In This Article
Subscribe to Politics Updates
FCC Chairman Moves to Loosen Media Ownership Restrictions
by
findingDulcinea Staff
Chairman Kevin Martin’s proposal, should it be approved, will end years of speculation that cross-ownership restrictions have become political tools, rumors that began with the law’s Watergate-era origins.
30-Second Summary
In 1975, congress passed federal regulations making it illegal for a single company to own multiple media properties, such as a newspaper and a television or radio station, in the same metropolitan market.
The express reasoning for the plan was to prevent monopolies and ensure a diversity of opinion, but there were rumors of political motivations as well.
The roots of that speculation lead to The Washington Post’s uncovering the Watergate scandal, which prompted President Richard Nixon’s 1974 resignation. Blaming the Post for his political disgrace, Nixon was recorded as telling two of his top aides in 1972 that the paper would “have damnable, damnable problems out of this one … They have a television station … and they’re going to have to get it renewed.”
Three years after that conversation, the Federal Communications Commission barred cross-ownership, forcing the Post to swap its local television station with one in Detroit.
A direct connection has never been established between Nixon’s threats and the ban, but that event marked the beginning of allegations that media policy and politics are inextricably entwined.
In 1988, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) added a provision to an appropriations bill that barred the FCC from granting waivers to the ownership restrictions. The move was widely seen as a direct attack against vocal Kennedy critic Rupert Murdoch.
That year Murdoch had to re-apply for the waivers that had allowed him to own a newspaper and a television station in both Boston and New York. Kennedy’s action prompted a tabloid war pitting the “Fat Boy” against the “Dirty Digger.”
In the end, Murdoch was forced to sell both the Boston Herald and the New York Post.
Now FCC Chairman Kevin Martin wants to do away with the cross-ownership regulations. However Martin drew fire from critics when he tried to expedite approval for his reforms by tying them to Tribune Company’s waiver renewal requests. It seems that even the ban’s potential dissolution is steeped in political machinations.
The express reasoning for the plan was to prevent monopolies and ensure a diversity of opinion, but there were rumors of political motivations as well.
The roots of that speculation lead to The Washington Post’s uncovering the Watergate scandal, which prompted President Richard Nixon’s 1974 resignation. Blaming the Post for his political disgrace, Nixon was recorded as telling two of his top aides in 1972 that the paper would “have damnable, damnable problems out of this one … They have a television station … and they’re going to have to get it renewed.”
Three years after that conversation, the Federal Communications Commission barred cross-ownership, forcing the Post to swap its local television station with one in Detroit.
A direct connection has never been established between Nixon’s threats and the ban, but that event marked the beginning of allegations that media policy and politics are inextricably entwined.
In 1988, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) added a provision to an appropriations bill that barred the FCC from granting waivers to the ownership restrictions. The move was widely seen as a direct attack against vocal Kennedy critic Rupert Murdoch.
That year Murdoch had to re-apply for the waivers that had allowed him to own a newspaper and a television station in both Boston and New York. Kennedy’s action prompted a tabloid war pitting the “Fat Boy” against the “Dirty Digger.”
In the end, Murdoch was forced to sell both the Boston Herald and the New York Post.
Now FCC Chairman Kevin Martin wants to do away with the cross-ownership regulations. However Martin drew fire from critics when he tried to expedite approval for his reforms by tying them to Tribune Company’s waiver renewal requests. It seems that even the ban’s potential dissolution is steeped in political machinations.
Headline Links: Martin’s dealings with Tribune
The Tribune Company owns newspaper-broadcast combinations in five markets and previously held waivers for each of them. However, when Chicago billionaire Sam Zell proposed to buy the company last year, the new ownership forced Tribune to reapply for these waivers. The FCC voted on Nov. 28 to renew all five of the waivers, even granting the company a permanent waiver in the Chicago market where it owns the Chicago Tribune and a local television station. Democratic commissioner Michael Copp was harshly critical of the permanent waiver, calling it “a brazen reversal of 30 years of settled precedent.”
Source: Broadcasting & Cable
Several weeks ago, Martin suggested that he would grant the Tribune’s waivers as long as the other FCC commissioners stuck to a Dec. 18 vote on his deregulation proposal. He also said that if the commission broke this timetable, which Democrats on the FCC and in Congress characterized as a rush to judgment, “then we should be applying the rules as they apply now.” This sparked a flurry of criticism from Democratic commissioners Copp and Adelstein, who accused the chairman of using the Tribune deal as a “human shield” in order to secure support for his own reforms. Martin quickly withdrew his ultimatum, saying that he would recommend granting the waivers regardless of what happened on Dec. 18.
Source: Broadcasting & Cable
Background: Proposal for reform
Martin has called his cross-ownership reform plan “modest,” saying that it would primarily affect only the country’s 20 largest metropolitan markets. In support of his proposal, Martin argued that the changes could bolster declining newspaper revenues. Under the plan, a company could own both a newspaper and a television station as long as the television station was not one of the top four in that market. The proposal also stipulates that a cross-ownership deal could only be brokered if at least eight separately owned “major media voices” remain after the deal is completed.
Source: USA Today
Reactions: FCC commissioners square off
Martin argued in support of his reforms in a Nov. 13 New York Times op-ed called “The Daily Show.” In it, the FCC chairman depicts a newspaper industry slogged down by diminishing circulation and ad revenue, going on to say that “we will see newspapers wither and die” if the FCC doesn’t step in.
Source: The New York Times
FCC Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein have vehemently criticized Chairman Martin’s cross-ownership proposal, calling it a “wolf in sheep’s clothing [that] could repeal the [cross-ownership] ban in every market in America.” According to their joint statement, the plan could be detrimental to minority ownership of media: “[Martin] can try and characterize his plan as affecting only the ‘largest markets,’ but … the top 20 markets account for over 43 percent of U.S. households. Even on its face this proposal directly affects over 120 million Americans.”
Source: The Federal Communications Commission Web site
Commissioner Copps has also roundly criticized the chairman’s proposal to loosen media ownership restrictions, contending that though Martin has said that it affects only the 20 largest media markets, it has “a major loophole that would allow companies in smaller markets, just about any market, to apply for a similar exception on the basis of meeting a few loose criteria. So what you could wind up with is newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership in many, many more markets.” According to Copps, this sort of media consolidation has wide-reaching political implications: “Diversity of voices depends on ownership.”
Source: Salon
Martin’s push for a Dec. 18 decision has also prompted a congressional response. Senators Byron Dorgan, (D-ND) and Trent Lott (R-Miss.) have introduced a bipartisan-bill that would expand the FCC’s timetable on deciding the cross-ownership issue. The legislation, which is scheduled for vote on Dec. 4, would require the FCC to conduct a study in order to determine how newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership affects the amount of local news, public affairs and cultural programming in a market.
Source: TV Week
Historical Context: Political skullduggery?
Jim Puzzanghera of the Los Angeles Times traces the sometimes-dubious history of the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban. Beginning with Nixon’s rumored vendetta against the Washington Post, Puzzanghera goes on to note how Sen. Edward Kennedy squared off against Rupert Murdoch over the regulation in 1988: “Apparently angered by unfavorable coverage in the Murdoch-owned Boston Herald, Kennedy slipped wording into a budget bill prohibiting the FCC from extending waivers that allowed Murdoch to own newspapers and TV stations in Boston as well as New York.”
Source: freepress.net, reprinted from Los Angeles Times
In a Jan. 18, 1988, article titled “‘Fat Boy’ vs. ‘the Dirty Digger,’” Time magazine highlights some of the more extreme mud slinging during the Kennedy-Murdoch battle over cross-ownership. The controversy began when Kennedy attached an amendment to an appropriations bill that banned the FCC from granting waivers: “The lines were drawn after the discovery of the Kennedy-backed rider to the budget bill that ordered the FCC to enforce strictly its rule against a person's owning both a newspaper and a broadcast station in the same city. That turned out to be a pistol aimed directly at Murdoch.”
Source: Time
Murdoch was allowed to buy back the New York Post in 1993, citing an exemption in the cross-ownership ban that allows acquisitions if they prevent a newspaper from otherwise going out of print. “Obviously, it's a very emotional moment for me to be here,” Murdoch told his staff on the day of his return. Murdoch went on to promise that the paper would be “cheeky, irreverent and particularly anti-establishment.” The next day, page one of the Post read “It’s Good to Be Home.”
Source: The New York Times
Opinion & Analysis: Deregulation debate
Chairman Martin’s reforms have sparked spirited responses from supporters and critics. Columbia Journalism Review writer Gal Beckman examines the media spin used by both sides of the debate, breaking down exactly what is at stake in Martin’s proposal. Addressing the argument that newspapers are being eclipsed by new media, Beckman writes that the “FCC actually regulates only a small part of the ‘media’ we digest every day. It has power over newspaper and broadcast radio and television (NBC, CBS, ABC). Though this may seem like a few fish in a massive media sea, these fish are really more like those sharks that have thousands of guppies following in their wake, eating their leftovers. It’s the big-city newspapers and TV networks that break most national and international news, setting the news agenda for everyone still, despite the proliferation of all this other ‘media.’ Putting them into the same category as blogs, or even talk radio, just confuses the picture … Having said all that, I actually have no problem with the current proposed change in cross-ownership rules.”
Source: The Columbia Journalism Review
In a thorough and highly ideological examination of Martin’s deregulatory proposal, the national media reform association Free Press argues that it “is little more than corporate welfare for the biggest media companies.” The piece highlights 10 flaws in the plan that, according to Free Press, amount to a deliberate abandonment of “the FCC’s fundamental responsibility to protect media competition, localism and diversity.” The 18-page piece is available as a PDF from the Free Press Web site.
Source: Free Press
Reference Material: Tracking media ownership
The Center for Public Integrity’s “Media Tracker” provides information on who owns the television stations, radio stations, cable companies, broadband providers and newspapers in your area.
Source: The Center for Public Integrity
According to the Columbia Journalism Review’s guide to media ownership, Tribune Company owns 25 television stations in 22 cities, three cable stations, one radio station and 14 newspapers.
Source: Columbia Journalism Review
Most Recent Beyond The Headlines
© 2012 Dulcinea Media, Inc.
