"Chairman Powell and the Media"

Is it possible for America to have too much diversity in its broadcast media? I don't think so. Chairman Powell is correct when he states "The fact is that the United States has the most diverse media marketplace in the world. There are more media outlets, owners, variety and diversity now then in any point in our nations history" My question to the Chairman is; if this is so, why should we reduce the variety and diversity? At best it will not hurt America, but Chairman Powell has never outlined how the changes the FCC wants to make will help America.

Chairman Powell stated in his New York Times op ed piece on July 29th "Some say the problem is media concentration, and point out that only five companies control 80 percent of what we see and hear. In reality, those five companies own only 25 percent of more than 300 broadcast, satellite and cable channels, but because of their popularity, 80 percent of the viewing audience chooses to watch them. Popularity is not synonymous with monopoly. A competitive media marketplace must be our fundamental goal, but do we really want government to regulate what is popular?"

There is a mistake in Chairman Powells numbers which are irrelevant in any case. There ar in fact 1,340 commercial stations in the U.S., and the 5 companies don't own 25% of them. The relevant issue isn't popularity at all. The stations owned by the broadcast networks have given them the opportunity to reach, as Powell stated 80% of the audience. No one wants to limit the Big 5 companies because they are popular, but because it is not in the best interest of our country to allow these companies to get any bigger in BROADCAST How does Powell expect the market place to become more compettive if he allows the networks to own more stations.

"The importance of this debate requires accurate facts about the marketplace and clarity from the government about what it is doing. Such an approach helps distinguish legitimate concerns about media concentration from more worrisome efforts to use the government hammer to shape future viewpoints or punish viewpoints expressed in the past"

In my over 40 years in Television, I have never heard this point of view before The issue is strictly media concentration, and not to use the government "hammer."

"The solution proposed by some in Congress is to rescind the ownership cap and restore the status quo. These are the same ownership rules that governed during the time of widespread public discontent with television. It is hard to see how the status quo will produce the results some in Congress say they want."

Keeping the national ownership cap on television stations at 35 percent is also a rule previously struck down by the courts. Moreover, many cable channels - with whom broadcast stations compete for viewers - often reach more than 80 percent of the viewing audience.

Some argue that the cap is necessary to limit concentration. Yet not one of the four major networks (CBS, NBC, ABC or Fox) owns more than 3 percent of the nation's television stations. The national cap is not what is preventing greater concentration.

More critically, the national cap does not limit the number of stations one can own in a local market. Fortunately, the F.C.C. maintains strong local ownership restrictions that limit the number of stations one can own in a single market. It is important to consider the rules comprehensively, as the F.C.C. has done, and not piecemeal.

In any case, the national cap does not limit the number of stations one can own; it limits only the number of people one can reach. If a company owns a handful of stations in populous markets like New York or Los Angeles, it will bump into the cap quickly. But if the stations are in smaller markets, it can own many more.

This oddity is why so-called local affiliate groups own many more stations nationally than the networks. Fox Network, for example, is over the 35 percent cap with 35 stations, but Sinclair Broadcasting is well under the cap (at 14 percent) with 56 stations. One can see why many local broadcast groups support the national cap - it allows them to own more stations than the networks. It does not prevent a company with headquarters in Atlanta from owning stations in Muncie, Ind., no matter what numerical limit is drawn. Such has been the case for decades.

At the same time, the current debate has ignored a disturbing trend the new rules will do much to abate: the movement of high-quality content from free over-the-air broadcast television to cable and satellite.

It is difficult to see exactly how setting a lower cap will improve television. Already, most top sports programming has fled to cable and satellite. Quality prime-time viewing, long the strong suit of free television, has begun to erode, as demonstrated by HBO's 109 Emmy nominations this year. Indeed, for the first time ever, cable surpassed free TV in prime-time viewing share last year. If they can reach more of the market, broadcasters will be able to better compete with cable and satellite.

All of this demonstrates that media ownership is no easy issue. When striving to promote the public interest, we must also honor the values of the First Amendment. That's why, following the 1996 mandate of Congress, the F.C.C. armed itself with the facts and spent an exhaustive amount of time and resources to strike this constitutionally important balance. Let's have a national debate, but let's keep it in focus.

Back to Articles