It’s no Watergate, but the FCC is still roiling over charges made that it deep-sixed a staff study on media ownership because it didn’t like the results. The allegations–and the study–surfaced last week at a hearing on Chairman Kevin Martin’s reappointment. Sent anonymously to Sen. Barbara Boxer, the paper was reportedly written in 2004 by two commission staffers and found that locally-owned television stations aired more local news that those owned by national chains. According to former Media Bureau attorney Adam Candeub, unspecified higher-ups at the agency were appalled at the results because they undercut ongoing efforts to reform media ownership laws. As a result, Candeub said, every copy of the report was ordered destroyed. “The whole project was dropped, “end of discussion, he said.
Kevin Martin–who was a commissioner, but not chair, of the FCC at the time–was apparently blindsided by the claims. He stated that he had never heard of the study, but pledged to look into the matter. He also had the study–or at least a PDF of the copy provided by Boxer–put on the commission’s website. (Bizarrely, this copy–even as posted by the FCC–has the authors names blacked out).
The mini-scandal–perhaps it should be called Papergate–was widely reported in the press, and has led to a barrage of criticism in the blogosphere and a stream of press releases from pro-media regulation advocacy groups (Typical was a headline used by the advocacy group Free Press: “FCC Buried Evidence to Protect Friends in Big Media“.)
The reaction was understandable–the image of FCC officials ordering all traces of a study destroyed, Carthage-like, just because they don’t like the results is a disturbing one. But is the real story that simple? I’m skeptical, for several reasons. Anyone who has worked at the FCC knows that the place leaks like an Italian warship. Its simply is hard to believe that such a step would remain a secret for two years, especially given the intense outside interest in the broadcast ownership debate. That’s not to say that studies are not quietly set aside–that happens all the time. But–as described–the end of this study was anything but quiet, and it’s hard to see the noise not reaching outside the FCC’s building.
Even more strangely, most key FCC officials say they knew nothing about the project. Then FCC-chairman Michael Powell has said so publicly, as has Ken Ferree, the then-chief of the Media Bureau. The FCC’s top policy office chiefs also have said they knew nothing about the paper, never mind its colorful end. I see no reason to doubt them (since there are plenty of others who could contradict false statements). But it’s hard to see the events occurring as alleged without one or more senior officials becoming aware of them.
Lastly, despite all the attention, the study’s results were hardly a death blow to arguments for deregulation. Despite the Snoopy-dance performed by many regulation advocates, the study’s conclusions are much more limited than often portrayed, and some parts of it actually aid the case against regulation. (More on this in my next post). It hardly seems the sort of thing that would trigger a dramatic–and politically-dangerous–response.
What all this means, I don’t know. My suspicion is there is a lot less here than meets the eye. But, until more facts become available– the Inspector General has already been asked to investigate–I don’t think anyone on the outside can know for sure.
Stay tuned.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.
Comments on this entry are closed.