Does Rupert Murdoch’s purchase of Dow Jones face serious obstacles at the FCC? The almost universal opinion has been “no”. Big as it is, News Corporation and Dow Jones don’t really compete against each other in any significant markets. The only real FCC concern would be the newspaper-television crossownership rule. But, although New Corp owns a station in New York City, the nationally-circulated Walll Street Journal — under FCC precedent –is not considered a New York paper.
Nevertheless, Michael Copps — a Democratic commissioner at the FCC — warned that the deal was not a “slam dunk.” “Not so fast,” he wrote in a statement issued from his office yesterday. “What’s good for shareholders of huge media conglomerates isn’t always what’s good for the public interest or our civic dialogue. We should immediately conduct a careful factual and legal analysis of the transaction to determine how it implicates specific FCC rules and our overarching statutory obligation to protect the public interest.”
The overall message here is clear. Translated from regulator-speak, it’s like the cop on the beat who stops someone to say “I don’t like the way you look. I can’t think of anything to charge you with now, but given enough time I’m sure I can find something”.
Continue reading →
Good piece in the Wall Street Journal yesterday by Dennis Patrick (former FCC Chairman) and Thomas Hazlett (former FCC Chief Economist) on the Fairness Doctrine. In their editorial entitled, “The Return of the Speech Police,” they argue that the Doctrine represented “well-intended regulation gone wrong” and that “re-imposing ‘fairness’ regulation would be a colossal mistake.” The continue:
The Fairness Doctrine was bad public policy. It rested on the presumption that government regulators can coolly review editorial choices and, with the power to license (or not license) stations, improve the quantity and quality of broadcast news. Yet, as the volcanic eruption triggered by repeal amply demonstrated, government enforcement of “fairness” was extremely political.
Evaluations were hotly contested; each regulatory determination was loaded with implications for warring factions. The simple ceases to be easy once government is forced to issue blanket rules. What public issues are crucial to cover? How many contrasting views, and presented by whom, in what context, and for how long? The Fairness Doctrine brought a federal agency into the newsroom to second-guess a broadcaster’s editorial judgments at the behest of combatants rarely motivated by the ideal of “balanced” coverage.
Continue reading →
Comm. Daily had a good article on July 16, “Republican Fairness Doctrine Measure Sidetracked,” concerning a measure that would have blocked the FCC from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine:
Durbin rejected an amendment to the defense authorization bill (HR-1585), offered by Republican Sen. Norm Coleman of Minn., that would block the FCC from reinstating the doctrine that was banned in 1987. Durbin favors reinstatement, which has provoked an uproar among Republicans fearful the doctrine would be used to shut down conservative talk radio, Coleman said. The fairness doctrine required broadcasters to present balanced viewpoints on controversial issues (CD July 2 p1).
Conservative talk radio has flourished because the market “says ‘I want to listen,'” Coleman said, and consumers have a choice — they can turn off the dial. But government should not be regulating content, he argued: Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would be a “very, very bad idea.” Durbin said Americans should hear both sides of a story since the airwaves are public property: “What if the marketplace does not provide opportunities to hear both points of view?” Durbin mused whether a government role would then be appropriate.
Continue reading →
By Drew Clark
The National Association of Broadcasters likes to think of itself as the king of Capitol Hill. It carefully cultivates an invincible image. And some in the mainstream media buy it. The New York Times describes NAB as “the powerful trade lobby.” But in truth, right now television and radio broadcasters have never been weaker than in 1982, when Sen. Bob Packwood, R-Ore., uttered these famous words: “The NAB can’t lobby its way out of a paper bag.”
Over the last 10 years, the NAB spent $55 million in lobbying expenditures – more than any other association – to disprove Packwood’s hypothesis. But still, the association is now getting hit on all sides. On radio, this year NAB is battling the proposed merger of XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio. Besting such a merger would normally be easy – if NAB hadn’t been arguing for the opposite of what it now seeks. And last month an alliance of performers and recording companies called MusicFirst decided to strike for a performance royalty from over-the-air radio stations. American copyright law exempts terrestrial broadcasters from paying for performances.
But the biggest deal is now heading into the spotlight: vacant television channels known as “white spaces.” Everyone covets them: technology companies like Dell, Google, Intel and Microsoft, wireless carriers like Sprint-Nextel, advocates for rural broadband, and non-profit spectrum utopians who look at white spaces and see decentralized community networks.
Continue reading →
Today, the Well Connected Project of the Center for Public Integrity is excited to launch an issue portal jointly with Congresspedia. This issue portal is a wiki, like Wikipedia, creating a collection of articles on telecom, media and technology policy, in a single location. Anyone can read, write and edit these articles.
This issue portal builds on the great telecom and technology reporting done by the members of the Well Connected Project staff. This venture into collaborative journalism is a first for our project. It adds a new element to our investigative journalism endeavor. First of all, we have the Media Tracker, a free database of more than five million records that tells you who owns the media where you live by typing in you ZIP code. If we win our lawsuit against the FCC, we’ll also include company-specific broadband information in the Media Tracker.
Second, our blog features dozens of quick-turnaround stories on the hottest topics in telecom and media policy. Recent stories have broken news on the battle over 700 Megahertz, on the lobbying over the proposed XM-Sirius satellite radio merger, and also over copyright controls on electronic devices. We also do investigative reports – like this one about Sam Zell, the new owner of Tribune Co. – that build on the data that is freely available in Media Tracker.
Now, with the addition of this Congresspedia wiki, our project aims to incorporate citizen-journalism on key public policy issues near and dear to the blogosphere. These are issues like Broadband availability, Digital copyright, Digital television, Regulating media content, and Spectrum are at the core of what techies care about in Washington. We hope you will add others articles, too. In fact, I’ve already started my own wish list: articles about Patent overhaul legislation, Media ownership, the Universal Service Fund, and Video franchising. Our reporters can summarize these issues and debates, but so can you.
Take a crack at them!
Continue reading →
My colleague Scott Wallsten, PFF’s Director of Communications Policy Studies, filed comments at the FCC this week regarding the proposed merger of satellite radio providers XM and Sirius. Scott points out what many of the merger critics have failed to appreciate:
[C]ompanies like these are platforms in two-sided markets that must find ways to attract subscribers and content. Both subscribers and content providers can choose among a variety of platforms. Moreover, the platforms themselves are dynamic in that they could potentially carry any digital information, not just the particular services they currently offer.
In short, a merger analysis of competing platforms that considers only a single component in this complex market is likely to reach an incorrect conclusion. In the case of the XM-Sirius merger, officials should consider not only subscribers, but also content providers, competing platforms, platforms that are potential competitors, and services the platforms in question may provide in the future that they do not today.
This seems like the most obvious thing in the world to me, and yet I have been shocked to see how many people are opposing this merger using the narrow-minded logic that XM and Sirius operate in a solitary market, free of external pressures and threats. It’s absolute lunacy to me. Frankly, as I argued in this lengthy essay I penned on the topic the night the merger was announced, I just don’t see how both these firms can survive in the long run unless they merge. The competitive pressures are just far too intense with all the competition for our ears these days.
Anyway, read Scott’s filing for an even better analysis.
It’s no secret that the Fairness Doctrine isn’t popular in the talk radio world. The effort to revive the rule is largely aimed at curbing that media, and most major talk shows hosts have (rightfully) turned the idea into a policy pinata. Less well known, however, is the fact that the Fairness Doctrine is also taking a major caning online. Usually, the blogoshere is friendly territory for the left. But when it comes to the Fairness Doctrine, its been anything but.
A quick google blog search earlier today on the term “fairness doctrine” shows the extent of the problem for supporters: of the top ten posts on the subject which take a position, nine were against reimposing the Doctrine. And it doesn’t seem to get much better in the next 10, or the 10 after that. Sure, there’s been some spirited defenses of regulation coming from the Huffington Post and elsewhere, but they’ve been vasted outnumbered by critics.
And it’s mostly not from professional policy wonks, judging by the names of the blogs, which often are as colorful as their arguments. Here’s a sampling:
Continue reading →
Only a couple of days ago, it seems like the debate over the Fairness Doctrine was fading. Opponents were reduced to citing overheard elevator conversations for Pete’s sake.
Then the dam burst. So far this week three Democratic senators have come out in support of reimposing the restriction. (One — John Kerry — was probably as surprised as anyone, since his comments had been recorded months ago, but only released Tuesday by New York public radio host Brian Lehrer).
In the House, all the action has been by Fairness Doctrine opponents, led by Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana — who have crafted a bill to take away the FCC’s authority to impose such regulation.
Now comes the real shocker — the idea will be voted on today by the full house, as an amendment to the FCC appropriations bill. Now that’s what I call fast action.
Odds are that the amendment won’t pass. But the up or down vote will tell us a lot, as members will, on the record, have to declare whether they believe in government control of the media or not.
The results should be interesting. Stay tuned.
Dick Durbin — the Senate’s Majority whip — came out four-square in favor of the Fairness Doctrine today, declaring in The Hill — a newspaper for Capitol Hill: “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine” It’s the clearest statement yet from a member of the congressional leadership that there will be a real fight over the issue.
Oddly, Durbin explained his position with an appeal to old-time values: “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”
Unfortunately, that “old-fashioned attitude” comes with other old-fashioned ideas — such as government restrictions on what the media can and can not say. Memories of Torquemada no doubt bring tears to his eyes as well.
Of course, if he really wants to be old-fashioned, he could dig up a copy of the First Amendment, adopted way back in 1791, which says “Congress shall make no law… abridging freedom of speech, or of the press.”
How quaint is that?
The debate over the Fairness Doctrine has up until now had a bit of a shadow-boxing quality to it. While opposition to the FCC rule has been abundant — it’s hard to turn on the radio without hearing some discussion of the issue — actual legislative proposals to reinstate the rule have been scarce.
Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum, however. So, rather than wait for advocates of the doctrine to make their move, Rep. Mike Pence, a Republican from Indiana, has decided to take the offensive by introducing his own legislation to ban the FCC from reinstating the rule. Specifically, Pence’s bill, to be introduced later this week, provides that the Federal Communications Commission “shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, standard, or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or repromulgating” the Fairness Doctrine.
While the bill’s chances for passage in the Democratic-controlled Congress are unclear, Pence’s bill is significant. First, it gives opponents of the Fairness Doctrine a clear goal around which to rally — endng the “will they or will they not” guessing game. Perhaps more importantly, the legislation potentially redefines the question at hand from “should regulation be imposed?” to “should regulation be allowed?”
It’s a good question, and a debate well worth having. 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.