Now Hear This Electronic Newsletter, November 1, 2007 Posted
by Bob at 10/31/07 03:37 PM
The public is deeply and fiercely opposed to a controversial proposal by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin that could relax longstanding media ownership restrictions before the end of the year, according to a new survey released this week.
Martin says he wants to hold a vote by December 18th on whether to relax the FCC's so-called "cross-ownership ban." Those rules prohibit a company from owning both the major newspaper and a television station in a local market.
Martin's proposal to rush to a vote on the rules has set off a firestorm of protest from Congress and public interest groups, including Consumers Union, the sponsor of this blog. Nearly all of the speakers at a series of public hearings on the media ownership rules held by the FCC over the past few months have pleaded with the commissioners not to relax the media ownership rules.
The new survey by the Media and Democracy Coalition shows overwhelming public support for keeping the cross-ownership ban in place -- support that cuts across political, ethnic and generational lines.
Among the major findings of the MDC poll:
Seventy percent of the poll respondents describe media consolidation as a problem and 42 percent of Americans describe it as a major problem. Democrats, independents and Republicans all consider ownership consolidation to be a problem in nearly equal proportions; seventy-one percent of Democrats, 73 percent of independents and 69 percent of Republicans believe increasing ownership consolidation is a problem.
By a considerable margin of 57 percent to 30 percent, the public favors laws that make it illegal for a corporation to own both a newspaper and a television station in the same city or media market. Similar levels of support exist among political liberals (59 percent favor), moderates (58 percent favor), and conservatives (56 percent favor). Likewise, the poll finds support among both older and younger Americans (58 and 55 percent, respectively), white Americans and people of color (59 and 50 percent), and union and non-union households (59 and 56 percent).
The concern about ownership consolidation and cross-ownership of local news outlets is further informed by the public’s preference for local news sources which are threatened by the concentration of ownership by a few, very large multi-national conglomerates. Americans report that they are more likely to watch local television news on a daily basis (61 percent daily) than national television news broadcasts (44 percent daily) or cable television news (37 percent daily). Newspapers share a similar dynamic: thirty- five percent of the public say they read their local daily newspaper every day compared to 5 percent who read a national newspaper on a daily basis. When it comes to local news, the same patterns emerge, with television dominating followed by local radio news, daily newspapers and the Internet.
The consolidation of ownership also threatens to introduce more bias into broadcasts that the public already views as tainted by partiality. One third of Americans (34 percent) already believe there is a “great deal” of bias in the news coverage they watch, and nearly three-quarters (72 percent) of the public consider there to be a “great deal” or a “fair amount of bias.” Revealingly, by a 56 to 30 percent margin, the public believes there is more bias in “national newspapers and broadcasts” than in “local newspapers and news broadcast.” Consolidation of ownership threatens the autonomy of the local outlets that the public prefers and relies on and eliminates the diversity of voices in the news media that prevents imbalance in news coverage.
The overwhelming opposition to relaxing the media ownership rules cannot come as a surprise to Chairman Martin. All five of the public hearings the FCC has held on the issue over the last 18 months have been a parade of one speaker after another asking that the rules be left alone or strengthened. The handful of supporters of relaxing the rules who have shown up at those hearings have typically been big media executives or surrogates recruited by big media companies.
At this point, it is unclear if there is anything that can be done to dissuade Chairman Martin and his two fellow Republican commissioners, Debra Tate and Robert McDowell, from relaxing the cross-ownership ban. Unless they have been listening to their I-Pods during all those hearings, they know public sentiment is strongly against relaxing the rules.
But Martin and his razor-thin majority on the commission have shown increasing contempt for the public his agency is supposed to be serving in myriad ways in recent months.
For example, the agency announced a public hearing on localism -- a vital element of media consolidation -- just five days before it was held in Washington this week. The formal announcements of other public hearings on the media ownership issue have been made with similarly short timelines.
Such cynical tactics are too cute by half, and leave the clear impression that Martin and his allies on the commission have long since made up their minds and have merely been going through the motions with the series of public hearings on media ownership.
If they had been listening, the FCC would now be moving to strengthen its already-weak media ownership rules instead of rushing to relax them. Consumers and citizens deserve better from the agency created to be the steward of the public's airwaves.
________________________________________________________________________________
NEW ON www.hearusnow.org
Click on the links below to view these items recently posted on www.hearusnow.org
Consumer Groups Close the Case Against Cross-Ownership
Poll Shows Public Concern Over Media Consolidation Across Political, Ethnic and Generational Divides
comments
(5)
1
Posted by Joe at 11/01/07 01:40 PM
Isn't this the same Commission Chairman (Kevin Martin) who wanted to give consumers more choice in cell phones by requiring all cell phones to have the software to work on any cell network??
Now he wants to allow a major newspaper and television station in the same market to be owned by the same media company?
Maybe he thinks it will give him job security so that in a few years he can work to re-tighten the rules. The majority of politicians a disgusting group of thieves looking out only for themselves and the special interests that fatten their wallets. And we're too busy (lazy) to do anything about it!
2
Posted by JOHN & JEANNE DWYER at 11/01/07 02:06 PM
WHAT ARE YOU GUYS THINKING ? TODAYS MEDIA IS ALREADY IN CONTROL AND WE ONLY HEAR ONE SIDE OF A ISSUE. PLEASE DON'T LET THEM OWN EVERYTHING WE READ, SEE, HEAR. OR WATCH. THE COUNTRY DOESN'T WANT THESE LARGE COMPANIES TO OWN AND CONTROL ANY MORE OF OUR MEDIA. PART OF OUR FREEDOM IS HAVING A CHOICE TO BE INFORMED TO BOTH SIDES OF IMPORTANT ISSUES.
3
Posted by Dr. James Ross at 11/01/07 02:09 PM
Strengthen media ownership rules!!!!!!!!!49544
4
Posted by Frank Scholten at 11/01/07 05:12 PM
What Part of MONOPOLY don't you understand???
.
WHERE IS YOUR ALLEGIANCE?
.
WHERE IS YOUR LOYALTY?
.
WHO DO YOU REPORT TO?
.
PLEASE EXPLAIN TO "WE THE PEOPLE" HOW WE ARE BETTER OFF WITH LESS.
5
Posted by George D. Shaeffer at 11/01/07 08:10 PM
NEWSPEAK!--- Just as in Orwell's "1984"
