"Absurd, Archaic, and Silly"

The Congress or the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) has legislated a station ownership limit wherein no television company can own stations covering more than 35% of the United States. This is now a contentious issue that needs to be resolved by the Commission and approved by the Federal courts.

Should we, as Americans, necessarily believe what we've been told by Les Moonves, President of CBS, or Bob Wright, Chairman of NBC? Moonves was quoted in the February 18th edition of the Los Angeles Times saying, "We have always felt that the station cap was absurd... The age-old argument was that we had to protect the mom-and-pop station owners from the big media company. But they don't exist anymore. The small guys have already been pushed out." Bob Wright, in an interview with the Hollywood Reporter, said, "The rules governing TV station ownership are archaic and silly." He went on to say, "The [ownership] cap is this figment that was created almost 60 years ago... It translates today to a 6% share of national audience, and that's ridiculous..." At a time of incipient war in Iraq, nuclear saber rattling from North Korea, and major problems in the economy, wouldn't it really make sense to have differing opinions emanating from "mom and pop" broadcasters throughout the United States?

If you believe that it is inherent for broadcasters to "serve in the public interest, convenience, and necessity" and that this is not an arcane concept, you could agree that altering the caps is not in the public interest. In 1941 the FCC created an ownership cap of 3 television stations. This has been modified periodically to increase the national cap. In 1996 Congress directed the FCC to increase the cap to 35 %. In my view the caps were implemented to protect the country from having its television media dominated by major industrial companies whose prime interests were undoubtedly that of profitability and dominance. It would be good for America not to have the FCC expand the cap, but rather reduce it to encourage the return of "mom-and-pop" ownership.

I would ask Mr. Wright if the rules governing television station ownership were silly and archaic. He may not agree with them, but they definitely don't fit the definition of silly and archaic. Similarly, I'd ask him if he believes that eliminating these regulations would be "on the face of it", good for America.

I would ask Mr. Moonves if he felt that the station cap was absurd? He also may not agree with the rules, but they certainly aren't absurd. I'd ask him if he believes that eliminating these regulations would be "on the face of it", good for America. Mr. Moonves in a disingenuous fashion ignores the 100% reach of the Viacom owned CBS, MTV, UPN, Nickelodeon, and BET television networks, as well as various other media properties that have access into America's homes.

Mr. Wright, unfortunately, in a most disingenuous fashion characterizes the 35% ownership cap equal to, "... a 6% share of national audience..." NBC retained the opportunity of reaching 35% of the American households and might receive a 6% share of audience. He neglects to remind everyone that with the network line up, NBC is capable of reaching virtually 100% of US television homes (and that doesn't include MSNBC or CNBC).

On December 14th, 1990 before the FCC, Bob Wright observed, "Under the current Rules, the diversity in program production that the Commission sought in 1970 is on its deathbed in 1990... Repeal of the rules will allow the networks to provide financing to independent producers... It is in NBC's self-interest to do everything we can to promote a strong independent production community... The future of the over-the-air broadcast system and the domination of program production by a few huge conglomerates are issues that dwarf any Commission concern over the details of network supplier relationships."

At the same 1990 FCC hearing, the then CBS President, Jeff Sagansky said, "CBS is proud of its long tradition of encouraging and supporting independent producers-companies like MTM, Tandem, and Lorimar. With the repeal of the rules, we would be able to support new ventures and help revitalize the independent community... We want to help new talent set up their own businesses, but we can't because of these rules."

Were Mr. Wright and Mr. Sagansky lying to the FCC in 1990? Were they possibly being naive? Did they just make an enormous mistake in their testimonies? Or, were they just plain wrong in their prediction?

It's now 13 years later and the networks once again are out to convince the Commission, the Congress, and the Administration that what they want is both reasonable and "good for America." It is my belief that the statements of Messrs. Wright and Moonves, do indeed qualify as absurd, archaic, and silly.

Back to Articles