Fighting media mergers
San Franciscans get last shot to weigh in on FCC rule changes that would allow even more consolidations

By Camille T. Taiara

The Federal Communications Commission is poised to trigger the greatest wave of media consolidations in the country's history. On June 2 the agency will rule on proposals to eliminate restrictions that prohibit any one company from controlling more than 35 percent of the nation's TV markets, bar the four major broadcast companies from merging with each other, and keep any one company from owning a daily newspaper and a TV or radio station in a local market, among other changes (See "Meet the New Press," 1/29/03). If these proposals are adopted, media independence and diversity will suffer a debilitating blow.

Yet FCC chair Michael Powell, a free-market guru who is the son of Secretary of State Colin Powell, has been so secretive about his plans that he won't even release details of the rule changes to his own agency's commissioners – nor to congressional leaders charged with overseeing the FCC.

"It is an irony that here is Michael Powell developing the rules of the road for the future of the First Amendment in the 21st century, and it's being conducted as if it were being done by a star chamber," says Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy.

Not surprisingly, the major media conglomerates – which stand to make a considerable profit should they be allowed to expand their market dominance even further – have failed to grant the FCC's moves the attention they deserve.

The hush surrounding the deregulation drive makes it tough to fight. But public interest advocates have been mounting significant opposition. As a result, Bay Area residents have a rare opportunity to make their voices heard April 26, at a public hearing with FCC commissioner Jonathan Adelstein. The forum is organized by Media Alliance, the University of San Francisco's media studies department, and others. Rep. Lynne Woolsey, and possibly Rep. Anna Eshoo, intend to send spokespeople as well.

"We've got a call in to Powell's office, and we're working on [Sen. Barbara] Boxer," says Media Alliance executive director Jeff Perlstein, who explains that comments gathered at the historic meeting will be included in the public record that forms part of the FCC's regulation review process.

Before media watchdog groups pushed the issue, the FCC had scheduled only one public hearing on Powell's proposed changes, a Feb. 27 event in Richmond, Va. Since then, advocates have staged informal hearings in Chicago, Seattle, and Durham, N.C. Another is scheduled for Los Angeles the day after the San Francisco meeting.

Activists have also succeeded in generating a large portion of the 18,000 public comments received by the FCC in response to its review process. Most of these argue against any weakening of FCC regulations, according to Chester, who checked incoming comments every day as they were posted on the FCC's Web site. The public comment period has since closed.

In short, given the FCC's failure to actively engage the public in the decision-making process and ensure a regulatory environment that functions in the interest of democracy rather than that of big business, "advocates have had to act as a de facto FCC," Chester says.

While Chester and Perlstein emphasize the need to open the FCC's review process to public input, they also warn that the fight does not stop there. Because Powell enjoys a 3-2 majority on the FCC board, public interest advocates have also begun exerting pressure on Congress. And some representatives – from both sides of the political spectrum – have begun to express concern.

Now, rather than just axe the regulations under review, Powell is proposing a "diversity index" system to take their place – an undisclosed mathematical formula of sorts to determine the multiplicity of media outlets available in a given market.

"It's based on a very simplistic notion, and a dangerous one," Chester explains. "Powell and the big media companies see each media outlet as synonymous with the other ... in reach, form, and purpose." But a public access cable station certainly does not have the reach and influence that a major daily newspaper has, much less one of the four biggest television networks. And, while Powell points to cable and the Internet as alternative outlets, the FCC has consistently moved to limit public access to these new media, further ensuring their domination by some of the very same megacorporations that own controlling interests in traditional broadcast media.

"It's a real bait and switch," Pearlstein says.

Now more than ever, it's up to the public to take a stand before it's too late.

The FCC hearing takes place Sat/26, 10 a.m.-4 p.m., City Hall, main rotunda, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, S.F. For more information call (415) 546-6334. E-mail Camille T. Taiara