FCC chief misfires on media ownership

The Rocky

Originally published 10:33 p.m., November 17, 2007
Updated 10:33 p.m., November 17, 2007

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin J. Martin wasn’t exaggerating when he warned last week that “If we don’t act to improve the health of the newspaper industry,” some communities will see their papers “wither and die.”

So what does the chairman want the FCC to do? Something so insignificant that you have to wonder why he bothered proposing it — except perhaps to give the impression that his agency isn’t totally clueless in the face of radical changes in the media.

Not that Martin actually appreciates the magnitude of what has occurred. “The media marketplace has changed considerably over the last three decades,” he declared in a column in The New York Times. Changed “considerably”? Why such a bloodless word?

No, the media marketplace has been transformed.

Consumer access to news is no longer limited to a newspaper and between one and three TV stations in local communities. The number of television stations has grown — and, with cable, the number of TV channels has exploded. Radio coverage of news has expanded with talk shows and the additional reach of public radio. Finally, of course, the elephant in the room is the Internet, with all the various ways it allows consumers to retrieve the news.

Despite all of this change, however, nothing has supplanted newspapers as a uniquely broad source of local and regional coverage, as Martin himself acknowledges. “Without newspapers, we would be less informed about our communities and have fewer outlets of expression of independent thinking and a diversity of viewpoints,” he says.

Presumably, therefore, Martin should be sympathetic to lifting a dated legal prohibition on ownership of a newspaper and a television station in the same city by the same company or individual — “the only media ownership rule that has never been modified since its inception in the mid-1970s,” he notes.

But no. His solution would amount to nothing more than a bucket of water tossed on a raging fire.

Martin would allow a company that owns a newspaper in one of the 20 largest media markets to buy one broadcast TV or radio station in that market, but not one of each. And the TV station couldn’t be one of the top four in that market — all but ruling out the desirable properties affiliated with ABC, NBC, CBS or Fox. Once under the same corporate roof, moreover, the newspaper and broadcast entity would each be required to maintain editorial independence.

In other words, small markets can forget about relief, even though they are the locations where news coverage by local TV and newspapers is arguably most at risk and where the vast majority of news outlets operate. Meanwhile, if a newspaper company in a major market is fortunate enough to be allowed to buy, say, the No. 5 TV station, which may itself be under serious competitive pressure, it must not dream of trying to streamline operations by combining some editorial functions.

What kind of reform is this? As the chairman of the Newspaper Association of America, John Sturm, observed, changes in the industry “are radical and irreversible, have occurred in every community, and have extinguished any basis for this across-the-board ban.”

Predictably, though, so-called consumer groups have already weighed in to denounce Martin’s plan as a cave-in to “big media.” A cave-in? More like a sop.

• November 18, 2007

  9:11 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  RLaitres writes:

  As always, those in the media, in particular newspapers, blame only the public for their woes. True,literacy has seriously declined in this country but, instead of blaming everything on that factor, they might wish to look at themselves also. As the literacy has declined in society so has the quality of their own product. Most owners are concerned with only one thing, their own bottom line and in that concern most are totally remiss in doing any real work to get at facts and keep the public informed. Instead, most of their so-called "reporting" comes from a single source which they "regurgitate" ad nauseam. The very same is true in their so-called editorials. Those also are lacking in substance. Most so-called editorials are also nothing less than repetition of an official line. That makes them propaganda outlets, not news outlets. Perhaps, instead of reacting negatively to criticism, they should first look carefully at themselves and see if perhaps that criticism is true, and then correct such shortcomings. They might once again gain some credibility and relevance in the public discourse of their communities and in the country. We are not interested in "repetition" of the words and positions of others. If we want to listen to or read those, we can go directly to the source. Many of us have sufficiently matured such as to no longer be fed pablum. That extends to the intellectual world also, not merely the physical one.

• November 19, 2007

  6:58 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  yaakovwatkins writes:

  Since the cost of product per paper skyrockets when circulation goes down, the loss of circulation coupled with with increased cost of paper, creates an inevitable downward spiral. Advertising dollars, the main income for the news industry, are moving away from "dead tree publishing" to cheaper media.

  I freely admit the value of local press, and I also prefer print journalism over broadcast journalism. Nevertheless, saving an obsolete industry is impossible. Of course the FCC's interference in the market is costly, counterproductive, and probably futile.