POWELL SEES GOVT. MOVING AWAY FROM MEDIA STRUCTURAL CONTROLS

Panel before Powell’s luncheon appearance spent most of its time on diversity and govt.’s actions regarding media since Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Ariz. State U. Law Prof. Laurence Winer said “diversity is one of those wonderful buzzwords” that everybody embraces, but it’s very hard to define what term means. Must it include gender and ethnic diversity, he asked, and should govt. decide what constitutes diversity: “I don’t think the answer is very clear… Diversity ultimately depends on a well-educated citizenry” and it’s not something that can be “forced” on public.

FCC’s cross-ownership restrictions have fostered media diversity, said Charles Firestone of Aspen Institute. First Amendment rests on widest possible disbursement of information to public, and Sept. 11 “enhances the need” for wide diversity in media ownership, he said. There’s now much diversity among national media owners, he said, citing over- air TV networks, but there’s still problem in local markets. Without attempting answer, Firestone raised question of whether govt. should go beyond antitrust laws to foster local ownership diversity because there’s “limited number of possibilities” for outsider to buy stations.

Taking same deregulatory position he advocated at FCC, former Comr. Harold Furchtgott-Roth said govt. officials were “violating the Constitution with impunity” on First Amendment issues, saying many current FCC rules and regulations were unconstitutional. He said they couldn’t get away with it on such issues as health and safety.

Paul McMasters, Freedom Forum First Amendment ombudsman, discussed govt. actions involving media since Sept. 11: “I am very bothered about some of the things that are happening.” He said there were “many, many examples” of govt. interference with media -- citing ban against news helicopters in major markets and withholding of electronic picture imaging from media in war in Afghanistan. Some of current govt. positions “essentially result in information lockdown,” he said. In answer to question, McMasters said voluntary requests of media made by Administration were “chilling” because of “unspoken threat” to TV stations’ licenses. Powell said everyone in govt. had “new set of priorities” as result of Sept. 11 and terrorist attacks showed just how heavily public relied on telecom networks. As for First Amendment and national security, he said “if this were any other country in the world, we wouldn’t be talking” about attacks publicly.

Powell was interviewed by Media Institute Pres. Patrick Maines, who referred back to 1999 Powell speech (before he was chmn.) and asked whether he was “still a happy warrior.” Chmn. replied: “Absolutely, [but] it’s brutal all day long. It has it’s fine moments, it’s wonderful moments.” Asked what he thought of V-chip, Powell said: “It’s an admirable approach… Candidly, I don’t know how successful it is,” but it’s there for parents to use if they so choose. “I have it in my television [set]. I know how to use it.” He said he monitored viewing of his 2 sons, but without reverting to V- chip.

Federal govt. inevitably will lag in regulating effects of technology on First Amendment rights, said Robert Pepper, chief of FCC Office of Plans & Policy. Speaking on Media Institute panel on intersection of new technology and free speech, Pepper said: “The role of government intervention should be only where the market clearly has failed and, even then, it should be based on real problems, not hypothetical problems.” Prof. Rodney Smolla of U. of Richmond Law School offered 3 hypothetical situations: (1) Technology allows people to download movies from Internet even before they have gone into wide release. (2) Technology allows radical ideologues to target certain individuals or ethnic groups by giving out their personal information over Internet. (3) Digital alteration of information such as photographs alters course of political election.

Jane Kirtley, dir., Silha Center for Study of Media Ethics & Law at U. of Minnesota, offered pessimistic view of First Amendment freedoms in light of recent moves by Attorney Gen. John Ashcroft to limit definition of journalist and, therefore, limit who qualifies for journalistic privilege in courts. She also criticized effects of new antiterrorism legislation, part of which will allow investigators access to private information about people without making them aware of subpoenas. “I've been struck by the degree of intrusion that government regulation is allowing on what most of us consider private communication,” she said. John Morris of Center for Democracy & Technology said he believed most of those issues wouldn’t be resolved by Congress, FCC or other govt. agencies. Private companies developing new technologies ultimately will “have very real public policy impacts,” he said. Pepper agreed that govt. agencies wouldn’t be able to keep up with implications of new technologies and instead would be put in reactive rather than proactive position.