"Blix, Chicks, the FCC, and Rashomon"
(Print version. View unedited version)

In his 1950 film "Rashomon", Akira Kurosawa examines the nature of truth and the philosophy of justice.

Hans Blix, Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector, accused the Bush administration of faking evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Natalie Maines, the lead singer of the Dixie Chicks said that she was ashamed to be from the same state as Bush.

Many in radio and on television vilified both Blix and Maines. Kurosawa shows us in "Rashomon" how different people have different versions of what they believe to be the truth. Was Blix correct in what he said? I think so, but that my opinion. Should Maines have said what she said if that was her opinion? Absolutely, but that's my opinion as well.

And now, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ...

No matter how many "versions of the truth" we are presented with by the media, we need "more of them". Americans need as many opinions from as many sources as possible. The FCC is trying to tell us that we have as much information as we need, so why not narrow the sources? Why would the FCC give News Corp., Disney, General Electric, and Viacom more voices than they already have?

We need an independent print media as well.

The FCC is the "spectrum" equivalent of the Antitrust Division. They should enhance and/or strengthen the notion of competition, diversity, and localism and not do as they have done in the past, to act on behalf of the major media companies.

On June 2nd, 2003 the FCC did as everyone expected them to do and changed the station ownership caps and the cross-ownership restrictions. Their "... Report and Order adopted [on June 2nd, 2003, was] based on a thorough assessment of the impact of ownership rules on promoting competition, diversity, and localism." The FCC does what it wishes to do and labels it as "... promoting competition, diversity, and localism". Is the FCC capable of making a misstatement in this regard? I think so.

My purpose here is to review parts of the FCC's June 2nd Press Release, and try to "shine a dissenting light" on their conclusions.

What follows are quotes from the FCC's press release of June 2nd, 2003 with running commentary (in italics) on what I believe to be the truth:

"FCC SETS LIMITS ON MEDIA CONCENTRATION"
It should have said: "FCC Sets Expanded Limits On Media Concentration."

"NEW RULES PROMOTE COMPETITION AND CHOICE FOR AMERICANS"
The FCC also explained that because viewpoint diversity is fostered when there are multiple independently owned media outlets, the FCC's competition-based limits on local radio and local TV ownership also advance the goal of promoting the widest dissemination of viewpoints."

How can you have the widest "dissemination of viewpoints" if you increase the limits of radio and television ownership for existent companies?

"CROSS-MEDIA LIMITS"
This rule replaces the broadcast-newspaper and the radio-television cross-ownership rules. The new rule states:

• In markets with three or fewer TV stations, no cross-ownership is permitted among TV, radio and newspapers. A company may obtain a waiver of that ban if it can show that the television station does not serve the area served by the cross-owned property (i.e. the radio station or the newspaper).
• In markets with between 4 and 8 TV stations, combinations are limited to one of the following:
  1. A daily newspaper; one TV station; and up to half of the radio station limit for that market (i.e. if the radio limit in the market is 6, the company can only own 3) OR
  2. A daily newspaper; and up to the radio station limit for that market; (i.e. no TV stations) OR
  3. Two TV stations (if permissible under local TV ownership rule); up to the radio station limit for that market (i.e. no daily newspapers)."

The more opinions in a market, the better. Why tinker with what works? Why allow News Corp. or Viacom to own The New York Times or the Washington Post? Do we need Rupert Murdock or Sumner Redstone controlling editorial content in print as well as broadcast? I don't think so.

Hopefully Congress will persevere by finding a way to rescind these changes. The giant American media companies should be made smaller and not given greater power. Cross-ownership rules should be reinstated in their entirety. The FCC's rulings are not justifiable, but rather unreasonable and most important of all, un-American.

Back to Articles