FCC Media Ownership Review Gains Speed With Reports’ Release

The commission took a major step toward ending the review by making the batch of studies public late Tuesday. The FCC paid more than $300,000 for the reports, written by professors, agency staffers, and companies including Nielsen. Now the commission seeks public comments on the studies. One study found that locally owned TV stations air more public affairs and family programs than broadcasters with absentee owners. Other studies found a slight decrease in the number of TV and radio station owners in recent years and little change in diversity of radio formats because of rapid consolidation since 1996. A study released Tuesday confirmed previous findings of few women and minority owners in broadcasting, and another found that few minorities benefited from an FCC action in 1996 letting a company own two TV stations in certain markets. Several other reports by professors found media consolidation, such as common ownership of a newspaper and TV station in the same city, generally doesn’t reduce the quantity of local news programming. The FCC wants public comments by Oct. 1, with an Oct. 16 reply deadline. The length of the comment period reflects Martin’s wish to move the media ownership review speedily along, said an FCC official.

“He’s been really pushing on the comment and reply comment dates,” said the official of Martin. With the fifth of six media ownership field hearings scheduled for Sept. 20 in Chicago, the commission is likely to hold the last meeting before the year is over, said FCC officials. With an end to public input in sight there is renewed optimism that Martin may circulate an order in the winter or spring. Some industry officials had fretted Martin might not complete the review until later in 2008 or even hold off entirely, punting the issue to the next chairman (CD Feb 15 p2). Media Access Project President Andrew Schwartzman was among those who said they heard Martin is aiming for a Q1 finish. Some industry sources cautioned that it may take months for commissioners to agree on an order after Martin circulates one. The release of the studies, some of which had been due in February, was cause for some optimism. “The commission indicated that this was one base they had to touch along the way, and it’s been touched,” said Newspaper Association of America President John Sturm. “My view is let’s get on with it.”

Martin’s desire for quick completion of the media review is reflected in his preference for a 45-day comment and reply period on a rulemaking on minority broadcast ownership that soon will be publicized, said several FCC officials. The rulemaking on more than a dozen proposals from the Minority Media & Telecommunications Council is subject to considerable eighth-floor bickering over how long people should get to give their input, said FCC officials. Some commissioners want more time, believing Martin is rushing and worrying that many potential commenters are on vacation. Discussions over the comment period have delayed the release of the rulemaking, which initially was set to be made public as early as this past Tuesday, said FCC officials.

The comment period for the 10 ownership studies is too short, Commissioners Jonathan Adelstein and Michael Copps said in a joint written statement. “This in unfair, unnecessary and ultimately unwise - inviting public, congressional and judicial outrage reminiscent of what happened when the FCC tried to loosen media ownership rules four years ago,” said Adelstein and Copps. In 2004, the 3rd U.S. Appeals Court, Philadelphia, remanded the FCC’s media ownership review the year before back to the agency. The Democratic commissioners questioned whether there is enough time for a thorough peer review of the studies. “Many questions are left unanswered” about how the public will be involved in the process and how reviewers will be selected, they said. “Is this peer review, or just a brief purview?”

The FCC peer review process appeared to turn the concept on its head, with input from other experts probable after the studies have been released. Professors, FCC officials and others said papers usually are reviewed by other researchers before they are made public in academic journals. “The whole purpose of peer review is for another expert to test how robust the study is before you have public comment,” said an FCC source. Schwartzman seemed to agree. “It is unusual to conflate the peer review process into the general comment period,” he said. “At first glance, I am much more worried about the short reply period.” An FCC spokeswoman noted that 60 days is an unusually long comment period, 30 or 45 days being typical. “We're committed to having this be an open and transparent process, and that’s evident from the public hearings that we hold for hours across the country, the open comment periods we have,” she said. The studies will be reviewed by experts outside the FCC and the peer reviews made public on the commission’s website and in the media ownership docket, she added.

Martin’s office has not responded to entreaties from Adelstein and Copps to include them in deciding who reviews the papers, among other aspects of the process, said another official. University of Arizona Assistant Economics Professor Gregory Crawford, whose study found cross-owned TV stations air more local news, said he was not told how peer review will occur. “That’s up to the FCC,” he said. University of Missouri Associate Economics Professor Jeff Milyo, whose study also found cross-ownership can lead to more news programming, said the report reflected “constructive feedback” from FCC officials. “Different people use the term peer-review to mean different things,” he said of the FCC. “They obviously don’t mean the formal and lengthy journal process, since there is a need for timely reports.” - Jonathan Make