"Selling It"

What do the following "headline items" have in common? It's not exactly a trick question, but it's not exactly an honest one either:

- Weapons of Mass Destruction
- The Job Creation Act
- Links to Al Qa'ida
- The Patriot Act
- FCC sets limits on Media Concentration

We seem to have developed a propensity for "naming" things. It's almost like a drug company sitting around and deciding that "Nexium" will be known as "the little purple pill" and then selling it that way to America, or when FOX Cable News declared itself as "fair and balanced".

Similarly, the Bush administration has created and "sold" to America the notion of "Weapons of Mass Destruction", even though these weapons have existed for decades without having been previously "named" for public consumption.

The Administration recently passed legislation reducing taxes by a humongous amount and referred to it as a "Job Creation Act".

Since 9/11 it would appear that anytime the Administration wishes to castigate a nation (like Iraq), it claims they have "links to Al-Qa'ida". Apparently most of America believes that the Iraq was somehow involved in the destruction of the World Trade Center.

Almost more than anything else I love the name "Patriot Act" which says it all. It combines, "If you're not with us you're against us" and/or "If you're against the 'Patriot Act' you're somehow un-American or unpatriotic".

The Administration has created the terminology: "Weapons of Mass Destruction", "Job Creation Act", "links to Al Qa'ida", and "The Patriot Act", and I find it incredible that somehow each of these items have been "sold" to the American public.

I have spent over 45 years in media and I consider myself somewhat of an expert. I have followed the actions of the FCC for over 35 years and have decided that the FCC does what is expedient for the Administration, and not what is in the public interest.

On June 2, 2003, in an official FCC release, the opening line states, "FCC Sets Limits on Media Concentration". A more honest opening line would've included the words, higher limits. The release went on to say:

"Unprecedented Public Record Results in Enforceable and Balanced Broadcast Ownership Rules" The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) today adopted new broadcast ownership rules that are enforceable, based on empirical evidence and reflective of the current media marketplace. Today's action represents the most comprehensive review of media ownership regulation in the agency's history, spanning 20 months and encompassing a public record of more than 520,000 comments. The FCC stated that its new limits on broadcast ownership are carefully balanced to protect diversity, localism, and competition in the American media system. The FCC concluded that these new broadcast ownership limits will foster a vibrant market place of ideas, promote vigorous competition, and ensure that broadcasters continue to serve the needs and interests of their local communities."

The Commission also had the temerity to add some misleading statistics in justifying the limit on national ownership to stations reaching 45% of US homes. The FCC went on to say, "Therefore, a 45% share of US TV households is not equal to a 45% share of TV stations in the US". They proceeded to point out that there were 1,340 commercial TV stations in the US and Viacom owns 39 TV stations (2.9%), FOX owns 37 (2.8%), NBC owns 29 (2.2%), and ABC owns 10 (0.8%).

It is undoubtedly irresponsible for me to conclude that Chairman Powell decided, quite some time ago, to raise the station ownership caps and has spent recent months with two of his Republican colleagues engaging in a "ritual dance" prior to the adoption of the new rules on June 2nd, 2003. These new rules are an affront to the notion of "diversity, localism, and competition in the American media system". That would be bad enough, but for the Commission to report this in a most disingenuous or even dishonest way is totally unconscionable. Their misleading statements are consistent with "selling it" and unfortunately, just because they've said it doesn't make it so.

If a pharmaceutical company or auto manufacturer made misleading statements about their products, similar to the FCC, they would be forced by the regulators to withdraw the misleading advertising. Sadly, in this case the advertiser (the FCC) is the regulator (the FCC) and there isn't a "cop" around when you need one.

Back to Articles