GR EXTRA!

FCC continues media ownership inquiry

But not everyone is convinced any of it matters

Andy Zipser, Editor

03 Nov 2009

The Guild Reporter

Suppose the Federal Communications Commission held a workshop to discuss media ownership rules -- and the media didn't bother to attend. Would the meeting have occurred?

That question seemed to weigh on FCC Commissioner Michael Copps today, as he opened the second of three workshops exploring questions of how -- and whether -- the commission can encourage greater media localism and diversity. "Unfortunately, the event was poorly covered by the media and didn't get the coverage it merited," he said of Monday's session, adding: "This is not the first time this has happened with this important issue, but it was disappointing just the same."

Ironically, then, the day's first speaker promptly chimed in by expressing his belief that "at the end of the day all this will be a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing."  While Copps in his opening remarks contended that the "tide of media consolidation" will return once the economy has recovered, Ken Ferree of the libertarian Progress and Freedom Foundation wasn't having any of it.

"I don't think anybody particularly cares any more what the FCC does about media ownership," Ferree said, insisting that no one is interested these days in acquiring mass media outlets. Broadcast is "an increasingly insignificant player," while newspapers have been in "steep decline since 1980." "In short," he said, "the age of media consolidation seems to be past and we're now in an age of media fragmentation."

Unfortunately, Ferree's insistence on that point undercut his subsequent exhortation that the FCC should remove its remaining "shackles" on media ownership: why fret about rules designed to prevent something that supposedly isn't happening, anyway? The morning's four other panelists, on the other hand, uniformly agreed that further media consolidation is more than likely, that it threatens the diversity of views essential to a democracy and that it's up to the FCC to play a role in preserving quality journalism.

Andrew Schwartzman. of the Media Access Project, argued that while it's impossible to determine at this time whether the decline in media advertising revenue is merely cyclical or a long-term secular shift, there remains no question that newspaper and television remain profitable enterprises. "It's not the commission's concern that some of these companies are suffering from massive over-investment at inflated prices, and it's not the commission's job to prop up entities that are suffering because of Wall Street's demands,"  he said.

"Operating profit margins are still quite healthy," echoed S. Derek Turner of Free Press,  agreeing that the FCC's job "is not to prop up a business model."

What is the FCC's job, most of the panelists agreed, is to understand what's going on in the marketplace; to adopt structural regulations to encourage desired social outcomes, such as civic engagement and voter turnout; and to enforce the regulations it does adopt. But on each of those three measures, they generally agreed, the FCC has fallen short.

Picking up on a common criticism voiced at Monday's workshop, for example, several panelists complained about the FCC's poor data collection and database management. Moreover, said Kristin Thomas of the Future of Music Coalition, much of the FCC's data is provided by outside, proprietary vendors, putting it out of the financial reach of  public interest groups wishing to analyze it. And even when such groups are able to pay for the data, it comes with non-disclosure caveats that limit researchers' ability to share their findings.

Meanwhile, the FCC has been a notoriously blind cop on the beat, ignoring its own rules as media companies push up against the limits -- and then some. Picking up on a statement by Copps that referred to "sloppy government oversight,"  Cheryl A. Leanza of the United Church of Christ said the commission's willingness to grant waivers to companies violating the rules is "a volcano that could explode." As problematic, she added, is the growing adoption of shared service agreements, which amount to an end-run around ownership limitations while preserving a fiction of diverse editorial voices.

While the first two workshops largely viewed the mass media as a public good, and therefore deserving of more active FCC protection, tomorrow's session may be expected to articulate more of the property rights concerns animating Ken Ferree's remarks today, and those of a former FCC commissioner yesterday. Scheduled to speak are Jane Mago, of the National Association of Broadcasters; George Mahoney, of Media General; and James L. Winston, of the National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters.

The session will start at 9 a.m. and may be followed live at www.fcc.gov/live.