In a meeting last week with legal advisers to FCC Comrs. Copps and Adelstein, representatives of the Newspaper Guild/CWA asked that any modification of broadcast media ownership that would allow common ownership of a newspaper and a TV station or duopolies should include a requirement that commonly owned outlets maintain separate newsrooms. The representatives cited the terms of joint operating agreements, which allow newspapers to save money through common production processes but maintain separate newsrooms. At the meeting were Linda Foley, vp-Newspaper Guild/CWA, and Debbie Goldman of CWA. They gave the advisers a copy of a resolution adopted by the AFL-CIO last month that called media monopolies “a threat to American democracy.” In the resolution, the AFL-CIO urged the Commission to retain the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule, as well as rules on local TV, dual networks and national audience caps.
Notable CROSS rulings
Media General filed a motion to bifurcate and repeal the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership ban that’s part of the package of broadcast ownership rules up for review at the FCC. Even though the Commission is expected to act on the rules in the spring, Media General sought expeditious action, saying the ban restricted the activities of an industry that was outside the FCC’s jurisdiction -- newspapers. The filing noted that the rule had not been modified since 1975. The company worried that the omnibus rulemaking could become stalled, hindering the efforts of newspapers and broadcasters to “to provide new and innovative information services.”
Canada’s foreign ownership limits for both telco and broadcasting. should be lifted, Canadian MP Andy Savoy said in an interview Fri. Savoy is a member of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. For the last 5 weeks, the committee has been reviewing the effective 47% foreign ownership limit in telecom and its effect on the industry’s access to capital and innovation (CD Feb 27 p11).
MERIDITH, N.H. -- Any possible FCC rulemaking mandating broadcast flag technology won’t alter copyright law, FCC Media Bureau Chief Kenneth Ferree told the New England Cable & Telecom Assn. (NECTA) Fri. “As I learn more about copyright law, I'm not sure anything the FCC does could have any effect on copyright law,” he said, still smarting from a grilling at the House Judiciary Courts, Internet & Intellectual Property Subcommittee last week (CD March 7 p1).
After presentation by Parents TV Council (PTC) Co- founder Brent Bozell in which he equated sex, violence and indecency on TV with concentration of media ownership, Comrs. Powell and Abernathy questioned Commission’s ability to regulate public’s tastes and popularity of TV shows. Exchange came in FCC’s day-long, en banc hearing in Richmond, Va., Thurs.
Media ownership bill introduced by House Commerce Consumer Protection Subcommittee Chmn. Stearns (R-Fla.) would raise ownership cap on multiple TV broadcast stations to 45% of national audience reach. Measure also would modify current law by eliminating newspaper and broadcast cross- ownership restrictions. Bill would remove restrictions on cross-ownership of broadcast station and cable system serving same community. It was unclear how that provision fit with FCC action Wed. to repeal cable/broadcast cross-ownership rule (CD Feb 27 p5). “The cable-broadcast cross-ownership rule was enacted in 1970 and had outlived its usefulness,” said Daniel Brenner, NCTA senior vp-law & regulatory policy. “As a practical matter, repeal of the rule will have little impact on the cable industry because it was previously struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals, and MSOs have expressed little interest in acquiring broadcast stations in markets which they serve.” Also in hearing, FCC Chmn. Powell said he had instructed agency’s economists to develop economic model to evaluate local media mergers.
FCC officially repealed section of its media rules dealing with cross-ownership of cable systems and broadcast TV stations. Comr. Copps said in separate statement that he reluctantly supported order issued Wed. because U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., in Fox TV Stations v. FCC had “left us no option.” But, he said, FCC still should be addressing issue in its biennial review of media ownership rules, which it wasn’t doing.
FCC Comr. Martin said Mon. Commission must provide “greater clarity” to Enhanced 911 rules, calling order issued in response to request by Richardson, Tex., on what constituted valid public safety request for E-911 good start. At National Emergency Number Assn. (NENA) conference in Washington, Martin outlined role of states, including their need to spend E-911 funds on systems for which they were intended. He also said LECs weren’t explicitly covered in wireless E-911 rules, although FCC had made clear they have to facilitate its rollout. “If the LECs do not live up to their obligations, the Commission will pursue more formal action,” he said.
FCC Chmn. Powell’s legal adviser on media issues, Susan Eid, told Precursor Group conference Tues. that reality was that there were unprecedented levels of competition, diversity and choice in broadcast TV market. Prime-time viewing of broadcast has declined more than 30% in last decade because of competition from cable, she said. Cable captures 20% of ad revenue now, she said, and she believes clustering of cable systems will cause that industry to “compete much more aggressively and, frankly, effectively” with local broadcasters in terms of local content and advertising.
In vast sea of reply comments in FCC’s media ownership proceeding, NAB said record in proceeding didn’t provide clear empirical evidence that Commission must have to meet burden of establishing that existing broadcast ownership restrictions continued to serve public interest. NAB criticized those seeking to retain rules, saying they had “engaged in a lengthy jeremiad against the perceived failings of commercial media markets, all consolidation in those markets, and the alleged evils of profit-maximizing media conglomerates.” Assn. said they failed to connect their comments with actual harms and “virtually ignored” changes in media marketplace in recent years. By contrast, NAB said, commenters seeking reform had made “a convincing case for change,” showing in particular that TV duopoly rule and newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban had outlived their usefulness and kept some local broadcasters from being competitive. Clear Channel Communications said empirical data in record “demonstrate that any concern regarding diversity is misplaced in light of the ever-expanding array of media choices available to local consumers and by the increasing variety of radio station formats that has occurred as a direct result of consolidation of radio ownership.” Clear Channel said FCC couldn’t justify retaining existing local radio restrictions, but if it must, should form unified local rule. It argued against use of Arbitron standard to define local radio markets and said under any new rule FCC must fully grandfather and allow free transferability of radio station combinations in existence at time of any rule change. Gannett said record “overwhelmingly supports” repeal of newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule. Many arguments in favor of preserving rule rely on anecdotes and presume that consolidation results in less news offerings, without any real evidence to back them up, Gannett said. Sinclair told FCC others had mischaracterized its NewsCentral initiative. NewsCentral won’t adversely impact local news operations and in fact, will increase quantity and quality of local news, Sinclair said. In arguing for retention of newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban, Conn. State Attorney Gen. Richard Blumenthal noted that Conn. had 18 daily newspapers and majority of them, including those with largest circulation, were owned by companies with hq in other states. He also said that since 1996 Telecom Act there had been “unprecedented” consolidation. In one year alone, 9 Conn. TV stations changed hands, 5 of them sold to large group media owners, he said: “Enough is enough. The Commission must preserve the public’s First Amendment right to a true diversity of voices and viewpoints.” Newspaper Assn. of America (NAA) called newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban “a regulatory relic no longer relevant in this communications age.” Coalition for Program Diversity (CPD), which includes Directors Guild of America, Mediacom and Sony Pictures TV, said it had demonstrated that Big 4 networks “collectively exercise a diversity-chilling stranglehold” over prime-time TV programming and had “savaged” once-robust independent producer community. Those who argue Internet is adequate substitute are wrong, CPD said, and its owns proposed 25% independent producer rule was “a modest, easy-to-apply, yet vital, carve-out that will ensure that the American public will have access to diverse nonnetwork-owned programming at least 25% of the time.” Center for the Creative Community (CCC), which includes actress Sissy Spacek and several acclaimed writers, directors and producers, said FCC’s own research showed network takeovers of program production had resulted in “bland” and “homogenized” programming. Minority Media & Telecom Council (MMTC) said it had come up with Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) for diversity, formula taking into account consumer welfare, number of programs, sources of programs. MMTC also endorsed joint operating agreements in place of TV duopoly rule, floated concept for “diversity credits,” modeled on EPA’s pollution credits concept, and called for repeal of “unwieldy” biennial reviews. More than 3,000 comments in proceeding were listed on FCC’s Electronic Comment Filing System as of Mon. afternoon.