FCC Localism Report: More (and Less) Than It Seems

by on September 18, 2006 · 14 comments

The FCC’s localism report has attracted massive controversy as to whether it was inappropriately scotched by the FCC. By contrast, there has been remarkably little attention on its substance. “Do Local Owners Deliver More Localism?: Some Evidence From Local Broadcast News,” was written in 2004, apparently by FCC staffers Peter Alexander and Keith Brown. Using a 1998 database from the University of Delaware, the authors looked at how the ownership of television stations affects the amount of news they deliver. The headline finding was that stations that are locally-owned have some 5.5 minutes more of local news on their half-hour news programs, and over 3 minutes more of local on-location news. Because of this finding–which points to a possible downside to national chains of TV stations– the FCC allegedly killed the study.

But, as Matthew Laser–an author and former Pacifica Radio reporter–argued today, the report is actually much more complicated than the headlines suggest. He points out that several aspects of this study undercut the advocates of strict ownership limits. The study found that television stations that also own a radio station in the same market provide more news than those without such cross-ownership. It also found that television station/newspaper cross-ownership was not found to be a significant factor in the amount of local news provided.

Perhaps most striking, the report concedes that more local news may not always be a good thing. “For example,” it suggests, “if the local [television] owners also develops real estate locally, they may cover the local zoning board in a way that favors the owners’s real estate interests.”

In fact, the report does not address perhaps the biggest question: do viewers actually want more local content? This issue is addressed only in a footnote of the study, which simply states that “non-local content may be more appealing to viewers than local content.”

In this regard, the study tracks much of the current debate: policymakers determine what content is preferred, with only occasional nods to whether consumers object. Its a topsy-turvy analysis: instead of defining success, consumer preferences are seen as potential obstacles to it. This really is more complicated than it seems.

SHARE: 14 comments

About James Gattuso

James Gattuso is a Senior Research Fellow in Regulatory Policy in the Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Gattuso also leads the Enterprise and Free Markets Initiative at Heritage, with responsiblity for a range of regulatory and market issues. Prior to joining Heritage, he served as Vice President for Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and also as Vice President for Policy Development with Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE). From 1990 to 1993, he was Deputy Chief of the Office of Plans and Policy at the Federal Communications Commission. From May 1991 to June 1992, he was detailed from the FCC to the office of Vice President Dan Quayle, where he served as Associate Director of the President's Council on Competitiveness. He lives in Alexandria, Virginia with his wife Dana, 8 year-old son, Peter (whom he relies upon to operate his VCR), and his four year-old daughter Lindsey (who does the DVD player.) He has no known hobbies, but is not nearly as boring as he seems.

Read more articles by James Gattuso.

  • http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com MikeT

    How do you know what consumer preferences and objections are? This is what annoys a lot of non-public policy people on stuff like this. Perhaps no one on either side of this public policy issue has considered the possibility that most media customers simply don’t know enough and/or don’t have an opinion. It’s like the PFF bloggers saying that clearly customers don’t care about DRM because if they did, they wouldn’t buy it. That begs the obvious question of how much the customers really know and understand, which is often I bet a lot less than most policy wonks realize.

  • http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com MikeT

    How do you know what consumer preferences and objections are? This is what annoys a lot of non-public policy people on stuff like this. Perhaps no one on either side of this public policy issue has considered the possibility that most media customers simply don’t know enough and/or don’t have an opinion. It’s like the PFF bloggers saying that clearly customers don’t care about DRM because if they did, they wouldn’t buy it. That begs the obvious question of how much the customers really know and understand, which is often I bet a lot less than most policy wonks realize.

  • James Gattuso

    I don’t know what consumer preferences are – I hope I didn’t imply that I did. That’s why I argue for systems (i.e. markets) that let them express their preferences. What I’m against is someone telling them that they should prefer X or Y content. Of course, consumers don’t have perfect knowledge — but are you really saying viewers don’t know what they want to watch on TV? Or — even more disturbing — that they do know, but that policymakers need to correct them when they are “wrong”?

  • http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com MikeT

    I agree with the preference for markets. It’s just a gripe of mine about public policy types. They seem to take a lot of important information for granted, like what people really want. I see it all the time with the PFF bloggers.

    I think that people want to watch quality content, and that where the public policy side fails is to realize that what people really need is a vacuum, not a regulatory infrastructure that encourges anything. That too is a gripe I have with some “libertarian public policy” types. They redefine freedom from a vacuum into a series of “enabling policies.” Letting spontaneous order work itself out without basically any government involvement is how I want it done.

  • James Gattuso

    I don’t know what consumer preferences are – I hope I didn’t imply that I did. That’s why I argue for systems (i.e. markets) that let them express their preferences. What I’m against is someone telling them that they should prefer X or Y content. Of course, consumers don’t have perfect knowledge — but are you really saying viewers don’t know what they want to watch on TV? Or — even more disturbing — that they do know, but that policymakers need to correct them when they are “wrong”?

  • http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com MikeT

    I agree with the preference for markets. It’s just a gripe of mine about public policy types. They seem to take a lot of important information for granted, like what people really want. I see it all the time with the PFF bloggers.


    I think that people want to watch quality content, and that where the public policy side fails is to realize that what people really need is a vacuum, not a regulatory infrastructure that encourges anything. That too is a gripe I have with some “libertarian public policy” types. They redefine freedom from a vacuum into a series of “enabling policies.” Letting spontaneous order work itself out without basically any government involvement is how I want it done.

  • Anonymous

    I think we are in agreement then. My point was NOT that policymakers should affirmatively determine viewer preferences, then favor that kind of content over others. Instead, my criticism was that simply that policymakers currently do favor local over nonlocal content, with little regard for what viewers want to watch.

  • Anonymous

    I think we are in agreement then. My point was NOT that policymakers should affirmatively determine viewer preferences, then favor that kind of content over others. Instead, my criticism was that simply that policymakers currently do favor local over nonlocal content, with little regard for what viewers want to watch.

  • Anonymous

    A careful reading shows that the newspaper “cross-ownership” is for papers outside of a given DMA, not inside a DMA where a station owner is located.

    There’s a fairly big difference between this and what you suggest, but I suspect the facts don’t fit your agenda. A pity that you prefer to distort the facts; you might try reading things yourself rather than relying on second-hand information that is inaccurate.

  • Anonymous

    A careful reading shows that the newspaper “cross-ownership” is for papers outside of a given DMA, not inside a DMA where a station owner is located.

    There’s a fairly big difference between this and what you suggest, but I suspect the facts don’t fit your agenda. A pity that you prefer to distort the facts; you might try reading things yourself rather than relying on second-hand information that is inaccurate.

  • James Gattuso

    That is a good catch. I admit I did not see that the study only measured out-of-DMA newspaper cross-ownership. (Although, I did not actually say that it did — I referred only to “television station/newspaper crossownership,” generically, as did the working paper in its conclusion (“newspaper ownership is not a significant factor.”)). Still, I shoould have caught that.

    It is of course, a big jump from this to your generalized assertion that I prefer to “distort” the facts. I only note that such ad hominem charges must be easier when one is posting anonymously, as you did here.

  • James Gattuso

    That is a good catch. I admit I did not see that the study only measured out-of-DMA newspaper cross-ownership. (Although, I did not actually say that it did — I referred only to “television station/newspaper crossownership,” generically, as did the working paper in its conclusion (“newspaper ownership is not a significant factor.”)). Still, I shoould have caught that.

    It is of course, a big jump from this to your generalized assertion that I prefer to “distort” the facts. I only note that such ad hominem charges must be easier when one is posting anonymously, as you did here.

  • Anonymous

    Two points.

    First, the distinction clearly given in the report is crucial, and it is important for any rational discussion to proceed from the facts. You passed on incorrect information from another website, and I was hoping to help you correct that mis-impression.

    Second, I owe you an apology for suggesting you have a preference for distorting the facts, since I have no basis for any such judgement (and even if you did it would be extremely impolite for me to say so). On point two, I offer my sincere apology and I hope you accept it.

  • Anonymous

    Two points.

    First, the distinction clearly given in the report is crucial, and it is important for any rational discussion to proceed from the facts. You passed on incorrect information from another website, and I was hoping to help you correct that mis-impression.

    Second, I owe you an apology for suggesting you have a preference for distorting the facts, since I have no basis for any such judgement (and even if you did it would be extremely impolite for me to say so). On point two, I offer my sincere apology and I hope you accept it.

Previous post:

Next post: