FCC deregulates despite House, public and corporate disapproval Lobbyists and special interests getting kickbacks from government is nothing new in America politics. But what does one think when special interests reject the government’s perceived special treatment? Though rarely seen, it was witnessed after the primarily republican Federal Communication Commission’s restructured media deregulation was approved three to two on June second. The Republican-majority (and deregulation friendly) House of Representatives in D.C. voted to kill the FCC’s decision 400 to 21. It appears that one hand was not happy with the way the other hand was washing up. The central change due to the FCC’s decision, supported fiercely by the White House, allows a single company to own 45% of the nation’s television stations, up from the original 35%. At first supported bicamerally, public disapproval and dissent from organizations from the National Rifle Association to the National Organization for Women shifted support from the House, leaving the Senate alone to side with the FCC. So who wins here? America’s media companies, most of which are subsidiaries of larger corporations, are the favored players in the FCC’s ruling. Clear Channel Radio, based in San Antonio, Texas, owns over 1,200 radio stations (5 in Seattle) and 39 television stations nationwide and would now be permitted to swallow up more media outlets without selling off stations in a process called divestiture; usually this is required so that the ownership cap is not exceeded. But on the day of the decision, Clear Channel denounced the ruling, describing it in its press release as a “sledgehammer” drawn up by “five bureaucrats in Washington” (let it be known that two of these five were in staunch opposition to the decision). Usually not to bother with media quality and assortment of programming, Clear Channel states that the FCC “completely missed the mark by turning back the clock on program diversity and innovation for radio consumers.” More strangely, Clear Channel’s stock rose on the day of the ruling, as did most media companies, 3.4% to $42.09 a share. FCC Chairman Michael Powell is adamant in his support for the measure, key in developing the new rules over a 20-month period. In addition to the 45% cap rule, companies can own three stations in the largest markets (up from two) and own a TV station and newspaper in the same town. In the press release summing up the ruling, the three words, “competition, diversity, and localism” are repeated frequently, implying that the further deregulation spawns these noble values. In a July 30 column run in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Powell reiterates the message: “[the role of media] involves not only the core values of the First Amendment, but also issues such as how much we value diversity of viewpoints and to what extent the government should promote competition and encourage local control of television”. He goes on to state, “that the United States has the most diverse media marketplace in the world. There are more media outlets, owners, variety and diversity now than at any point in U.S history.” Many would differ. Racial diversity and corporate diversity cannot be assumed. In The Seattle Medium, columnist George E. Curry cited on June 6 that 4 percent of the nation’s 11,000 radio outlets are owned by people of color. In fact, between 1998 and 2000, the heyday of deregulation, there was a loss of five Hispanic-owned and four Black-owned stations (two Asian-owned stations did open during the same period). And since the original 1996 deregulation, there are now 34 percent fewer radio station owners than before. Diversity has not been fostered when the ownership caps were raised to 35%, and there is no precedent that it will be fostered with the new decision either. Localism cannot be guaranteed either. An affiliate of the larger networks is obligated to run what’s sent to them. As well, there should be a distinction between local content and local control. In Green Bay, Wisconsin, the ABC affiliate, owned locally, continually trounces the wholly-owned CBS station in its local news broadcasts. To think of it in other terms, a McDonald’s run by Seattle residents does not a local business make. Raising the ownership caps to 45% of the nation’s households does nothing to promote localism. It only allows larger companies to swallow up the minor stations that presently are on life support. Competition is easily guaranteed, that’s the nature of American business. But does the need for competition necessitate raising the ownership cap to 45%? Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation posted $17 billion in revenue at the end of March. Theoretically, this company could only acquire more media outlets, and with revenues like that, there would no problem in doing so. News Corp owns FOX television in the U.S., FOXTEL in Australia, STAR networks in Asia, and a slough of newspapers in Australia, Asia, the United Kingdom and The New York Post in New York City. Viacom (owner of CBS), Disney (owner of ABC) and NBC’s parent company, General Electric, all saw revenue either increase or remain stable at the end of the second fiscal quarter in July. In radio station ownership, the numbers are similar. Clear Channel’s revenue was up 6.6% to $2.32 billion at June’s end. Entercom Communications, a chief competitor in the Seattle radio market, saw revenue’s dip slightly at the same time to $107.6 million from $108.4 million in June 2002. Powell’s definition of competition implies that it isn’t already highly maintained in the U.S. media market. Possible only in an idealized world or not, media ownership and broadcast journalism should not be defined by profits. When media companies salivate over the concept of relaxed ownership rules, as they have since June 2, then the quality of music and news programming will inevitably suffer if moneymaking is the quintessential goal. Consumer choice will disintegrate, selection of differing opinions will evaporate and media bias will become more pronounced as American citizens become just vessels waiting to be filled with someone else’s political stance and ethical reasoning. And as media companies own more music outlets (Infinity Broadcasting, a radio mogul with 180 stations, is owned by Viacom which owns MTV, VH1, BET and many others), they are poised to present skewed musical selection, turning the listeners further into preprogrammed fans ready to accept whatever producers throw at them. I don’t care for what the technocrats say, that it’s not possible to be economically viable in an overstimulated economy, inundated with the Internet, satellite and cable industries. I don’t think independent media should throw in the towel yet. Although Chairman Powell (U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell’s son and Bush administration tool) is steadfast in his support for the new measure, FCC Commissioner Johnathan Adelstein’s dissenting opinion opened thusly: “This is a sad day for me, and I think for this country. I’m afraid a dark storm cloud is now looming over the future of the American media. This is the most sweeping and destructive rollback of consumer protection rules in the history of American broadcasting.” Commissioner Adelstein’s term expired June 30. J. Everett R.