Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Media Ownership Case
The U.S. Supreme Court won’t hear broadcaster arguments to appeal a 3rd U.S. Appeals Circuit, Philadelphia, order remanding FCC media ownership regulations for agency review. “I'm now looking forward to working with all my colleagues as we reevaluate our media ownership rules consistent with the 3rd Circuit’s guidance and our statutory obligations,” said FCC Chmn. Martin.
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!
The Tribune Co., News Corp.’s Fox, Viacom’s CBS and GE’s NBC asked the high court to review the case. The networks urged an overturn of Red Lion, a 1969 Supreme Court decision that is the basis for many radio and TV industry rules. Last June’s remand order negated new FCC rules that would have significantly loosened media ownership restrictions on TV and newspapers. The Supreme Court ruling throws those rules back to the FCC, Tribune VP Shaun Sheehan told us. “We knew it was a long shot,” he said. Broadcasters can go back to the FCC to fight rules that restrict them from owning a newspaper and a TV station in the same market. “Our readers, viewers and listeners and the media industry will be well-served by swift resolution to this issue,” Tribune said.
The Supreme Court decision marks a rare victory for the public over “powerful corporations in America,” said Comr. Adelstein. “The court’s decision puts the issue of media consolidation right back in the FCC’s hands and gives us an opportunity for a fresh start, so we better get it right this time. We need to be very careful because once we allow greater media concentration, we can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube,” Adelstein said. Comr. Copps agreed: “The ball is clearly back in the Commission’s court. The FCC has a fresh opportunity now to come up with a set of rules to encourage localism, competition, and diversity in our media.”
The decision not to hear the media ownership case is a blow to the “greedy aspirations of the media lobby,” said the Center for Digital Democracy. “These media companies told the Supreme Court that their First Amendment rights were jeopardized because they couldn’t own every media property they desire. But the public’s First Amendment rights to a diversely owned media system must trump the narrow economic-self interest of the major media companies and their trade associations.”
The Media Access Project (MAP) said it wasn’t surprised by the Supreme Court decision. “Even the Dept. of Justice and the FCC agreed that this case wasn’t worthy of Supreme Court Review,” MAP Pres. Andrew Schwartzman said. The media owners “wasted everyone’s time” to seek certiorari and showed how desperate they are and out of touch with the marketplace, he said. “I expect difficult fights ahead. Chairman Martin has signaled that he will try to divide the media ownership proceeding into several pieces to reduce its visibility,” Schwartzman said.
Not everyone called the rejection a blow to publishers. Stanford Washington Research Group said it believes the decision to not hear the case will increase chances of ownership relief for publishers such as Gannett, Belo and Tribune. However, the group said it views the decision as negative for newspaper owners of broadcast TV stations such as LIN TV, Sinclair Bcst., Hearst Argyle and Gray “because they face a harder task than newspapers in winning ownership relief from the FCC and likely would have benefitted from the court taking the case,” the group said. - Tania Panczyk-Collins