[opendtv] Re: FCC Commissioners disagree on media cross-ownership rules
- From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:15:20 -0800
It will help the Tribune Company to keep TV stations in LA and Chicago
(major assets of the corporation) through the 'troubled' Sam Zell
'takeover.'
The NAA (newspaper association of America) says it doesn't go far enough.
What goes unmentioned is that newspaper/UHF crossownership is already
permitted, without a waiver, and has been for more than three decades.
So, factor in the "not top four" station requirement, the currently
permitted UHF (how many UHF stations are in the top four?) and the major
market limitation, and you have a regulation carefully calibrated to help
the troubled (financing, what financing?) Tribune takeover.
It won't be the first time.
I'm all in favor with newspaper/tv cross-ownership, since newspapers will
need to transition themselves from putting stains on dead trees and
distributing the physical results using roadways.
However, you can't 'preserve' views in a commercial marketplace, and no
newspaper in a major market is in danger of failing; they've lost their
monopoly on local classified advertising, and they're less than happy with
their 18%+ profit margins. They are only slowly adjusting. This will do
nothing to change that.
John Willkie
-----Mensaje original-----
De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
nombre de Manfredi, Albert E
Enviado el: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 9:55 AM
Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asunto: [opendtv] FCC Commissioners disagree on media cross-ownership rules
Chairman Martin proposes to allow local newspapers in large markets to own
one radio or one TV station. Arguing that we now have many more news outlets
than we did 30 years ago, and that otherwise a lot of newspapers will simply
go out of business.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278113A1.pdf
This is the reaction of Commissioners Copps and Adelstein:
----------------------------------------------------------
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278142A1.pdf
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NEWS MEDIA CONTACTS
November 13, 2007 Rick Chessen: 202 418 2000
Rudy Brioché: 202 418 2300
JOINT STATEMENT BY COMMISSIONERS COPPS AND ADELSTEIN ON
CHAIRMAN MARTIN'S CROSS-OWNERSHIP PROPOSAL
This is portrayed as a moderate proposal, but it is a wolf in sheep's
clothing. Don't let the wool be pulled over your eyes. The proposal could
repeal the ban in every market in America, not just the top twenty. Any
city, no matter how small, could be subjected to newspaper broadcast
ownership combinations under a very loose standard.
Under Chairman Martin's plan, all markets will be open to one company
combining broadcast properties with cable, the newspaper (already a monopoly
in most places), even the Internet Service Provider. His proposal could
propel a frenzy of competition-stifling mergers across the land. He can try
to characterize his plan as affecting only the "largest markets," but
consider:
o The top 20 markets account for over 43% of U.S. households. Even on its
face, this proposal directly affects over 120 million Americans.
o The Chairman then creates a loophole that Big Media will drive a truck
through, permitting a newspaper-broadcast combination in any market in the
country. We have seen how loosely the Commission has granted waivers in the
past. If this proposal goes through, the FCC could grant cross-ownership
applications in such small towns as Meridian, Mississippi and Bend, Oregon.
When big conglomerates can't get their way in a general rule, they press for
loopholes that swallow the rule, and they would succeed with this approach.
o The non-top four stations that major newspapers will now be competing for
are precisely the stations more likely to be owned by small, independent
broadcasters. If we ever got serious about women and minority ownership,
these are also the stations most available to them. Chairman Martin's rule
pretty much reserves these outlets for the big guys. So this proposal
actually perpetuates the shamefully low levels of minority and female media
ownership.
The Martin rules are clearly not ready for prime time. Under the Chairman's
timetable, we count 19 working days for public comment. That is grossly
insufficient. The American people should have a minimum of 90 days to
comment, just as many Members of Congress have requested. More importantly,
the Commission has yet to finish its Localism proceeding, teed up four years
ago, or to forward comprehensive ideas to increase women and minority
ownership of broadcast outlets.
There is still time to do this the right way. Congress and the thousands
of American citizens we have talked to want a thoughtful and deliberate
rulemaking, not an alarming rush to judgment characterized by insultingly
short notices for public hearings, inadequate time for public comment,
flawed studies and a tainted peer review process - all designed to make sure
that the Chairman can deliver a generous gift to Big Media before the
holidays. For the rest of us: a lump of coal.
We realize there is some urgency with respect to the Tribune transaction.
The Chairman, however, has refused to act on Tribune's waiver requests that
would permit the transaction to close. Let us be clear: it is improper to
hold the Tribune hostage in order to force a vote on media ownership before
the end of the year. We are prepared to vote on the Tribune waiver requests
within three working days after the Chairman circulates a draft decision.
There is simply no excuse for using Tribune as a human shield.
-------------------------------------------
I think, instead, that it is difficult to rationalize why the
newspaper/radio/TV cross-ownership rules should be very different from the
TV and radio station local ownership cap rules, any longer. Isn't it most
important to encourage multiple sources of news, without limiting the media
each of these multiple sources can use? As long as these local caps are set
low enough, this should work.
If people are not reading newspapers, then what's wrong with having those
newspaper points of view aired over media people do use?
Bert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts: