professional protesters -- self-proclaimed media activists -- will turn on anyone that does not support their position. The people that spoke at the meeting were the public. They weren't hired by broadcasters. They weren't promised anything in return for their support. It just so happened that in Harrisburg, broadcasters have a lot of support. Unfortunately for groups like Free Press and Prometheus, which, thus far, have had free reign to spew anything and everything , including blatant untruths, at these media ownership hearings, Harrisburg didn't follow their carefully planned script. And it's stunning to see how quickly their rhetoric turned vile in response. It's also reflective of their real position. They pretend that they want a free and open discussion in media. When, in fact, they merely want to hear more of what they already believe.

Also, in defense of the Commission, Martin, Tate and McDowell did sit through the public comments - four hours of public comment. And they heard plenty of comments from both sides of the issue. They left when the theater pushed them out so they could set up for a community play beginning that night. There were only a handful of commenters remaining, and all of their comments were made part of the public record.