Public Wary of Media Ownership Deregulation

“Some of the frustration consumers have about overall content gets rolled into this bigger debate about who owns media,” said Abernathy. Another challenge to broadcasters is that some people confuse regulatory matters with issues of content, she said: “Ownership issues do not easily translate to a discussion with consumers, because from a consumer perspective, what we're focused on is, are we happy with the media we get today and are they covering the issues I want them to cover? And that really is a separate discussion than what does the law say.”

Some activists reject broadcaster arguments that relaxed ownership rules will permit economies of scale that encourage stations to produce more locally produced news and other shows, said former FCC Chmn. Richard Wiley, a Republican (1972-1977). Station owners like Gannett and networks like Fox have said FCC duopoly rules barring a company from owning more than one top station in a market are outdated. “Some of these critics are fighting the last war and not realizing there are important public interest equations associated with the continuing viability of these industries,” Wiley said: “That’s what we have to tell the FCC… to make sure that the government, the FCC commissioners get the chance to hear a diversity of viewpoints.” Wiley said broadcasters expressed that view in FCC filings, the next round of which are due Dec. 21. Media field hearings are another venue, he said.

Broadcasters will get another chance to make their case at a field hearing today (Mon.) in Nashville (CD Dec 6 p11), where consumer frustration doubtless will be voiced. “We're expecting a very good turnout,” said Amanda Ballantyne, a field organizer for Free Press, which has been encouraging attendance. More than 130,000 comments on the subject have reached the FCC. Some broadcast executives are frustrated hearing testimony often involving issues unrelated to media consolidation. “These are really like Stalinist show trials,” Tribune Vp Shaun Sheehan said: “If you want to put these little meetings together where you put together these people with an ax to grind, you can skew it.”

Some former commissioners disputed that analysis, saying the hearings matter because they let people tell the agency their concerns about local programming. “These town meetings serve a purpose,” Nicholas Johnson, a Democratic commissioner (1966-1973), said: “There is a lot of public anger out there. The media can try to ignore it and steamroller over it, but it’s going to build.” Ownership hearings get scant coverage, hindering public understanding of the issues, said Johnson. He was echoed by Gloria Tristani, a Democratic commissioner (1997-2001). “I don’t see local and national news covering this issue in any shape or form,” she said: “I think they could do a good service to America by covering the issue, all sides… That’s where I would start.”

Broadcasters could start educating the public by sending more representatives to testify, said hearing moderator Henry Rivera. ABC, CBS and NBC didn’t testify at the Oct. 3 L.A. hearing, instead sending Stanford U. economist Bruce Owen to speak for them. “The broadcasters sort of didn’t show up,” Rivera, a Democrat commissioner (1981-1985), said: “It’s difficult because the overwhelming majority of the people there appeared to be not in favor of this. I think it’s challenging but I think it’s something the broadcasters need to do.” The Nashville schedule doesn’t include network executives, but officials from several smaller broadcasters, including Young, will appear. Industry didn’t participate more heavily in L.A. because the hearing was on financial syndication rules unrelated to the FCC duopoly rule, NAB Exec. Vp Dennis Wharton said: “Broadcasters will have a greater presence in future FCC hearings, including the Nashville hearing.”

Industry could do more than appear at hearings and file FCC comments, Rivera and several executives said. Stations and networks could air ads promoting industry’s viewpoint, Rivera said: “These are people with substantial resources at their command in terms of their ability to influence public opinion, and you don’t see this anywhere in their programming or in their public service ads, and I think it’s peculiar that they're not attempting to educate the public.” Broadcasters have reason not to highlight consolidation, Stanford Group’s Paul Gallant, an aide to Michael Powell when the chairman oversaw the last ownership inquiry, said: “Broadcasters realize it will be hard to educate the public to support their position that more consolidation is good policy. They may have some legitimate arguments, but they are more subtle and run up against some pretty clear and powerful arguments by opponents of media consolidation.” Powell didn’t comment.

Radio and TV stations can tout local programming to show the public could benefit from ownership rule changes, NAB Pres. David Rehr told us last month. “The opponents of any change in media ownership have attempted to entirely define this as big media conglomerates, which it is not,” he said: “We also have to refocus the arguments and the issues on the importance of allowing local broadcasters who are serving the public interest to remain financially viable.” - Jonathan Make