|
Volume CXXXIII, Number 2 |
 |
FCC needs to reprioritize
BEN KREIDER
CONTRIBUTOR
On Tuesday the Senate courageously passed a resolution repealing new rules proposed by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC). Much to the chagrin of the White House, a 55-40 vote indicated widespread disapproval of regulations that would result in even further media consolidation. Now it is up to the House and the White House to make the right move by allowing the resolution to become a law.
The resolution would overturn rules that allow a company to own both a television station and a newspaper in the same market. New regulations would also increase the share of the nationwide market that a network can legally control from 35 to 45 percent.
A strong bipartisan coalition sent a clear message to FCC Chairman Michael Powell, son of Secretary of State Colin Powell. The congressional backlash was a welcome event for lobbying groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and MoveOn.org, which have been rallying for months against the FCC.
Predictably, the immense opposition to deregulation angered Powell. In a July 28 op-ed piece in The New York Times, he pointed out that most top sports programming has already moved to cable and satellite. In addition, cable's market share beat out network TV for the first time in history this year. Powell claims that networks will be able to compete better if they can reach a higher percentage of the market.
In the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call, he said the resolution was "bordering on the absurd." In a public statement following the vote, Powell said the resolution's results would not be in the public interest. "What is most important is to have the best policies for the American people," said Powell. "I hope the House will take a more considered view of the public interest."
Let's consider his words for a moment. Powell thinks Congress's actions are absurd and against the public interest? He must be quite out of touch with the common man if he believes it will benefit the average citizen for corporate behemoths to further line their pockets.
In a recent CNN poll, 96 percent of respondents believed there was already too much media consolidation. The FCC recently received over 700,000 public comments regarding the matter, over 99 percent of which oppose the rules. The public has been very clear about its opinion.
Powell's claims that the rules would help network TV to compete could be true, but they ignore the negative effects of media deregulation. And cable TV is not exactly consumer-friendly. A study by the Center for Public Integrity showed that AOL Time Warner, Viacom, and Disney control 12 out of the top 20 cable networks. Since 1996, cable rates have risen 40 percent.
Further media consolidation would lead to less competition and diversity in a world already dominated by a handful of media companies. Clear Channel has purchased over 1,400 stations since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 eliminated caps on the number of stations a company could own.
As anyone who regularly listens to radio knows, this leads to stations that almost exclusively play pop put out by major record labels. It is nearly impossible for independent artists, who cannot afford costly middlemen, to get mainstream airplay.
Greater media consolidation would hinder free speech by leading to less diversity in both opinions and ownership. Marvin Johnson, an ACLU Legislative Counsel, explained: "To have one company providing all of the information in one market diminishes one of the greatest aspects of America - a free and open dialogue among the informed citizenry on the issues at hand."
During the war in Iraq, many Americans grew frustrated with the overwhelmingly pro-war coverage of U.S. networks. In response, many viewers turned to such outlets as the BBC to obtain more balanced reporting.
The rules would not only make it harder to hear different viewpoints, but they would also make it difficult for new voices to emerge. An individual such as Ted Turner would find it difficult to start an independent network in this environment.
The FCC is not acting in the public interest. The White House must not
go through with its threatened veto, and the House must follow the example
set by the Senate. If they do not, they may allow media monopolies to
jeopardize the free exchange of ideas that is the very essence of our
democracy.
|
FastCounter by bCentral |