FCC probably doesn’t even have enough evidence to justify notice ...
FCC probably doesn’t even have enough evidence to justify notice of inquiry on broadcast-newspaper cross- ownership rules, NAB said in comments on rulemaking (MM 01- 235). Broadcasters said FCC never had been able to show competitive harms from cross-ownership,…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
so burden of justifying retention of rule “clearly lies with the Commission.” Goal of diversity of voices “reflects an outmoded regulatory philosophy of promoting the maximum diversity of ownership at all costs,” NAB said, and burden of justifying rule was increased by First Amendment implications. NAB also said any justification for ban had been reduced by expansion of information outlets and easing of other ownership rules, and that cross-ownership actually could increase news, information and programming options by allowing pooling of resources. Not surprisingly, Newspaper Assn. of America also supported eliminating rule, saying ban “serves no legitimate purpose in the modern media marketplace.” Group said “explosive” growth in media outlets justified eliminating ban and repeal “would lead to significant efficiencies and operational synergies” that would “benefit both consumers and advertisers.” Pooling resources would allow tailoring news content to different media, newspaper group said, and wouldn’t lead to “any material reduction in viewpoint diversity.” Consumer, civil rights and media public interest groups called on FCC Mon. to maintain limits on broadcast-newspaper cross-ownership. Groups cited study that said media diversity was at risk from mergers and acquisitions. They warned of dire consequences if FCC eliminated its long-standing prohibition against common ownership of newspaper and TV station in same market. Filing called for new policies “to open communications wires and the airwaves to more independent voices, in order to preserve our nation’s commitment to maintaining institutions and market forces that promote a robust democracy.” Document, more than 100 pages long, represented views of Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Center for Digital Democracy, Civil Rights Forum, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and Media Access Project. Filing cited 1945 Supreme Court ruling that First Amendment “rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public.” That principle will be jeopardized if broadcasters are allowed to own or be owned by newspaper in same community, filing said. Claims that Internet was viable news and information alternative ignored possibility that same entities could dominate Internet as well, filing said. “A small number of giant corporations interconnected by ownership, joint ventures and preferential deals now straddle broadcast, cable and the Internet,” filing said.