FCC boss wants cross-ownership rules relaxed

Force Commander · Post by **Force Commander** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 5:23 pm

From allaccess.com

As expected, FCC Chairman KEVIN MARTIN said TODAY the agency should relax its ban on the cross-ownership of newspapers in the biggest U.S. cities and allow them to buy a broadcast television or radio station in the same market.

In a column published in the NEW YORK TIMES, MARTIN said that his proposal to ease the ownership rules would require each part of a combined entity to maintain its editorial independence.

"A company that owns a newspaper in one of the 20 largest cities in the country should be permitted to purchase a broadcast TV or radio station in the same market," MARTIN wrote. "But a newspaper should be prohibited from buying one of the top-four TV stations in its community."

MARTIN's plan would, for example, require TRIBUNE BROADCASTING to divest itself of either WGN-TV or WGN-A/CHICAGO.

MARTIN also said that "this relatively minor loosening of the ban" on cross-ownership would strike a balance between protecting the quality of local news coverage while preventing too much concentration of ownership.

MARTIN recently said he wants the agency to wrap up its examination of media ownership and reach a decision by DECEMBER 18th on whether to ease limits on how many media outlets a company may own in a single market.

However, two senators have threatened to introduce bipartisan legislation that would impose a 90-day delay on any FCC decision to ease media ownership rules. The bill planned by Sens. BYRON DORGAN, a NORTH DAKOTA Democrat, and TRENT LOTT, a MISSISSIPPI Republican, would require the FCC to study the issue for at least 90 more days.

Force Commander · Post by **Force Commander** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 5:35 pm

I think the FCC is really looking at this backwards. It's the smaller markets that need cross-ownership looked at, in a different way.

How many small non-rated markets have their own TV station? If they are fortunate enough to have one of the few, how many of those have news departments or the means to do other independent produced programs?

I think the FCC should allow a radio or newspaper group to own a TV, IF it is a new sign on in markets that have no local TV station. There are successful radio or newspaper groups that would love the chance to grow in that direction but cannot because of the current rules. They have the means to build, the capitol to run it until it can stand on it's own, and can run it cheaper because at least some staff can be trained to do cross duty. Particularly the sales department and possibly the news department.

To do TV takes more staff than radio (maybe not print), so you would bone up the group to take care of the operation. In the very small markets, opening up cross-ownership rules I think would expand choices in an area that would not have such an operation otherwise. Isn't that expansion of voices and choices what the FCC supposedly wants.

There is my thought, please feel free to pick this apart and tell me what I am missing in my unofficial proposal?

genlock · Post by **genlock** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 5:40 pm

The FCC should have nothing to do with newspapers.
FCC should not be any more concerned about newspapers owning radio or tv stations than car dealerships or bottling plants. This whole thing was a power grab by the FCC many years ago. FCC should be concerned about one company owning most of the stations in a market tho and they are not.

Force Commander · Post by **Force Commander** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 6:32 pm

genlock wrote:The FCC should have nothing to do with newspapers.
FCC should not be any more concerned about newspapers owning radio or tv stations than car dealerships or bottling plants. This whole thing was a power grab by the FCC many years ago. FCC should be concerned about one company owning most of the stations in a market tho and they are not.

That is a very good obvious point that I and many people arguing this have totally missed in this discussion over the years. Seriously, thanks for posting that one.

Bob Campbell · Post by **Bob Campbell** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 5:10 am

Martin wants to do all he can to relax all the ownership rules within the next year because he knows after the '08 elections, with Clinton in the White House and a larger Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, it will never happen.

Hoosier Daddy · Post by **Hoosier Daddy** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:16 pm

I think there are serious concerns when one company can dominate the collection and broadcasting of news in a particular area or even nationwide, including asking (or not asking) questions of concern to appointed or elected government officials, and controlling editorial content to "bend and shape" the hearts and minds of the majority of our citizens who take what they hear or read at face value and accept it as gospel.

I can see nothing but benefits from having a diverse group of media outlets - each under different control and ownership - gathering and reporting the news, opining to their heart's content, and giving the listener or reader a truly fair and balanced perspective on local, statewide, and national happenings.

I don't understand why some of youse guys who abhor big and centralized controlling government are in love with big and centralized controlling media and business operations. Both are to be feared.

Just my $0.02.