[Senate Hearing 108-957]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]





                                                        S. Hrg. 108-957

                            MEDIA OWNERSHIP

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               before the

                         COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                      SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                      ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                           SEPTEMBER 28, 2004

                               __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
                             Transportation





[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]








       SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                      ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                     JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska                  ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South 
CONRAD BURNS, Montana                    Carolina, Ranking
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi              DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas          JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West 
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine                  Virginia
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas                JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon              JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois        BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada                  RON WYDEN, Oregon
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia               BARBARA BOXER, California
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire        BILL NELSON, Florida
                                     MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
                                     FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
      Jeanne Bumpus, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel
             Robert W. Chamberlin, Republican Chief Counsel
      Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
                Gregg Elias, Democratic General Counsel









                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on September 28, 2004...............................     1
Statement of Senator Dorgan......................................     1
Statement of Senator Fitzgerald..................................    40
Statement of Senator McCain......................................     1
Statement of Senator Nelson......................................    38

                               Witnesses

Baker, Edwin C., Professor, Nicholas F. Gallicchio Professor of 
  Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School.....................     3
    Prepared statement...........................................     5
Compaine, Ben, Researcher and Writer on the Information Industry.     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     9
Overholser, Geneva, Curtis B. Hurley Chair in Public Affairs 
  Reporting, Missouri School of Journalism, Washington, D.C. 
  Bureau.........................................................    13
    Prepared statement...........................................    16
Thierer, Adam D., Director, Telecommunications Studies, Cato 
  Institute......................................................    17
    Prepared statement...........................................    20

 
                            MEDIA OWNERSHIP

                              ----------                              


                      TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2004

                                       U.S. Senate,
        Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:37 a.m. in room 
SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John McCain, 
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McCAIN, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA

    The Chairman. Good morning. Today, the Committee meets for 
the tenth time during the 108th Congress to examine the issue 
of media ownership consolidation.
    Since the Committee's last media ownership hearing, the 
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued its 
decision in an appeal of the Federal Communications Commission 
media ownership rules by several media companies and public-
interest groups. The Third Circuit found the FCC did not 
provide reasoned analysis to support its chosen local ownership 
limits and, therefore, remanded portions of the new local 
ownership rules back to the FCC for further review.
    Therefore, today the Committee will hear testimony from 
academics about the Third Circuit decision and what reasoned 
analysis policymakers should consider as it approaches these 
difficult issues.
    I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses.
    Senator Dorgan?

              STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA

    Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
    Mr. Chairman, it's true we've had a lot of witnesses before 
this Committee in many hearings, for which I am very 
appreciative. I think this is a very important issue, and I 
hope that the Federal Communications commissioners, at some 
point, will come back down, perhaps when we turn the year and 
go to a new Congress. But as you have correctly indicated, the 
Federal court has remanded these rules back to the FCC, and 
they are, I expect, now either deciding whether to appeal them 
or to attempt to change them.
    Mr. Chairman, you won't like me to say this, perhaps, but 
there are some 30 to 40 million Americans who didn't have an 
opportunity to hear your speech at the Republican National 
Convention. I wish they had. In fact, I watched your speech, 
thought it was quite a good speech. But there are tens of----
    The Chairman. Content aside.
    Senator Dorgan. Pardon me?
    The Chairman. Content aside.
    Senator Dorgan. No, no, I thought it was well done, and I 
thought the American people should have a chance to view that. 
Now, why would tens of millions not have an opportunity to view 
that? Because there are, I think, 32, 35, close to 40 million 
Americans who don't have pay television or cable television. 
They rely on the broadcast channels, and the broadcast 
channels, networks, the broadcast networks, decided, this year, 
that they would air 3 hours--one hour each night, for three 
nights of the Republican Convention, and 3 hours of the 
Democratic Convention. So, for example, the American people did 
not hear Barack Obama give the keynote speech at the Democratic 
Convention, they didn't hear Rudy Giuliani and Senator McCain 
give their speeches at the Republican Convention. Mr. Chairman, 
you wouldn't complain about that, but I will on your behalf, 
not so much because they didn't air that specific segment, but 
because a couple of people made a decision about what the 
American people should and should not be able to see that 
evening. And it describes, once again, why concentration, I 
think, is not in the public's interest.
    I read the testimony today--some of it was amusing, and 
some of it interesting. Ms. Overholser uses the term ``public 
interest,'' which, I think, is really central to the question 
here. The testimony by some suggests somehow that the airwaves 
belong to those who are using them for broadcast purposes. They 
don't, in fact. There has always been a public interest 
standard, dating back to the 1930s. It continues to exist. And 
yet it has very few shepherds here in the Congress, certainly 
very few shepherds at the Federal Communications Commission. 
And we ought to get back to the question, ``What is, in fact, 
in the public interest?'' And what does represent the 
responsibility of the Congress and the Federal Communications 
Commission in making certain that we have the kind of ownership 
restrictions with respect to television, radio, and broadcast 
properties, and also with respect to cross-ownership with 
newspapers, that serve the public interest.
    It is every bit in the realm of the interests of this 
Congress to be involved in these questions. Some will suggest 
today it is not. That's nonsense. It is every bit within our 
realm to be involved in these questions on behalf of the 
American people.
    So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Our witnesses this morning are Professor C. Edwin Baker of 
the Nicholas F. Gallicchio Professor of Law, University of 
Pennsylvania Law School; Mr. Ben Compaine of Cambridge, 
Massachusetts; Professor Geneva Overholser, the Curtis B. 
Hurley Chair in Public Affairs Reporting of the Missouri School 
of Journalism; and Mr. Adam Thierer, Director of 
Telecommunications Studies at The Cato Institute.
    Welcome to the witnesses. Thank you for appearing here 
today.
    Mr. Baker, we'll begin with you--Professor Baker.

            STATEMENT OF EDWIN C. BAKER, PROFESSOR,

    NICHOLAS F. GALLICCHIO PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF 
                    PENNSYLVANIA LAW SCHOOL

    Professor Baker. Thank you.
    You've adequately stated the holding of the Third Circuit. 
I should also admit that I'm one of those without cable TV, and 
so I missed your speech, that speech----
    The Chairman. I'll send you a tape.
    Professor Baker. I want to outline four reasons why legal 
restrictions on mass media concentration are vitally important 
in a democracy.
    First, the single most important reason to resist 
concentration in media ownership comes from the meaning of 
democracy. True democracy implies as wide as practical 
dispersal of power over public discourse. Dispersal of 
ownership may empirically promote diverse content, but, more 
importantly, dispersal directly creates a fairer, more 
democratic allocation of communicative power.
    This distributive value, I suggest, was probably the single 
most important consideration that prompted nearly two million 
people to write, petition, or e-mail the FCC in opposition to 
reducing restrictions on concentration. Without more, this 
value judgment provides a proper basis to impose any limit on 
media mergers in any policy designed to increase the number of 
separate owners of media entities.
    The Supreme Court approved the propriety of essentially 
this value judgment when it held that strict limits on media 
cross-ownership were appropriate to prevent an undue 
concentration of economic power in the communications realm.
    Second, the widest possible dispersal of media ownership 
provides two safeguards of inestimable democratic significance. 
Concentrated ownership in any local, state, or national 
community creates the possibility of an individual 
decisionmaker exercising enormous unchecked, undemocratic, 
potentially irresponsible power. Although this power may seldom 
be exercised, no democracy should risk the danger. Dispersal of 
ownership structurally prevents the potential Burlesconi 
effect. Dispersal also increases safety by increasing the 
number of ultimate decisionmakers who have the power to commit 
journalistic resources to exposing government or corporate 
corruption or identifying other societal problems.
    As the FCC put it 35 years ago, a proper objective is the 
maximum diversity of ownership. We are of the view that 60 
different licensees are more desirable than 50, and even the 
51st is more desirable than--51 is more desirable than 50. It 
might be the 51st licensee that would become the communicative 
channel for a solution to a severe social crisis.
    Third is a largely economic argument, more technical. 
Economic theory predicts that media markets will radically fail 
to provide people with the media content they want. Two facts 
are important here.
    First, one reason media entities fail to provide what 
people want relates to what economists call ``externalities,'' 
both positive and negative. For example, if many non-readers of 
a newspapers benefit by the paper's high quality investigative 
journalism that deters or exposes corruption, those benefits to 
non-readers do not provide revenue to the paper. So it has too 
little profit-based incentive to produce good journalism.
    Second, successful media entities tend to have particularly 
high operating profits.
    Given these two facts, the policy goal ought to be placing 
ownership in the hands of people most likely to devote a large 
portion of the media's potentially high operating profits to 
providing better journalism rather than taking them out as 
profit income. Sociologically, both high and mid-level 
executives of publicly traded large media companies predictably 
measure their success, and are rewarded, largely based on how 
much profit they produce. In contrast, small, more local, more 
family entities, often--not always--often identify with the 
quality of their journalistic efforts and their service to 
their communities. Structurally, mergers exacerbate the 
undesirable focus on profit maximization.
    The purchaser most willing and able to capitalize the 
purchased entity's potential profits is able to make the 
highest bid. But this high bid locks the purchaser into trying 
to maximize profits to pay for the purchase. In contrast, the 
original owner could choose to use the potential income to 
provide better quality products, hire more journalists, provide 
more hard news.
    Fourth, it's a subtle point that must be put somewhat 
delicately. The ideal legislative policy involving the media is 
debatable. However, if a few media entities become too 
powerful, the likelihood diminishes that subsequent debates and 
legislative decisions will reflect Members of Congress's true 
informed and thoughtful evaluation of the public interest. 
Rather, it becomes increasingly likely that the economic 
interest of these huge media corporations will largely control 
public debate and legislative outcomes.
    The Third Circuit rightly recognized that the FCC has not 
logically explained or justified its orders. The FCC abandoned 
logic and reality when it treats the Dutchess County Community 
College's TV station as more significant than the New York 
Times combined with the Times' local radio station.
    Now the FCC must respond to the Third Circuit. Congress can 
allow this process to run its course. Still, you could take 
actions to give the FCC greater guidance. I will put aside my 
own view of an ideal legislative policy concerning media 
ownership. Rather, I mention two more moderate steps that you 
could make.
    First, by resolution, Congress could indicate its view that 
the public interest requires the FCC to seek to prevent 
excessive power due to media ownership and to try to promote 
the maximum feasible dispersal of ownership consistent with 
economic viability and quality media performance.
    Second, Congress could find that media cross-ownership--a 
newspaper/broadcasting combination, for example--creates 
unnecessary and potentially excessive power within local media 
systems. On this basis, Congress could prohibit such cross-
ownership except where necessary for multimedia services to be 
economically feasible.
    I want to end with a suggestion. The forms of democracy are 
going to survive. However, the quality, capacities, and wisdom 
of democracy are at stake in the political decisions that 
determine the structure of the communication order, especially 
in the decisions concerning the structural distribution of 
ownership and control over the mass media. You have a heavy 
responsibility.
    [The prepared statement of Professor Baker follows:]

Prepared Statement of Edwin C. Baker, Professor, Nicholas F. Gallicchio 
        Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School
    Thank you. I very much appreciate the opportunity to testify today.
    The 3rd Circuit recently, I believe correctly, found that last 
year's FCC order loosening limits on media concentration was 
inconsistent with the evidence, patently unreasonable, and internally 
and logically inconsistent. On that basis the 3rd Circuit stayed the 
FCC order and remanded to the FCC to come up with a more reasoned 
result or a better supported and reasoned explanation for its action. 
In itself, this 3rd Circuit decision creates no need for Congressional 
action.
    Still, I will outline four reasons why legal restricts on media 
concentration are vitally important in a democracy. If you agree, 
Congress could take steps that would give useful guidance to the FCC as 
it responds to the 3rd Circuit.
    First, the single most important reason to resist concentration of 
media ownership is a value judgment. True democracy implies as wide as 
practical a dispersal of power within public discourse. Diversity of 
ownership ought to be furthered by trying to assure that diverse sorts 
of people own or control media entities, an aim that the 3rd Circuit 
noted the FCC abandoned when it scrapped its only policy fostering 
minority television ownership. Dispersal of ownership not only may 
empirically promote diverse content. More importantly, dispersal 
directly creates a fairer, more democratic allocation of communicative 
power. This distributive value, I suggest, was probably the single most 
significant consideration that prompted nearly two million people to 
write, petition, or email the FCC in opposition to reducing 
restrictions on concentration. Of course, value judgments are not 
matter of empirical investigation. Rather, without more, this provides 
a proper basis to impose any limit on media mergers and any policy 
designed to increase the number of separate owners of media entities. 
The Supreme Court approved the propriety of essentially this value 
judgment when it held that strict limits on media cross-ownership was 
appropriate to prevent an ``undue concentration of economic power'' in 
the communications realm.
    Second, the widest possible dispersal of media ownership provides 
two safeguards of inestimable democratic significance. Concentrated 
ownership creates the possibility of individual decision-maker 
exercising enormous unchecked, undemocratic potentially irresponsible 
power in whatever local, state, or national community in which the 
media is concentrated. Although this power may seldom be exercised, no 
democracy should risk the danger. Dispersal of ownership is the 
structural method to prevent this potential ``Berlusconi'' effect. 
Dispersal also increases safety by increasing the number of ultimate 
decision makers who have the power to commit journalistic resources to 
exposing government or corporate corruption or identifying other 
societal problems. As a former FCC, echoing the Supreme Court judgment 
noted above put it 35 years ago: ``A proper objective is the maximum 
diversity of ownership. We are of the view that 60 different licensees 
are more desirable than 50, and even that 51 are more desirable than 
50. It might be the 51st licensee that would become the communication 
channel for a solution to a severe social crisis.''
    Third, is a largely economic argument that I develop in material 
submitted along with my testimony. Economic theory predicts that media 
markets will radically fail to provide people with the media content 
they want. Two facts are important here. First, one reason media 
entities fail to provide what people want relates to what economists 
call externalities, both positive and negative. For example, if many 
non-readers of a newspaper benefit by the papers' high quality 
investigative journalism that deters or exposes corruption, those 
benefits to the public do not provide revenue to the paper so it has to 
little profit-based incentive to produce good journalism. Second, 
successful media entities tend to have particularly high operating 
profits. In this context, the policy goal ought to be placing ownership 
in the hands of people most likely to devote a large portion of the 
media entities' potentially high operating profits to providing better 
journalistic products rather than trying to maximize net profits. 
Sociologically, both high and mid-level executives of publicly traded 
large media companies predictably measure their success largely by how 
much profit they produce. In contrast, smaller, more local, more family 
based entities often identify with the quality of their journalistic 
efforts and their service to their communities. In any event, the 
undesirable focus on profit-maximization is exacerbated by mergers. The 
purchaser most willing and able to capitalize the most potential 
profits of the purchased entity is able to make the high bid. But this 
locks in the purchaser to trying to maximize profits. In contrast, the 
original owner could choose to use that potential income to provide 
better quality products--hirer more journalists, provide more 
investigative journalism and more hard news.
    Fourth is a subtle point that must be put somewhat delicately. The 
content of idea legislative policy involving the media is debatable. 
However, if the country allows a few media entities to become too 
powerful, the likelihood diminishes that subsequent debates and 
legislative decisions will reflect members of Congress informed and 
thoughtful evaluation of the public interest. Rather, it becomes 
increasing likely that the economic interests (or ideological 
interests, as we see in Italy) of these huge media corporations will be 
able to largely control the political debate and political outcomes.
    The 3rd Circuit rightly recognized that the FCC had not logically 
explained or justified its order. The FCC abandons logic and reality 
when it treats the Dutchess County Community College's TV station as 
the equivalent in the communications realm of an ABC television station 
in NYC and more significant than the NY Times combined with the Times' 
local radio station.
    Now the FCC must respond to the 3rd Circuit by showing that any 
rule changes are based on a realistic empirical industry analysis that 
takes account of market shares and actual industry conditions or, as I 
suggested, it could justify its position on defensible and consistent 
normative judgments. Congress can allow this process to run its course. 
Still, if you agreed with my arguments about media ownership, Congress 
could take actions to give the FCC greater guidance.
    I will put aside my own view of an ideal legislative policy 
concerning media ownership. Rather, I mention two moderate steps that 
you could make.
    First, by resolution, Congress could indicate its view that the 
public interest requires the FCC to seek to prevent excessive power due 
to ownership in any portion of the communications order and to try to 
promote the maximum feasible dispersal of ownership consistent with 
economic viability and quality media performance.
    Second, Congress could find, as the FCC once did, that cross-
ownership of different sorts of media serving a single community--a 
newspaper/broadcasting combination, for example--creates unnecessary 
and potentially excessive power within local media systems. On this 
basis, Congress could prohibit such cross-ownership except where the 
FCC found them to be necessary for multi-media service to be 
economically feasible.
    I want to end by saying that, although the forms of democracy will 
survive, the quality, capacities, and wisdom of democracy are at stake 
in the political decisions that determine the structure of 
communication order, especially the decisions concerning the structural 
distribution of ownership and control over the mass media.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Professor.
    Mr. Compaine?

    STATEMENT OF BEN COMPAINE, RESEARCHER AND WRITER ON THE 
                      INFORMATION INDUSTRY

    Mr. Compaine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Dorgan.
    My name is Ben Compaine. I've been tracking media-ownership 
trends since the first edition of my book, ``Who Owns the 
Media,'' was compiled in 1978. Let me note up front, I have 
never been employed by a major media company, nor have I been a 
paid consultant to one.
    I start with a very different point of view. I start by 
questioning one of the fundamental assumptions of media 
ownership, that it is more concentrated than ever. The 
viewpoint I take is measuring whether consumers of the media, 
all of us, have access to a greater universe of diverse content 
from more sources than 15 or 20 years ago, or is there a 
concentration resulting in fewer sources and implicitly less 
diversity? This applies to entertainment, culture, news, and 
opinion. I would suspect we all agree that a goal is to have 
enough players to ensure that sources and diversity are 
sufficient to satisfy small, as well as mass, audiences.
    I want to make three points today. First, that television 
is more competitive than it has ever been. Second, that radio 
is more concentrated, only in comparison to an extremely 
fragmented industry that existed before 1996. Third, that the 
Internet is already proving itself as a popular, ubiquitous and 
effective medium for expanding distribution of content, 
including both video and audio, for more players and access to 
more sources of information for consumers than we could have 
reasonably expected even 15 years ago. I'll elaborate on each 
of these points. The more comprehensive data will be coming in 
a study I've just finished that will be published later this 
year by the New Millennium Research Council.
    Television. The viewer market-share of the three 
traditional television networks--CBS, ABC, and NBC--has 
declined substantially since 1980. During the 1960s and 1970s, 
on a typical weekday evening, the three networks averaged about 
56 percent of all households with television. In 2003, on a 
weekday evening during prime time, those networks only had a 20 
percent rating. Adding in the audiences they and their parent 
companies have gained through networks available by 
multichannel means, such as cable and satellite, in 2003, their 
combined audiences was less than in 1970 and into the 1980s.
    Let me make that as clear as possible. In 2003, Viacom, 
with CBS plus all its cable networks, Disney, with ABC and all 
its cable networks, NBC with its newly acquired cable networks, 
account for 18 percent fewer households during prime time than 
the pre-merger, pre-cable, three-network days.
    Moreover, there's the additional competition from newer 
networks, including Time Warner's WB and News Corporation's 
FOX. The five broadcast networks together aggregate to a 26 
percent rating. Adding in the rating of these five broadcast 
networks with the cable networks owned by the same corporate 
families, such as CNN and HBO, with Time Warner, the five major 
providers of television programming account for an average 53 
percent rating in December 2003. That's less than the three old 
broadcast networks had into the 1980s.
    Turn to radio. Issues need a context. Taken out of context, 
the radio has seen a substantial consolidation in the last 
decade. The largest operator owns 8.6 percent of the almost 
14,000 radio stations nationwide. But the four largest 
aggregate under 15 percent.
    The context, however, is that of an industry that has seen 
an increase of six times in the number of radio stations over 
35 years, with no meaningful change in the limits of station 
ownership. In 1947, when a de facto limit of 13 stations to an 
owner was in place, there were about 1,200 stations. By 1980, 
the limit was 14 stations, but there were over 8,700 stations. 
A single owner could own no more than .16 percent of stations 
nationally. In 1990, by which time the cap had gone to 12 
stations, we were closing in on 11,000 stations.
    So it should be no surprise that, like a bottle of seltzer 
that had been well shook, when the cap was removed in 1996 the 
industry burst into a long-delayed hive of activity. Even if 
the ownership limits had been eased from 1947 into the 1990s to 
maintain the same ratio of ownership to number of stations, the 
cap would have been about 88, and the changes we have seen in 
recent years would have looked far less dramatic.
    Often lost in the radio discussion is that National Public 
Radio, a loose network of more than 700 not-for-profit stations 
that broadcast common national programming for much of the day, 
would be the second-largest radio chain. It claims to be 
available everywhere in the U.S.
    There's also the growing interest in national satellite 
television/radio services. In January, they had 1.6 million 
subscribers. At their current rate of growth this year, they're 
expected to reach four million by the end of the year.
    To be sure, the number of separate owners of radio stations 
in local markets is lower than prior to the lessening of the 
regulatory limits of the 1990s. Still, larger markets have 15 
or more separate owners, in addition to non-commercial 
stations. And in most of even the smallest markets, there are 
more competitors in radio than broadcast television and 
newspapers combined.
    Finally, as a segue to my comments on the Internet, 
thousands of radio and radio-like stations are available via 
the Internet, stations from around the globe. Many of those 
with the highest listenership were owned by non-broadcasters.
    For the Internet, barely 10 years after its coming out as a 
consumer medium, has about two-thirds of Americans online for 
everything from e-mail to government forums to shipping, porn, 
family photos, and watching television. The Internet has 
already had a profound impact on access to information.
    Of the five largest media companies, the websites of only 
one--Time Warner--are among the top ten organizations whose 
websites get the most unique visitors per month. The sites run 
by the Federal Government agencies are among the most 
frequented.
    The number of hours spent listening to Internet radio grew 
by triple digits between 2003 and the same period this year. 
Users with broadband, more than half of Internet users now, 
spend far more time using the Internet radio than dial-up 
users. In addition, new devices are becoming available to make 
Internet radio accessible apart from personal computer, 
including access via various wireless technologies. Indeed, 
video and film via the Internet are on the verge of becoming 
mainstream. Devices are on the market that allow even today's 
broadband users to download movies and video programming for 
storage on personal video recorders for viewing at their 
convenience.
    So what does this have to do with the Third Circuit? The 
Third Circuit was looking for new ways of looking at things, 
new ways of justifying actions of the FCC. About a year ago, 
this Committee heard testimony from my friend Eli Noam. He has 
completed some landmark work on the revenue side of the media 
industry. It is helpful, but only part of the mosaic that is 
media competition. A substantial piece of the debate must be on 
the sources of content and distribution avenues that are 
readily and inexpensively available to most consumers. We need 
to look beyond what percentage of the audience watches what 
company's shows at any given time. I think a more important 
measure is what viewers and listeners can, should they choose 
to do so, just as easily watch or listen to content from a 
reasonable number of other sources. Mass media, after all, 
means that it caters to a mass interest. It is unlikely that 
there should be, or could be, 20 television shows on at the 
same time that are all mass-interest.
    As television viewers, most of us, at any given moment, are 
in the 75 percent that is watching one of the programs that may 
derive from a small number of providers. But, at other times, 
you're a part of the other 25 percent that is divided into many 
small audiences watching one of the many other providers. Both 
the 75 percent and the 25 percent are not the same people all 
the time.
    So where does that leave me with some policy issues? I have 
one observation and question. The observation is that Congress 
certainly has the prerogative, but I suspect it cannot micro-
manage, effectively, television and radio regulation. This is 
perhaps what Senator Dorgan was alluding to. I think that 
technology and industry are changing too fast for the way 
Congress does, and should, work. I believe the FCC understands 
forces and trends well, and should be given latitude to do its 
job. This is a cumbersome process, as is most of democracy, but 
the courts have served as a viable check on, as well as a 
motivator to, the Commission.
    Finally, my question may be more controversial. When almost 
90 percent of households view television via a cable or 
satellite connection--90 percent--why are we--and most of the 
10 percent are folks like Professor Baker, who choose not to 
get it--why are we still making a regulatory distinction 
between broadcast and other avenues of video distribution? 
There is a certain paradox in CBS being fined for the Janet 
Jackson Super Bowl fiasco, when more than 90 percent of those 
viewing it were doing so over cable or satellite. If ESPN had 
carried the same thing, there would have been no fine, though 
perhaps the same controversy.
    The value of a television broadcast license today is almost 
exclusively in the must-carry mandate that goes with it. I'll 
bet that if you gave broadcasters the right to retain that--
which I'm not urging, but if you gave them the right to keep 
must-carry but turn off their transmitters, that the FCC would 
be flooded with returned spectrum as licensees would opt to 
jettison what little is left of their public DC service 
obligation, as well as regulation, and move their operation 
directly to a multichannel platform.
    Thank you, and I'll be delighted to answer any questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Compaine follows:]

   Prepared Statement of Ben Compaine, Researcher and Writer on the 
                          Information Industry
    My name is Ben Compaine. I've been tracking media ownership trends 
since the first edition of my book, Who Owns the Media?, was compiled 
in 1978. Let me note up front that I have never been employed by any 
major media company nor have I been a paid consultant for any major 
media company.
    The concerns you address today about media ownership are not new 
ones. In 1978 the Federal Trade Commission held two days of public 
hearings in this city as part of its investigation of mergers and 
acquisitions in publishing. After shifting through the anecdotal 
stories of the critics and the pessimistic scenarios of doomsayers, the 
FTC under President Carter could find no basis for any rule making, 
policy changes or legislative suggestions.
    But the focus in 2004 is on television and radio--areas which have 
a richer history and basis of government regulation and court 
involvement. So this morning I will restrict my comments to these 
areas.
    I start by questioning one of the fundamental assumptions of media 
ownership: that it is more concentrated than ever. Typical is a Seattle 
Times editorial last March that stated flatly, ``The news industry in 
America is already far down the road to media concentration.'' In the 
same editorial they cite CNN, Fox News, National Public Radio--all 
separately owned sources of news that have been added to the media menu 
in the last two decades. None have been subtracted.
    The viewpoint I take is measuring whether consumers of the media--
all of us--have access to a greater universe of diverse content from 
more sources than 15 or 20 years ago. Or is there a concentration 
resulting in fewer sources and implicitly less diversity? This applies 
to entertainment, culture, news and opinion. I suspect we would all 
agree that a goal is to assure enough players to ensure that sources 
and diversity are sufficient to satisfy small as well as mass 
audiences.
    I want to make three points today:

        First, that television is more competitive than it has ever 
        been, in number of different networks and owners of networks. 
        The audience is more fragmented than it has ever been. Far from 
        being more concentrated, by important measures it is far less 
        so.

        Second, that radio is more concentrated only in comparison to 
        an extremely fragmented industry that existed before 1996. No 
        other industry could have expanded 10 fold and still have no 
        owner hold more properties at the end than at the start of that 
        period. In absolute terms radio is still highly competitive and 
        as diverse as ever.

        Third, that the Internet is already proving itself as a 
        popular, ubiquitous and effective medium for expanding 
        distribution of both video and audio for more players and 
        access to more sources of information for consumers than we 
        could have reasonably expected even 15 years ago. And the 
        technology continues to improve to provide more competition for 
        existing players.

    I will elaborate briefly on each point. More comprehensive data on 
these and additional points are in a paper that I just completed that 
will be made available by the New Millennium Research Council here in 
Washington within a few weeks. I urge you to look through that paper.
Television
    The viewer market share of the three traditional television 
networks--CBS, ABC, NBC--has declined substantially since 1980. During 
the 1960s and 1970s, on a typical weekday evening, the three networks 
on average were watched by about 56 percent of all households with 
televisions. (See Figure 1) In 2003 on a weekday evening during prime 
time those networks had only a 20 percent rating. Adding in the 
audiences they and their parent companies have gained through networks 
available by multichannel means such as cable or satellite, in 2003 
their combined audience was less than in the 1970s and into the 1980s.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



    Source: Ben Compaine, ``Debunking Media Consolidation Myths: 
Competition in the Media Industry,'' New Millennium Research Council, 
Washington, D.C., 2004. Copyright c2004 Ben Compaine.

    Let me make that as clear as possible. In 2003, Viacom, with CBS 
plus all its cable networks, Disney, with ABC and its cable networks, 
and NBC, with its newly acquired cable networks, accounted for 18 
percent fewer households during prime time than in the pre-merger, pre-
cable three network days.
    Moreover, there is additional competition from newer networks, 
including Time Warner's WB and News Corporation's Fox. The five 
broadcast networks together aggregated to a 26 percent rating. Adding 
in the rating of these five broadcast networks with the cable networks 
owned by the same corporate family (e.g., CNN, HBO, etc. with WB), the 
five major providers of television programming accounted for an average 
51 percent rating in December 2003. This was less than three broadcast 
networks had into the 1980s.
    In television we all know that there are orders of magnitude more 
choices today than 25 years ago and, even with numerous acquisitions 
and startups by the old networks and their new parents, we have more 
networks, from more owners than in the days of three networks and seven 
station limits for any owner.
Radio
    On to radio. Issues need a context. Taken out of context, the radio 
industry has seen substantial consolidation in the last decade. The 
largest operator of radio stations in 2004 owned about 8.6 percent of 
the almost 14,000 radio stations nationwide. The four largest groups 
owned under 15 percent of all stations, a total not even close to any 
level of oligopoly by antitrust standards.
    The context, however, is that of an industry that had more than 
tripled in the number of stations over three decades with no change in 
the limits of station ownership. In 1947, when a de facto limit of 13 
stations to an owner was in place, there were about 1200 radio 
stations. By 1980 the limit was the same, but there were over 8700 
stations. A single owner could hold no more than 0.16 percent of 
stations nationally. In 1990, by which time the cap had been raised to 
12 stations, we were closing in on 11,000 stations.
    So it should be no surprise that, like a bottle of seltzer that had 
been well shook, when the cap was removed in 1996 the industry burst 
into long delayed hive of activity. Even if the ownership limits had 
been eased from 1947 into the 1990s to maintain the same ratio of 
ownership to the number of stations, the cap would have been about 88 
and the changes we have seen in recent years would have looked far less 
dramatic.
    Often lost in the radio discussion is that National Public Radio, a 
loose network of more than 700 not-for-profit radio stations that 
broadcast common national programming for much of the day, would be the 
second largest radio chain. It claims to be available everywhere in the 
U.S. There is also the growing interest in the national satellite-
distributed radio services. In the January they had 1.6 million 
subscribers. At their current rate of growth that is expect to reach 4 
million by the end of the year.
    To be sure, the number of separate owners of radio stations in 
local markets is lower than prior to the lessening of regulatory limits 
in the 1990s. Still, larger markets have 15 or more separate owners--in 
addition to noncommercial stations--and in most of even the smallest 
markets there are more competitors in radio than television and 
newspapers combined.
    Finally, as a segue to my comments on the role of the Internet, 
thousands of radio and radio-like stations are available via the 
Internet. Stations are available from around the globe. Many of those 
with the highest listenership were owned by non-broadcasters. About 40 
percent of listeners accessed stations from outside their local market.
Internet
    Barely 10 years after its ``coming out'' as a consumer medium, 
about two-thirds of Americans are using the Internet for everything 
from e-mail to news to weather to government forms to shopping, porn, 
sharing family photos, listening to radio and watching ``television.'' 
The Internet already has profound implications for access to 
information.
    Of the five largest media companies, the websites of only one (Time 
Warner) are among the top 10 organizations whose websites get the most 
unique visitors per month. The sites run by Federal Government agencies 
are among the most frequented.
    In 2004 for the first time more Internet household had broadband 
than used dial-up connections. With research that shows that households 
with always-on broadband used the Internet more than narrowband users, 
the expectation is that Internet access for information, commerce and 
communications will continue to grow.
    The number of hours spent listening to Internet radio grew by 
triple digits between 2003 and the same period in 2004. Users with 
broadband spend far more time using Internet radio than dial-up users.
    In addition, new devices are becoming available to make Internet 
radio accessible apart from a personal computer, including access via 
various wireless technologies. Indeed, video and film via the Internet 
are on the verge of becoming more mainstream. As some of the local 
telephone carriers upgrade their systems with fiber optic cable to the 
curb or the home, the transmission speed of downloads will be 
competitive with cable and satellite services. Devices are on the 
market that allow even today's broadband users to download movies and 
video programming for storage on personal video recorders for viewing 
at their convenience.
Need to Consider Choices Available, Not Choices Made
    About a year ago this committee heard testimony from my friend Eli 
Noam. He has completed some landmark work on the revenue side of the 
media industry. It is helpful, yet only part of the mosaic that is 
media competition. A substantial piece of the debate must be on sources 
of content and distribution avenues that are readily and inexpensively 
available to most consumers. We need to look beyond what percent of the 
audience watches what company's shows at any given time. A more 
important measure is whether viewers and listeners can, should they 
choose to do so, just as easily watch or listen to content from a 
reasonable number of other sources. ``Mass media'' after all, means 
that it caters to a mass interest. It is unlikely that there should be 
20 television shows on at the same time that are all mass interest.
    As television viewers, most of us at any given moment are in the 75 
percent that is watching one of programs that derive from a small 
number of providers. But at other times, we are part of the other 25 
percent that is divided into many small audiences watching one of the 
many others providers. Both the 75 percent and the 25 percent are not 
the same people all the time.
Policy Issues
    My findings lead me an observation and a question for policy-
makers:

   The observation is that while Congress certainly has the 
        prerogative, it cannot micromanage effectively television and 
        radio regulation. The technology and industry are changing too 
        fast for the way Congress does and should work. I believe the 
        current FCC understands the forces and trends well and should 
        be given latitude to do its job. Though a cumbersome process--
        as is most of democracy--the courts have served as a viable 
        check on as well as motivator to the Commission.

   My question may be more controversial. When almost 90 
        percent of households view television via a cable or satellite 
        connection, why are we still making a regulatory distinction 
        between broadcast and other avenues of video distribution? 
        There is a certain paradox in CBS being fined for the Janet 
        Jackson Super Bowl fiasco when more than 90 percent of those 
        viewing were doing so over cable or satellite. If ESPN had 
        carried the same thing there would have been no fine (though 
        perhaps the same controversy). The value of a television 
        broadcast license today is almost exclusively in the ``must 
        carry'' mandate that goes with it. If that were retained should 
        broadcasters be allowed to turn off their transmitters, my 
        hunch is that the FCC would be flooded with returned spectrum 
        as licensees would opt to jettison what little is left of their 
        public service obligation and regulation and move their 
        operation directly to a multichannel platform.

    Thank you for having me here. I expect I've raised as many 
questions as I've answered and would be delighted to respond to any you 
have, now or later.
Benjamin M. Compaine
    Ben Compaine is a researcher and writer on issues of the economics 
and technologies of the information industry. He has been a Research 
Consultant for the Program on Internet and Telecoms Convergence at MIT 
as well as executive director of the Program on Information Resources 
Policy at Harvard University. From 1994 to 1997 he was the Bell 
Atlantic Professor of Telecommunications at Temple University. From 
1986 to 1994 he was President and Chief Executive of Nova Systems Inc., 
a software firm. He is the author, co-author or editor of 10 books. His 
best known book, Who Owns The Media? was published as an all-new third 
edition in 2000. Other books include The Digital Divide: Facing a 
Crisis or Creating a Myth? (2001) and The Information Resources Policy 
Handbook (1999). His articles have appeared in trade, popular, and 
scholarly journals, including Telecommunications Policy, Science 
Digest, Foreign Policy, Reason, Daedalus and the Journal of 
Communication. His research and teaching interests include Internet and 
telecommunications policy, mass media economics, and the social and 
cultural implications of changing information technologies. A political 
science major at Dickinson College, he received his M.B.A. from Harvard 
University and Ph.D. from Temple University. He has been a consultant 
and invited speaker at conferences and seminars in Europe, South 
America, Asia, Australia as well as in the United States and Canada.

    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Professor Overholser?

   STATEMENT OF GENEVA OVERHOLSER, CURTIS B. HURLEY CHAIR IN 
   PUBLIC AFFAIRS REPORTING, MISSOURI SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM, 
                    WASHINGTON, D.C. BUREAU

    Professor Overholser. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good 
morning, Senators. And thanks very much for the opportunity to 
be here with you. It really is an honor.
    I have to tell you that despite my typically lengthy 
academic title, in all honesty, the experience that I bring to 
this table this morning is in 35 years as a newspaperwoman, 
including as editor of the Des Moines Register. And it is 
experience that makes me care a great deal about the state of 
the media in the country today, and I appreciate your attention 
to this matter.
    I would like to make one primary point. The story of media 
in our country today is very much like the story of the 
American diet. We have more different kinds of food than ever, 
more widely available than ever, yet many Americans are failing 
to get adequate nutrients, even as we grow fatter. We are 
overfed, but we are undernourished.
    The same, I would add, is true of media. There are ever-
more numerous ways to get information, but that is a very 
different thing from having an improved media diet. We are 
bombarded with information, but we are starving for journalism. 
It is journalism I hope this Committee will concern itself 
with, the original production of content serving the public 
interest. This is expensive to produce, and it is produced only 
by owners who believe it worth investing in. These owners are 
in decreasing supply.
    They are disappearing in large part because the media-
company owners find themselves compelled to return profits few 
other industries can even dream of. As long-time editor Harold 
Evans has put it, ``Media companies are not having trouble 
staying in business; they're having trouble staying in 
journalism.''
    The FCC has it in its hands to make matters worse by 
enabling media owners to take their companies still further 
from the concerns and needs of local citizens. I doubt that I 
need to prove to this, of all groups, that the presence of 
greater numbers of media outlets has not ensured improved media 
performance. Certainly, the public thinks it has not.
    A new Gallup Poll found media credibility at its lowest 
point in decades. Fifty-five percent of respondents said they 
have either ``not very much'' confidence or ``none at all'' in 
the media's fairness and accuracy.
    Nor do my colleagues in the Academy report improved media 
performance. Again and again they find that straight news 
content has given way to celebrity and crime news. Stories with 
public-policy content decrease; conflict and sensation take 
their place.
    These trends hold across all media in no small part because 
these new kinds of stories are far cheaper to produce. Now that 
the business of media is increasingly business, rather than 
news, cuts in news-gathering staff have become the norm, 
especially in television and radio and news magazines, but 
also, alas, in newspapers. There is a burgeoning of media 
outlets, but a constricting of journalism. As the Report on the 
State of the News Media 2004 put it, ``Much of the new 
investment in journalism today, much of the information 
revolution generally, is in disseminating the news, not in 
collecting it.''
    I'm here to speak specifically about newspapers, whose 
decline in importance is greatly overstated. Newspapers 
continue to be important, first, in sheer numbers of readers. 
On any given Super Bowl Sunday, more Americans read their 
Sunday paper than watch the game, and I don't hear a lot of 
talk about football's demise in this country. Newspapers 
continue to be important, too, in the influential role they 
play in citizens' lives. A Consumers Union study this year 
found that Americans rely on newspapers much more than other 
media for local news and information. Finally, newspapers 
influence other media to a substantial degree because of the 
size of their news-gathering resources.
    Yet newspapers are undergoing great strains due to the 
pressure of maintaining high profit margins, which necessitates 
short-term business focus. As one observer has said, ``Being a 
cash cow is a strategy.'' Not only do we see lower-quality 
news, but we see companies unwilling to serve customers in whom 
advertisers have no interest.
    The FCC is in a position to keep this situation from 
worsening. Newspaper companies are already reducing competition 
in communities across the country by what they call clustering, 
buying newspapers in adjoining markets, cutting their costs, 
and doing away with previously independent voices and 
newsrooms.
    The companies that own newspapers, and often own other 
media, of course, do not need our assistance to further 
increase the returns to their mostly institutional investors 
while reducing the number of newsrooms and newsgatherers in any 
given town, yet this is precisely what happens with greater 
consolidation.
    I want to say a word here about this ``gift of synergy'' 
that we will supposedly derive from the so-called ``convergence 
of media.'' Convergence is, indeed, likely to be good for media 
business, but it is almost sure to be bad for journalism. Far 
from increasing the amount or quality of the news-gathering, 
convergence provides additional means of distribution. There is 
nothing wrong with that, per se; but consider, you have block 
of reporting by Reporter A, who spends a given amount of time 
producing that reporting and a given amount of time putting it 
together for his newspaper. Now his employer asks him to 
disseminate the same report on the radio, on the Internet, and 
on television. How much time does each new method of 
dissemination require from him? Even if it's only half an hour, 
that's an hour and a half that Reporter A could have used 
before for reporting. And if you think companies will increase 
the staff to compensate for this loss in reporting time, I have 
many a story to tell you. The temptation to drop these savings 
to the bottom line is simply too great.
    My view is that diversity of ownership is important. We 
have fine newspapers from privately owned companies and fine 
newspapers from publicly held companies, and bad newspapers 
from both. But there is a long-term trend toward disinvestment 
in journalism that needs addressing in every possible way, and 
really affects the civic health of this country.
    I welcome all models of ownership, from the few 
independently family owned papers remaining to institutional 
ownership, such as the St. Petersburg Times enjoys, to 
nonprofit media, such as NPR, to foundation-supported 
investigative reporting, like the Center for Public Integrity, 
which is conducting the kind of reporting that too few media 
are willing to invest money in anymore.
    I believe that a wide range of media will serve the public 
best, and I welcome the democratization we see with 
proliferation of outlets, particularly on the Web. But we 
should be under no illusion about what media, by and large, are 
producing substantial, responsible, thorough, digging, edited 
news reports. It is newspapers. Every time they are combined 
with a local television station, there is at least one less TV 
reporter who might actually spy a story the profit-pressured 
newsroom did not. That means fewer nutrients into the local 
media diet.
    And when the newspaper and the broadcast outlets and the 
Web all join into one report, what values are likely to 
prevail? As Robert Haiman of the Poynter Institute has put it, 
``There's going to be a tremendous clash of values: the 
journalism values of newspapers, the entertainment values of 
television, and the no holds barred, raw, unedited, anarchic 
values of the Internet.'' Let's guess how likely it is that 
those stodgy old values of journalism will win on this terrain.
    I leave you with this thought. We have plenty of media 
today. We have an ever-declining supply of journalism. I ask 
you to keep that distinction in mind in the decisions before 
you.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Professor Overholser follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Geneva Overholser, Curtis B. Hurley Chair in 
 Public Affairs Reporting, Missouri School of Journalism, Washington, 
                              D.C. Bureau
    Good morning, and thank you for this opportunity. It is an honor to 
be with you.
    I would like to make one primary point: The story of media in our 
country today is very much like the story of the American diet: We have 
more different kinds of food than ever, more widely available. Yet many 
Americans are failing to get adequate nutrients, even as we grow ever 
fatter. We are overfed, but we are undernourished.
    The same is true of media. There are ever more numerous ways to get 
information, but that is a very different thing from having an improved 
media diet. We are bombarded with information, but we are starving for 
journalism. It is journalism I hope this committee will concern itself 
with: the original production of content serving the public interest. 
This is expensive to produce, and it is produced only by owners who 
believe it worth investing in. Those owners are in decreasing supply.
    They are disappearing in large part because media company owners 
find themselves compelled to return profits few other industries can 
dream of. As longtime editor Harold Evans has put it, media companies 
are not having trouble staying in business. They are having trouble 
staying in journalism. The FCC has it in its hands to make matters 
worse by enabling media owners to take their companies still further 
from the concerns and needs of local citizens.
    I doubt that I need to prove to this of all groups that the 
presence of greater numbers of media outlets has not ensured improved 
media performance. Certainly the public thinks it has not. A new Gallup 
Poll found media credibility at its lowest point in decades. Fifty-five 
percent of respondents said they have either ``not very much'' 
confidence or ``none at all'' in the media's fairness and accuracy.
    Nor do my colleagues in the academy report improved media 
performance. Again and again they find that straight news content has 
given way to celebrity and crime news. Stories with public-policy 
content decrease; conflict and sensation take their place. These trends 
hold across all media, in no small part because the new kinds of 
stories are far cheaper to produce. Now that the business of media is 
increasingly business, rather than news, cuts in newsgathering staff 
have become the norm--especially in television and radio and 
newsmagazines, but also in newspapers. There is a burgeoning of media 
outlets, but a constricting of journalism: As the report on the State 
of the News Media 2004 put it: ``Much of the new investment in 
journalism today--much of the information revolution generally--is in 
disseminating the news, not in collecting it.''
    I am here to speak specifically about newspapers, whose decline in 
importance is greatly overstated. Newspapers continue to be important, 
first, in numbers of readers. On any given Super Bowl Sunday, more 
Americans read their Sunday paper than watch the game. I hear little 
talk of football's demise. Newspapers continue to be important, too, in 
the influential role they play in citizens' lives. A Consumers Union 
study this year found that Americans rely on newspapers much more than 
other media for local news and information. Finally, newspapers 
influence other media to a substantial degree because of the size of 
their newsgathering resources.
    Yet newspapers are undergoing great strains due to the pressure of 
maintaining high profit margins, which necessitate short-term business 
focus. As one observer has said, being a cash cow IS a strategy. Not 
only do we see lower-quality news, but we see companies unwilling to 
serve customers in whom advertisers have no interest. The FCC is in a 
position to keep this situation from worsening. Newspaper companies are 
already reducing competition in communities across the country by what 
they call ``clustering''--buying newspapers in adjoining markets, 
cutting their costs and doing away with previously independent voices--
and newsrooms. The companies that own newspapers (and often other 
media, of course) do not need our assistance to further increase the 
returns to their mostly institutional investors while reducing the 
number of newsrooms and newsgatherers in any given town. Yet this is 
precisely what happens with greater consolidation.
    Let me say a word here about this gift of synergy that we will 
supposedly derive from so-called ``convergence'' of media. Convergence 
is indeed likely to be good for media business, but it is almost sure 
to be bad for journalism. Far from increasing the amount or quality of 
the newsgathering, convergence provides additional means of 
distribution. There is nothing wrong with that per se. But consider: 
You have a bloc of reporting by reporter A, who spends a given amount 
of time producing that reporting and a given amount of time putting it 
together for his newspaper. Now his employer asks him to disseminate 
the same report on the radio, on the Internet and on television. How 
much time does each new method of delivery require from him? Even if 
it's only half an hour, that's an hour and a half less time each day 
spent on reporting. And if you think companies will increase the staff 
to compensate for this loss in reporting time, I have many a story to 
share with you. The temptation to drop these savings to the bottom line 
is simply too great.
    My view is that diversity of ownership is important. We have fine 
newspapers from privately owned companies and fine newspapers from 
publicly held companies--and bad newspapers from both as well. But 
there is a long-term trend toward disinvestment in journalism that 
needs addressing in every possible way. I welcome all models of 
ownership, from the few independent family owned papers remaining to 
institutional ownership such as the St. Petersburg Times enjoys, to 
nonprofit media such as NPR to foundation-supported investigative 
reporting like the Center for Public Integrity.
    I believe that a wide range of media will serve the public best, 
and I welcome the democratization we see with the proliferation of 
outlets on the Web. But we should be under no illusion about what 
media, by and large, are producing substantial, responsible, thorough, 
digging, edited news reports: Newspapers. Every time they are combined 
with a local television station, there is at the least one less TV 
reporter who might actually spy a story the profit-pressured newsroom 
did not. That means fewer nutrients into the local media diet. And when 
the newspaper and the broadcast outlets and the Web all join into one 
report, what values are likely to prevail? As Robert Haiman of the 
Poynter Institute put it, ``There is going to be a tremendous clash of 
values--the journalism values of newspapers, the entertainment values 
of television and the no-holds-barred, raw, unedited, anarchic values 
of the Internet.'' Let's guess how likely it is that the values of 
journalism will win.
    I leave you with this thought: We have plenty of media today. We 
have an ever-declining supply of journalism. I ask you to keep that 
distinction in mind in the decisions before you.
    Thank you.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Thierer?

  STATEMENT OF ADAM D. THIERER, DIRECTOR, TELECOMMUNICATIONS 
                    STUDIES, CATO INSTITUTE

    Mr. Thierer. Good morning. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 
your invitation to testify here this morning on the important 
issue of media ownership regulation.
    This hearing is especially timely for me, since I have a 
new book on this issue due out early next year entitled, Media 
Myths: Making Sense of the Debate Over Media Ownership.
    I chose that title because I have come to the conclusion, 
after studying this issue, that the debate over media ownership 
is really being driven more by a mythology than anything close 
to reality. That is, while critics of media liberalization have 
had a great deal of success employing very heated rhetoric and 
extremely emotional rationales for mass media regulation, 
claims about the lack of diversity or the end of localism and 
the supposed death of our democracy simply do not square with 
reality. Indeed, by all impartial measures, citizens are better 
off than they ever have been before in this country. Regardless 
of what the underlying business structures or ownership 
patterns look like, the real question in this debate must 
always be this: ``Do citizens have more news, information, and 
entertainment choices at their disposal today than in the past? 
The answer to that question, I believe, is unambiguously yes.
    There are seven leading myths about modern media I'd like 
to quickly summarize for you here today that my research has 
unearthed.
    First, and probably the most commonly repeated myth, is 
that diversity is disappearing in media. The reality, I argue, 
however, could not be more different. Today's media environment 
is more diverse than ever before and is characterized by 
information abundance, not information scarcity. To the extent 
there is a media diversity problem today, it is that citizens 
suffer from what you might call information overload. The 
number of media options has become so overwhelming that most of 
us struggle to manage all of the information choices at our 
disposal on a given day. Consider that in 1979 most households 
had only six or fewer local television stations to choose from, 
but today they have an average of seven over-the-air broadcast 
television networks and an average of 102 cable or satellite 
options to choose from. Also, the number of radio stations in 
America since 1970 has roughly doubled, from around 6,700 to 
almost 13,500 today. And there are more magazines and 
periodicals and weekly being produced now than in any time in 
our nation's history.
    A second common myth is that localism in media is 
disappearing. The truth is, while we not know exactly how much 
local fare citizens demand, citizens still receive a wealth of 
information about developments in their local communities. That 
is, although citizens are increasingly opting for more sources 
of national news and entertainment, local information and 
programming are still quite popular and certainly will not 
disappear in a deregulated media marketplace.
    The third myth concerns concentration and the mistaken 
belief that only a few companies control the entire media 
universe. Contrary to this widely circulated myth, the media 
marketplace is vigorously competitive and not significantly 
more concentrated than in past decades. A McKinsey & Company 
analyst recently noted that, quote, ``There are more than a 
hundred media companies worldwide, and entertainment media are 
still fragmented compared with other industries.'' And an FCC 
survey of various media markets across America from 1960 to 
2000 also showed that, quote, ``Collectively, the number of 
media outlets and owners increased tremendously over that 40 
year period with an average of a 200 percent increase in the 
number of outlets and 140 percent increase in the number of 
owners.'' And media expert Eli Noam, of Columbia University, 
has nicely summarized what we must always understand, that 
bigness in media is a relative term, when he says, quote, 
``While the fish in the media pond have grown in size, the pond 
did grow, too, and there have been new fish and new ponds.''
    The fourth myth involves assertions about the future of 
democracy somehow being at risk in this debate, and I won't 
spend a lot of time on this, even though I do in my book. But 
these arguments strike me as quite preposterous, since the 
increased media availability and communications connectivity we 
have seen in America in recent years and decades has given us 
the ability to learn more about our democracy, and debate more 
on our democracy, than ever before.
    A fifth myth is that regulation is needed to preserve high 
quality journalism and entertainment. I find these arguments 
very troubling since, at root, media quality is fundamentally a 
subjective matter. Government should have no say over, or even 
attempt to influence, the quality of news or information or 
entertainment in America. The good news, however, is that, with 
so many media outlets available today, citizens have a wider 
range of options from which to choose, meaning they can decide 
for themselves what level of quality they desire--soft news, 
hard news, or whatever else.
    A sixth myth is that the First Amendment somehow justifies 
extensive media-ownership controls, or can be used as a 
regulatory tool to mandate access to media outlets. This is, 
without doubt, in my opinion, the most dangerous of all the 
media myths. In reality, the First Amendment was written, not 
as a constraint on private speech or actions, but, rather, as a 
direct restraint on government actions as they relate to 
speech. If the First Amendment is to retain its force as the 
bulwark against government control of the press, it cannot be 
used to justify ownership rules or media access mandates.
    A seventh and final myth is that new technologies or media 
outlets, including the Internet, have little bearing on this 
debate. To the contrary, new technologies and outlets do have 
an important relationship to this debate and call into question 
the wisdom of the existing media ownership restrictions. In 
particular, the rise of the Internet and the World Wide Web is 
radically changing the nature of modern media in America. 
Anyone who thinks differently might want to ask Dan Rather this 
week what he thinks about the impact of new technologies on 
traditional media.
    With 72 percent of Americans now online and spending an 
average of 9 hours weekly on the Internet, surfing through the 
roughly 170 terabytes of information available online, which is 
17 times the size of the Library of Congress print collections, 
I do not see how anyone can seriously argue that the Internet 
is not fundamentally transforming our media universe. More 
generally, my research has found that all media compete, in the 
very broad sense of the term, and that citizens frequently 
substitute one type of media for another. What else explains 
cable and satellite companies stealing so much audience share 
from traditional broadcasters, or satellite radio networks 
quickly eating in traditional radio's market share, or the fact 
that millions of Americans now purchase or receive daily 
additions of national newspapers, such as the USA Today or the 
Wall Street Journal and the New York Times? This is, I believe, 
a healthy, competitive market at work, a market in which 
citizens exercise their right to be as finicky as they want in 
substituting one media option or outlet for another.
    In conclusion, our media world has changed, and changed in 
almost every way, for the better. To the extent there ever was 
a, quote, ``golden age of American media,'' I believe we are 
living in it today. There has never been a time in our nation's 
history when citizens have had access to more media outlets, 
more news, more information, or more entertainment. This 
conclusion is supported by a solid factual record, which I have 
provided--much of which--in the appendix to my testimony.
    In such an age of media abundance, the question of who owns 
what, or how much they own of anything else, is irrelevant. No 
matter how large any given media outlet is today, it is 
ultimately just one of many fish in a large and growing media 
pond. Indeed, as the FCC concluded when revising these rules, 
quote, ``The question confronting media companies today is not 
whether they will be able to dominate the distribution of news 
and information in any market, but whether they will be able to 
be heard at all among the cacophony of voices vying for the 
attention of Americans,'' end quote. I completely agree with 
the FCC. The media world has changed, and so must the rules 
that govern it.
    Thank you for inviting me here today, Mr. Chairman, and I'm 
happy to discuss questions in the Q&A period.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Thierer follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Adam D. Thierer, Director, Telecommunications 
                        Studies, Cato Institute
    Good morning, my name is Adam Thierer and I serve as Director of 
Telecommunications Studies at the Cato Institute. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman, for your invitation to testify here this morning on the 
important issue of media ownership regulation. This hearing is 
especially timely for me since I have a new book on this issue due out 
early next year entitled, Media Myths: Making Sense of the Debate over 
Media Ownership.
    I chose that title because I have come to the conclusion that the 
debate over media ownership is being driven more by myth than reality. 
That is, while critics of media liberalization have had great success 
employing heated rhetoric and extremely emotional rationales for media 
regulation, claims about a lack of ``diversity,'' the end of 
``localism,'' or the supposed ``death of democracy'' simply do not 
square with reality.
    Objective facts reveal that such rhetoric and claims are baseless. 
Indeed, by all impartial measures, citizens are better off today than 
they have ever been before. Regardless of what the underlying business 
structures or ownership patterns look like, the real question in this 
debate must be this: ``Do citizens have more news, information, and 
entertainment choices at their disposal today than in the past?'' The 
answer to that question is unambiguously ``yes.''
    There are 7 leading myths about modern media. I'll quickly 
summarize each one for you.
Debunking the Media Myths
    The first, and probably most commonly repeated myth, is that 
diversity will disappear absent extensive government regulation of the 
media. The reality, however, could not be more different. Today's media 
environment is more diverse than ever before and is characterized by 
information abundance, not scarcity. Citizens enjoy more news and 
entertainment options than at any other point in history. To the extent 
there is a media diversity problem today, it is that citizens suffer 
from ``information overload.'' The number of media options has become 
so overwhelming that most of us struggle to manage all the information 
at our disposal. Consider that in 1979 most households had 6 or fewer 
local television stations to choose from, but today the average U.S. 
household receives 7 broadcast television networks and an average of 
102 cable or satellite channels per home.\1\ Also, the number of radio 
stations in America has roughly doubled from about 6,700 in 1970 to 
almost 13,500 today. And there are more magazines and periodicals being 
produced now than at any time in our nation's history. In 2003, there 
were 17,254 magazines produced up from 14,302 in 1993.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Federal Communications Commission, In the Matter of 2002 
Biennial Regulatory Review--Review of the Commission's Broadcast 
Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, FCC 03-127, June 2, 2003, p. 15, http:/
/hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-127A1.pdf, cited 
hereafter as FCC, Media Ownership Proceeding.
    \2\ The Magazine Handbook 2004-5, (New York, NY: Magazine 
Publishers of America, 2004), p. 5, http://www.magazine.org/content/
Files/MPA%5Fhandbook%5F04.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A second common myth is that ``localism'' in media is disappearing. 
The truth is, while we do not really know exactly how much local fare 
citizens demand, citizens still receive a wealth of information about 
developments in their communities. That is, although citizens are 
increasingly opting for more sources of national news and 
entertainment, local information and programming are still popular and 
will not disappear in a deregulated media marketplace.
    The third myth concerns concentration and the mistaken belief that 
only a few companies control the entire media universe. Contrary to 
this widely circulated myth, the media marketplace is vigorously 
competitive and not significantly more concentrated than in past 
decades. A McKinsey & Company analyst recently noted that ``There are 
more than 100 media companies worldwide. . .and entertainment and media 
are still fragmented compared with other industries such as 
pharmaceuticals and aerospace.'' \3\ An FCC survey of various media 
markets across America from 1960 to 2000 also showed that, 
``Collectively, the number of media outlets and owners increased 
tremendously over the 40-year period,'' with an average of a 200 
percent increase in the number of outlets and a 140 percent increase in 
the number of owners.\4\ Media expert Eli Noam of Columbia University 
has nicely summarized why we must understand that ``bigness'' is a 
relative term in media: ``[W]hile the fish in the pond have grown in 
size, the pond did grow too, and there have been new fish and new 
ponds.'' \5\ But, in any event, competition and concentration are not 
mutually exclusive. Citizens can have more choices even as the 
ownership grows slightly more concentrated as it has in some sectors in 
recent years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Michael J. Wolf, ``Here Comes Another Wave of Media Mergers,'' 
The Wall Street Journal, February 21, 2002.
    \4\ Scott Roberts, Jane Frenette and Dione Stearns, ``A Comparison 
of Media Outlets and Owners for Ten Selected Markets: 1960, 1980, 
2000,'' Federal Communications Commission, Media Ownership Working 
Group Study no. 1, September 2002, p. 2, http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/
edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-226838A2.pdf.
    \5\ Eli M. Noam, ``Media Concentration Trends in America: Just the 
Facts,'' In the Matter of 2002 Biennial Regulatory Review--Review of 
the Commission's Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted 
Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, January 
2, 2003, p. 2, http://www.citi.columbia.edu/research/readings/
mediaconcentration.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The fourth myth involves assertions about the future of our 
democracy somehow being at risk. These arguments strike me as quite 
preposterous since increased media availability and communications 
connectivity have given Americans the ability to learn and debate more 
about our democracy than ever before. More importantly, civil discourse 
and a healthy democracy are the product of a free and open society 
unconstrained by government restrictions on media structures or 
content. If government can simply ordain any ownership structures or 
business arrangements it wishes in the name of serving ``democracy,'' 
then it raises serious censorship concerns.
    A fifth myth is that regulation is needed to preserve high quality 
journalism and entertainment. I find these arguments very troubling 
since, at root, media quality is a subjective matter. Government should 
have no say over, or even attempt to influence the quality of news or 
entertainment in America. The good news, however, is that with so many 
media outlets available today, citizens have a wide range of options 
from which to choose, meaning they can decide for themselves what level 
of ``quality'' they desire.
    A sixth myth is that the First Amendment justifies extensive media 
ownership controls, or can be used as a regulatory tool to mandate 
access to media outlets. This is, without doubt, the most dangerous of 
all the media myths. In reality, the First Amendment was not written as 
a constraint on private speech or actions, but rather as a direct 
restraint on government actions as they relate to speech. If the First 
Amendment is to retain its force as a bulwark against government 
control of the press, it cannot be used to justify ownership rules or 
``media access'' mandates.
    A seventh and final myth is that new technologies or media outlets, 
including the Internet, have little bearing on this debate or cannot be 
used as justification for relaxing existing media ownership rules at 
all. To the contrary, new technologies and outlets do have an important 
relationship to this debate and call into question the wisdom of 
existing media ownership restrictions. In particular, the rise of the 
Internet and the World Wide Web is radically changing the nature of 
modern media. (Anyone who thinks differently might want to ask Dan 
Rather what he thinks about the impact of new technologies on 
traditional media!) With 72 percent of Americans now online and 
spending an average of nine hours weekly on the Internet \6\ surfing 
through the 170 terabytes of information available online--which is 
seventeen times the size of the Library of Congress print collections 
\7\--I do not see how anyone can seriously argue that the Internet is 
not fundamentally transforming our media universe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ FCC, Media Ownership Proceeding, p. 148.
    \7\ Peter Lyman and Hal R. Varian, How Much Information? 2003, 
School of Information Management and Systems, University of California 
at Berkeley, 2003, http://www.sims
.berkeley.edu/research/projects/how-much-info-2003/
printable_report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    More generally, my research finds that all media compete in a broad 
sense and that citizens frequently substitute one type of media for 
another. What else explains cable stations stealing so much audience 
share from traditional broadcasters, or that 88 percent of Americans 
now subscribe to cable and satellite TV even though ``free, over-the-
air'' television remains at their disposal? \8\ What else explains how 
satellite radio, an industry that did not even exist prior to December 
2001, today boasts over 2 million subscribers and is rapidly eating 
into traditional radio's market share? Or the fact that millions of 
Americans purchase daily editions of national newspapers such as the 
USA Today, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times? In fact, 49 
percent of The New York Times' daily circulation is now outside the New 
York area and it offers home delivery in 275 markets.\9\ Such 
statistics reveal a healthy, competitive market at work; a market in 
which citizens exercise their right to be as finicky as they want in 
substituting one media option or outlet for another.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Federal Communications Commission, Tenth Annual Video 
Competition Report, January 5, 2004, p. 115, http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/
edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-5A1.pdf, cited hereafter as FCC, Video 
Competition Report.
    \9\ Robert J. Samuelson, ``Bull Market for Media Bias,'' The 
Washington Post, June 23, 2004, p. A21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
    Our media world has changed, and changed in almost every way for 
the better. To the extent there was ever a ``Golden Age'' of American 
media, we are living in it today. There has never been a time in our 
Nation's history when citizens had access to more media outlets, more 
news and information, or more entertainment. This conclusion is 
supported by a solid factual record. Advocates of media regulation, by 
contrast, continue to base their case for government regulation on 
emotional appeals and baseless ``Chicken Little'' doomsday scenarios.
    In such an age of abundance, the question of who owns what, or how 
much they own, is irrelevant. No matter how large any given media 
outlet is today, it is ultimately just one of hundreds of sources of 
news, information and entertainment that we have at our disposal. 
``Indeed,'' as the FCC concluded when revising these rules, ``the 
question confronting media companies today is not whether they will be 
able to dominate the distribution of news and information in any 
market, but whether they will be able to be heard at all among the 
cacophony of voices vying for the attention of Americans.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ FCC, Media Ownership Proceeding, p. 149.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I completely agree with the FCC. The media world has changed and so 
must the rules that govern it. Thank you for inviting me here today to 
discuss the facts about media in America.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]




                                                   Table 2.--Media Outlet Ownership in Select Markets
                                   [Comparison of Media Outlets and Owners for 10 Selected Media Markets (1960-2000)]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      1960                  1980                  2000             % Change 1960-2000
       Market  Rank                       City               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Outlets     Owners    Outlets     Owners    Outlets     Owners     Outlets       Owners
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# 1                                            New York, NY         89         60        154        116        184        114         107%          90%
# 29                                                Kansas City, MO 22         16         44         33         53         33         141%         106%
# 57                                         Birmingham, AL         28         20         44         34         59         38         111%          90%
# 85                                        Little Rock, AR         17         14         35         30         60         33         253%         136%
# 113                                         Lancaster, PA         14         10         21         16         25         20          79%         100%
# 141                        Burlington, VT/Plattsburgh, NY         15         13         37         28         53         34         253%         162%
# 169                                       Myrtle Beach, SC         6          6         22         16         38         23         533%         283%
# 197                                       Terre Haute, IN         12          8         26         19         33         22         175%         175%
#225                                                       Charlottes8ille, VA  5         13         10         23         14         188%         180%
# 253                                           Altoona, PA         11          9         19         12         23         15         109%          67%
                                                                                                                               -------------------------
                                                                                                                                      195%         139%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Federal Communications Commission, Media Ownership Working Group, September 2002.

              Table 3.--S-Curves for Various Technologies

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]




              Table 4.--The Relentless March of Technology
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 1970       1980       1990      2002-4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of households         95.3%      97.9%      98.2%      98.2%
 with TVs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total number of broadcast          875         NA      1,470      1,744
 Television Stations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average number of TV sets          1.4        1.7        2.1        2.4
 per household
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average daily time spent          5:56       6:36       6:53       7:44
 viewing TV (hours &
 minutes)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of households         98.6%        99%        99%        99%
 with Radios
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total number of broadcast        6,751         NA     10,819     13,476
 Radio Stations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of households             0       1.1%        63%        87%
 with VCRs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of households             0          0          0        50%
 with DVD players
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of households             0          0         5%        70%
 with Cell Phones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total number of cell phones          0         NA        5.2      158.7
 subscribers                                         Million    Million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cell phone average monthly          NA         NA     $80.90     $49.91
 bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of homes               6.7%      19.9%      56.4%        68%
 subscribing to Cable
 Television
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of total                 NA        42%        93%        95%
 households to which cable
 television is available
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated TV market share of       55%        49%        31%        21%
 ``Big 3'' (ABC, CBS, NBC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated TV market share of        1%         3%        20%        35%
 Basic Cable
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of homes                  0          0         1%        24%
 subscribing to Direct
 Broadcast Satellite (DBS)
 TV
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of homes with a           0          0        22%        66%
 Personal Computer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of homes with             0          0          0      74.9%
 Internet Access
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: Consumer Electronics Association, eBrain Market Research;
  Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association; Statistical
  Abstract of the United States, 2003; Federal Communications
  Commission; Nielsen Media Research


              Table 5.--Media Trends of Yesterday and Today
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             circa 1970                             today
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extremely high barriers to entry     Much lower entry barriers thanks to
                                      explosion of new technologies and
                                      media outlets
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High distribution costs              Lower costs of distribution
                                      relative to past
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary business strategy = One-to-  Primary business strategy = One-to-
 many; broadcasting; focus on         one; narrowcasting; focus on
 appeasing mass audiences; less       appeasing niche or splintered
 media specialization                 audiences; hyper-specialization of
                                      media
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distinct media sectors with own      Greater competition/substitution
 sphere of influence                  among media sources and outlets
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limited media outlets; limited       Explosion of both sheer number of
 overall choices                      media outlets and overall range of
                                      choices
------------------------------------------------------------------------
People complained about              People complain of ``information
 ``information scarcity''             overload''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Big 3'' dominated television and   7 broadcast TV networks and a 500-
 control 90 percent of audience       channel universe of cable and
                                      satellite choices
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 nightly national newscasts shown   Dozens of national newscasts shown
 once per evening                     on a 24-7 basis, including foreign
                                      languages
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We had to go to the library to       The library comes to us via the
 retrieve hard-to-find information    Internet and online services
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limited number of electronic         In addition to many phones, TVs and
 communications or information        radios, each home today usually
 devices in the home (phone, TV,      has at least a few of the
 radio)                               following: CDs, DVDs, VCRs,
                                      computers, Internet access,
                                      interactive software, cell phones
                                      and other mobile communications
                                      devices, etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 minute coast-to-coast long         3 minute coast-to-coast long
 distance call cost $1.35             distance call cost roughly 15
                                      cents
------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table 6.--The Expanding Video Programming Marketplace On Cable and
                              Satellite TV
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
News: CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, C-Span, C-Span 2, C-Span 3, BBC
 America
Sports: ESPN, ESPN News, Fox Sports, TNT, NBA TV, NFL
 Network, Golf Channel, Speed Channel, Outdoor Life Network
Weather: The Weather Channel
Home Renovation: Home & Garden Television, The Learning
 Channel, DIY
Educational: The History Channel, The Biography Channel
 (A&E), The Learning Channel, Discovery Channel, National
 Geographic Channel, Animal Planet
Travel: The Travel Channel, National Geographic Channel
Financial: CNNfn, CNBC, Bloomberg Television
Shopping: The Shopping Channel, Home Shopping Network, QVC
Female-oriented: WE, Oxygen, Lifetime
Male-oriented: Spike TV
Family/Children-oriented: Nickelodeon, Disney Channel,
 Cartoon Network, WAM (movie channel for 8-16 year olds),
 Noggin (2-5 years)/The N Channel (9-14 years), PBS Kids,
 Hallmark Channel, Discovery Kids, Animal Planet, ABC
 Family, Boomerang, The Family Channel (FAM), HBO Family
African-American: BET, Black Starz!
Foreign/Foreign Language: Telemundo (Spanish), Univision
 (Spanish), Deutsche Welle (German), BBC America (British),
 TV Asia, ZEE-TV Asia (South Asia) ART: Arab Radio and
 Television, The Filipino Channel (Philippines), Saigon
 Broadcasting Network (Vietnam), The International Channel,
 HBO Latino
Religious: Trinity Broadcasting Network, The Church Channel
 (TBN), World Harvest Television, Eternal Word Television
 Network
Music: MTV, MTV 2, VH1, VH1 Classic, Fuse, Country Music
 Television, Great American Country, Gospel Music
 Television Network
Movies: HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, Starz, Encore, The Movie
 Channel, Turner Classic Movies, AMC, IFC, Sundance, Bravo,
 (Action, Westerns, Mystery, Love Stories, etc . . .),
 Flix,
Other or General Interest Programming: TBS, USA Network,
 TNT, SciFi Channel
------------------------------------------------------------------------


        Table 7.--2003 New Magazine Launches by Interest Category
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crafts/Games/Hobbies/    Computers (10)           Teen (6)
 Models (45)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metro/Regional/State     Women's (10)             TV/Radio/
 (45)                                              Communications/
                                                  Electronics (6)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sports (33)              Men's (10)               Art/Antiques (5)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Automotive (29)          Children's (8)           Business/Finance (5)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Interest (23)    Comics/Comic Technique   Motorcycles (5)
                          (8)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health (19)              Entertainment/           Bridal (3)
                          Performing Arts (7)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home Service/Home (17)   Literary Reviews/        Aviation (2)
                          Writing (7)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Music (15)               Photography (7)          Gaming (2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sex (13)                 Pop Culture (7)          Gardening (2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethnic (11)              Religious/               Military/Naval (2)
                          Denominational (7)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Epicurean (11)           Dogs/Pets (6)            Science/Technology (2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fashion/Beauty/Grooming  Dressmaking/Needlework   Media Personalities
 (11)                     (6)                      (1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fitness (11)             Fishing/Hunting (6)      Mystery/Science
                                                   Fiction (1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Travel (11)              Political/Social Topics  ......................
                          (6)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         .......................  TOTAL: 440
------------------------------------------------------------------------

               Table 8.--A Clear Channel Radio Monopoly?

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]




                    Table 9.--Internet Radio Stations
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
LaunchCast (radio.yahoo.com)
Rhapsody (www.listen.com)
Live 365 (www.live365.com)
Net Radio.com (www.netradio.com)
eoRadio (www.eoradio.com)
Totally Radio (www.totallyradio.com)
Soul Patrol (http://www.soul-patrol.net)
SnakeNet Metal Radio (www.snakenetmetalradio.com)
Recovery Net (www.recoverynetradio.com)
Beethoven.com (www.beethoven.com)
Web-Radio (www.web-radio.fm)
Radio@Netscape (www.spinner.com)
NPR Online (www.npr.org)
VH1's SonicNet.com (http://www.sonicnet.com/)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

              Table 10.--Do the ``Big 3'' Own Everything?

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



          Table 11.--Cable Ratings Share Now Tops Broadcasters

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



              Table 12.--An Assortment of Media Fun Facts
General Media Facts or Trends:
   ``A weekday edition of the New York Times contains more 
        information than the average person was likely to come across 
        in a lifetime in seventeenth-century England.'' \11\ A 1987 
        report estimated that more new information has been produced 
        within the last 30 years than in the last 5000.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Richard Saul Wurman, Information Anxiety (New York: Doubleday, 
1989), p. 32. Likewise, William Van Winkle of Computer Bits magazine 
argues that, ``A Sunday edition of the New York Times carries more 
information than the average 19th-century citizen accessed in his 
entire life.'' William Van Winkle, ``Information Overload,'' Computer 
Bits, February 1998, http://www.computerbits.com/archive/1998/0200/
infoload.html.
    \12\ Susan Hubbard, in Carol Collier Kuhlthau, ed., Information 
Skills for an Information Society: A Review of Research (Syracuse, NY: 
ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Resources, December 1987).

   According to Ben Bagdikian, there are 37,000 different media 
        outlets in America. That number jumps to 54,000 if all 
        weeklies, semiweeklies, advertising weeklies and all 
        periodicals are included, and to 178,000 if all ``information 
        industries'' are included. And yet Bagdikian is a leading 
        critic of media deregulation and the title of his most recent 
        book is The New Media Monopoly! \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Bagdikian, p. 29.

   An FCC survey of large and small media markets across 
        America from 1960 to 2000 revealed that, ``Collectively, the 
        number of media outlets and owners increased tremendously over 
        the 40-year period,'' with an average of a 200 percent increase 
        in the number of outlets and a 140 percent increase in the 
        number of owners.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Scott Roberts, Jane Frenette and Dione Stearns, ``A Comparison 
of Media Outlets and Owners for Ten Selected Markets: 1960, 1980, 
2000,'' Federal Communications Commission, Media Ownership Working 
Group Study no. 1, September 2002, p. 2, http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/
edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-226838A2.pdf.

   By 2007, the average American will spend 3,874 hours per 
        year using major consumer media, an increase of 792 hours per 
        year from the 3,082 hours per year that the average person 
        spent using consumer media in 1977.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Joe Mandese, ``Study: Media Overload on the Rise,'' Television 
Week, May 17, 2004, http://www.tvweek.com/planning/051704study.html.

   As of 2003, household penetration rates for various new 
        media and communications technologies were very high and 
        growing fast: VCR (88 percent); DVD (50 percent); DBS (24 
        percent); cell phones (70 percent); personal computers (66 
        percent); Internet access (75 percent). With the exception of 
        VCRs, none of these technologies were in American homes in 
        1980.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Various sources.

   In 2002, the average consumer spent $212 for basic cable, 
        $100 for books, $110 for home videos, $71 for music recordings, 
        $58 for daily newspapers, $45 for magazines, $45 for online 
        Internet services, and $36 on movies.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Plunkett's Entertainment & Media Industry Almanac 2002-2003 
(Houston: Plunkett Research Ltd., 2002), p. 7.

   A three minute coast-to-coast long-distance phone call which 
        cost roughly $1.35 in 1970 only cost 15 cents in 2003.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Noted in Christina Wise, ``The Good Ol' Days Are Now: Cox,'' 
Investor's Business Daily, April 19, 2004, p. A22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Television/Video Competition:
   88 percent of Americans now subscribe to cable and satellite 
        ``pay TV'' sources even though ``free, over-the-air'' 
        television remains at their disposal.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Federal Communications Commission, Tenth Annual Video 
Competition Report, January 5, 2004, p. 115, http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/
edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-5A1.pdf, cited hereafter as FCC, Video 
Competition Report.

   The FCC has found that, ``In 1979, the vast majority of 
        households had six or fewer local television stations to choose 
        from, three of which were typically affiliated with a broadcast 
        network. Today the average U.S. household receives seven 
        broadcast television networks and an average of 102 channels 
        per home.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ FCC, Media Ownership Proceeding, p. 15. ``Non-broadcast 
television programming continues to proliferate. Today, there are more 
than 308 satellite-delivered national non-broadcast television networks 
available for carriage over cable, DBS and other multichannel video 
program distribution (``MVPD'') systems. In 2002, the Commission also 
identified at least 86 regional non-broadcast networks, including 31 
sports channels, and 32 regional and local news networks. We are moving 
to a system served by literally hundreds of networks serving all 
conceivable interests. Programming in particular abundance are sports, 
entertainment, and informational in nature. The four largest broadcast 
networks own both broadcast and cable channels. Their share of 
viewership is far greater than their share of the channels received by 
the typical American household. Of the 102 channels received by the 
average viewing home, the four largest broadcast networks have an 
ownership interest in approximately 25 percent of those channels.'' 
Ibid., pp. 48-49.

   There are more than 308 satellite-delivered national non-
        broadcast television networks available for carriage over 
        cable, DBS and other systems today. The FCC concludes, ``We are 
        moving to a system served by literally hundreds of networks 
        serving all conceivable interests.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ FCC, Media Ownership Proceeding, p. 48-49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newspapers and Magazines:
   In 1900, the average newspaper had only 8 pages.\22\ In the 
        year 2000, by contrast, according to the Encarta encyclopedia, 
        ``Daily general-circulation newspapers average[d] about 65 
        pages during the week and more than 200 pages in the weekend 
        edition.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Benjamin M. Compaine, ``The Newspaper Industry,'' in Benjamin 
M. Compaine and Douglas Gomery, eds., Who Owns the Media? Competition 
and Concentration in the Mass Media Industry (Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence 
Erlbaum Associates, 3rd Edition, 2000), p. 7.
    \23\ ``Newspaper,'' Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia, 2004, 
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564853/Newspaper.html

   There were 17,254 magazines produced in 2003, up from 14,302 
        in 1993. ``For virtually every human interest, there is a 
        magazine.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ The Magazine Handbook 2004-5, (New York, NY: Magazine 
Publishers of America, 2004), p. 5, http://www.magazine.org/content/
Files/MPA%5Fhandbook%5F04.pdf.

   There were 440 new magazine launches in 2003, up from 289 
        new launches in 2002.\25\ Another source puts the number much 
        higher at 949 new launches last year.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Ibid., p. 7.
    \26\ Samir Husni, Samir Husni's Guide to New Magazines 2004, 19th 
Edition, http://www
.shgncm.com/shgncm/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radio:
   The number of radio stations in America has roughly doubled 
        since 1970. As of March 2004, there were 13,486 radio stations 
        in America, up from 6,751 in January 1970.

   Satellite radio (XM & Sirius), an industry that did not even 
        exist prior to December 2001, today boasts over 2 million 
        subscribers nationwide according to company reports.
Internet/Online Services:
   72 percent of Americans are now online and spend an average 
        of nine hours weekly on the Internet.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ FCC, Media Ownership Proceeding, p. 148.

   The World Wide Web contains about 170 terabytes of 
        information on its surface; in volume this is seventeen times 
        the size of the Library of Congress print collections.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ Peter Lyman and Hal R. Varian, How Much Information? 2003, 
School of Information Management and Systems, University of California 
at Berkeley, 2003, http://www.sims
.berkeley.edu/research/projects/how-much-info-2003/
printable_report.pdf.

   Although less than 10 years old, online auction giant E-Bay 
        has grown so massive that it now handles more daily trading 
        traffic than the Nasdaq Stock Market according to CEO Meg 
        Whitman.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Leslie Walker, ``EBay Gathering Puts Highs, Lows On Full 
Display,'' The Washington Post, July 1, 2004, p. E1, http://
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17604-2004Jun30.html.

   Online search giant Google recently reported that its 
        collection of 6 billion items includes ``4.28 billion web 
        pages, 880 million images, 845 million Usenet messages, and a 
        growing collection of book-related information pages.'' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ ``Google Achieves Search Milestone With Immediate Access To 
More Than 6 Billion Items,'' Google Press Release, February 17, 2004, 
http://www.google.com/press/pressrel/6billion.html.

   The Internet Archive ``Wayback Machine'' (www.archive.org) 
        offers 30 billion web pages archived from 1996 to the present. 
        It contains approximately 1 petabyte of data and is currently 
        growing at a rate of 20 terabytes per month. The site notes, 
        ``This eclipses the amount of text contained in the world's 
        largest libraries, including the Library of Congress. If you 
        tried to place the entire contents of the archive onto floppy 
        disks . . . and laid them end to end, it would stretch from New 
        York, past Los Angeles, and halfway to Hawaii.'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ ``Frequently Asked Questions,'' Internet Archive Wayback 
Machine, http://www
.archive.org/about/faqs.php.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Professor Overholser, I've noticed an interesting thing in 
reading local newspapers which are owned by large chains, that 
if you scan most any part of the first section of the paper, 
you see a story, the headline or the bold print, and underneath 
you'll see, in tiny wording, ``New York Times,'' ``Washington 
Post,'' ``Knight Ridder,'' ``Reuters.'' Almost totally 
disappearing is any local or that newspaper-owned reporters 
reporting on national media stories. Do you--can you comment on 
that?
    Professor Overholser. Absolutely, Senator. I think that 
what you're observing is cost savings. Now, I do think it's 
important that local newspapers bring national and 
international news to a given community, and they're not likely 
to have their own reporters abroad. Alas, it's all too true 
that more of that news hole in that newspaper is taken up by 
wire, even to the expense--at the expense of local news, which 
simply is not being undertaken as much. And this phenomenon 
that you're observing is true on a larger scale for a newspaper 
like, for example, the Des Moines Register, would choose to do 
extensive agricultural reporting, which was a costly 
undertaking, but it was of national value. They are doing very 
little of it. And that story plays out across the country.
    Now, what you can do about that--I mean, I think we ought 
to have a national commission that looks at the paltry quality 
of local news, because it makes a difference. But that's, of 
course, not immediately in your hands, except to the extent 
that the FCC can make that worse by creating still more means 
of these companies saving money, and dropping it to the bottom 
lines, and not serving local needs.
    I mean, I'm amazed to hear my colleague say that this 
supposed ``golden age of American media'' means we have a 
public that knows more about democracy than ever before. I 
haven't seen the evidence of that.
    The Chairman. Well, that leads me, Mr. Thierer, to one of 
your statements--in your beginning statement, ``Regardless of 
what the underlying business structure or ownership patterns 
look like, the real question in this debate must be, `Do 
citizens have more information and entertainment choices at 
their disposal today than in the past?' '' Well, you regard--
you disregard the fundamental problem. We have media controlled 
by major corporations in America, which leads to the usual 
media caution, which leads to the usual media consolidation, 
which leads to, as my friend to my right here often says, 
``many voices and one ventriloquist.'' And we see that time 
after time in news reporting, including an avoidance of 
controversial issues. That's the nature of corporate America, 
to avoid controversy, because they're only interested in one 
thing, and that's the bottom line. So I disregard--I disagree 
with your fundamental principle, when you say, Regardless of 
what the underlying business structure of ownership patterns 
look like. That, to me, is incredibly and extremely relevant in 
this discussion and debate. And I'll be glad to hear your 
response.
    Mr. Thierer. Sure. Basically, I hear a lot of arguments in 
this debate, what I classify--I would classify as, sort of, a 
neo-conspiratorial puppet-master theory of mass media 
domination. The idea that somehow a handful of guys in New York 
or L.A. are puppeteering all media ideas or outputs or whatever 
else, I find this notion to be absolutely absurd. And even if 
there was any truth to this notion, that somehow a few guys 
sitting in New York or L.A. were controlling all of our 
thoughts, it's going to--they're going to be very hard-pressed 
to do that. They're going to be hard-pressed to control the 
people under them--the journalists, the editors. And, of 
course, there are so many other checks on what they are doing. 
All's it takes is one Drudge Report story to break news about--
that something is going fishy on--in a major media outlet.
    The Chairman. Well, perhaps this--obviously, you 
misconstrued my statement, but perhaps we should do a study, 
for example, of the overseas presence of the major networks in 
America today. It's well known that when CBS was acquired, the 
then-CEO went all over Europe, ``You're fired, you're gone, 
you're done,'' no more news bureau in Rome, none--reduced it 
drastically in Moscow, take it out in London. This is true of 
all the networks. When you look at the presence of reporting of 
major television networks and reporters, the bottom line is 
profit and loss. I'm not talking about controlling media; I'm 
talking about profit and loss, Mr. Thierer. There's two 
different things there.
    And so the facts are facts. The facts are that, as compared 
with the 1970s, the reporting of what's going on in the world 
has been dramatically--I say dramatically--reduced for cost-
cutting reasons. And we'll do--we'll have some study, but, I 
mean, it's just a fact. And maybe that's satisfactory to you. 
Maybe that's fine with you. And I understand Cato's libertarian 
views. But I believe that when the bottom line is the only, or 
certainly the overriding, objective of any organization, the 
days of Edward R. Murrow are long, long gone.
    Mr. Thierer. Could I make a couple of quick responses----
    The Chairman. Sure.
    Mr. Thierer.--very briefly?
    First of all, as you say, the facts are the facts. And the 
facts are, we had far many more embedded reporters in Iraq for 
this most recent conflict than we did during the previous 
conflict or the Vietnam War or anything else. So regardless of 
the profitability----
    The Chairman. First of all, that's not true. We had more 
reporters in Vietnam than we had in Iraq. But we had a new 
concept, and that was embedded reporters; and that was for a 
conflict. I'm not talking about for a conflict. And, by the 
way, most of those are gone now. And I'm not talking about a 
major conflict, which absorbs the attention of the American 
people. I'm talking about everyday reporting of events that are 
going on over the world, and that means news bureaus in 
capitals of countries all over the world. They have been 
dramatically reduced or eliminated.
    Go ahead, please.
    Mr. Thierer. For the major networks, I would agree that is 
probably the case, because, of course, a lot of their news has 
been cut as they face increased competition from cable and 
satellite television news sources. Those 24/7----
    The Chairman. They're establishing news bureaus over there?
    Mr. Thierer. Well, they have, certainly, a fair amount of 
presence across the world. Whether or not they have a bureau in 
every major capital is a different story. Of course, they're on 
the move so much that they are reporting from a lot of 
different regions and countries.
    The Chairman. Well, we just have a fundamental difference 
of opinion. And I tell you, mine is shared by almost every 
objective journalist or expert on journalism in America.
    Mr. Compaine, I also find it interesting that, quote, ``My 
findings lead me to an observation and a question for 
policymakers. The observation is that, while Congress certainly 
has the prerogative, it cannot micromanage, effectively, 
television and radio regulation.'' Micromanage by setting an 
ownership cap? I'm sorry, but, again, we have a very different 
view of the role of Congress and our oversight responsibilities 
of tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars worth of 
spectrum and how it's allocated and how it's used. So, you 
know, I don't believe we've been micromanaging at all. We are 
responding--we are responding--to an unprecedented number of 
our constituents, of American citizens, who contacted the FCC 
at the time of this rulemaking, expressing their deep and 
abiding concern about media consolidation. That's what our job 
is.
    There has never been more comments to the FCC on any single 
issue than there was on media consolidation. And for us to 
consider the issue of overall media ownership, and call that 
micro-managing, we just have a different view of what the role 
of Congress is.
    Mr. Compaine. Senator, I wasn't suggesting that you 
shouldn't be having hearings or setting an overview. I just 
think that things are moving so quickly that today's 39 percent 
might not be the best number in four or 5 years, and that 
Congress isn't set up to come back every three or 4 years to 
look at that.
    But I want to--I think I agree with you on some--well, 
maybe I shouldn't--maybe not; we'll see. I think that on--the 
thing about the--all those letters to the FCC, part of it is--
it's a little bit like the question, ``Do you still beat your 
wife?'' If people are asked the question, ``Should the FCC 
allow greater media concentration,'' I mean, everyone's going 
to say no. And I think a lot of those responses were part of 
that reaction, that--you know, ``We don't want more 
concentration.'' And it's a much more complex question than 
that.
    My feeling is that we should be getting all this spectrum 
back from the broadcasters, as I know you wanted to impart. We 
have much greater uses for it. When so few people are actually 
using over-the-air, I think that--let's, sort of, say, ``Look, 
we've had all this trouble trying to get the public interest 
standard, what is it and how do we enforce it and''--why don't 
we just somehow say to these folks, ``Return your spectrum. 
We'll let you stay on cable. We've got much better uses for 
this stuff than what you're doing for it. And you'll pay for--
you know, anything that you do keep, you've got to pay for.'' I 
mean, this----
    The Chairman. You just described my legislation, which 
was----
    Mr. Compaine. Well----
    The Chairman.--voted down, 13 to nine, and this----
    Mr. Compaine. No, I know. And I was----
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Compaine. That's why I say I think I agree with you 
more than----
    The Chairman. I thank you. I thank you, Mr. Compaine. I 
really do.
    Mr. Thierer, let me come back to you, one other point, real 
quick. And, look, even though we disagree, we're glad you're 
here. And we think that your views contribute enormously to 
this debate.
    Under the rules the FCC issued last year, Business Week 
stated, quote, ``Even in midsized cities such as San Antonio, 
for instance, one company might own the leading newspaper, two 
TV stations, eight radio stations, and several cable 
channels.'' Does that concern you?
    Mr. Thierer. My general response to these sorts of 
questions is simple, that there's, sort of, an ex-ante/ex-post 
question in this debate, which is, Do you want preemptive, 
prophylactic forms of regulation governing these issues, or do 
you prefer to go with a typical standard we apply to all other 
industries in this country for market-power concerns, which are 
the antitrust laws, which seem to work fairly well in these 
other areas? I would prefer the former--the latter, rather, 
where we basically look at these issues and say, if there is a 
serious market-power problem that creeps up after we allow the 
rules to disappear, we'll handle it then. I think that's the 
better way to approach this than--instead of attempting to 
honestly, as Mr. Compaine says, micromanage the exactly right 
number. We don't know what the exactly right number is. Is 102 
cable channels too many? Too few? I don't know.
    The Chairman. Well, I would argue that nowhere in history 
have you been able to unbundle once the merger or consolidation 
has been completed in the media, that I know of. But, anyway--
--
    Professor Baker, do you have a comment on that?
    Professor Baker. Actually, I think, with enough political 
will, de-bundling is possible, but it's not likely with the 
huge conglomerates. But the Supreme Court approved the FCC's 
forcing the sale of some newspaper/television combinations at a 
time where it was more interested in diversity than it is now.
    But the general point is absolutely right. We ought to be 
concerned with diversity in the market, like in San Antonio, 
which could have been incredibly limited under the FCC's rule.
    Also, as to the antitrust versus other types of regulation, 
antitrust law is designed to limit the situation where one 
company can exercise control over price. Even in situations 
where one company can't exercise control over price, like the 
price of advertising, it can exercise control over the content 
that most people in that area are going to receive. And when 
that's the case there should be a concern. And that's the 
reason you need different rules in the communications realm 
than the general antitrust concern with power over price. 
That's even reinforced by the fact that concerns about power 
over content, power over voice, is integral to our notion of 
democracy. So I think antitrust, though I have no criticism of 
it, is an inadequate standard in the communications realm.
    The Chairman. Thank the witnesses.
    Senator Dorgan?
    Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
    This has been an interesting discussion, and has raised a 
lot of questions.
    First of all, have any of you ever planted corn with a 
tractor?
    All right. Let me read you something the Farm Bureau says 
about radio ownership and farming, because it goes directly to 
the question that we're raising today. They say that, ``The 
trend today in radio is to restrict and eliminate timely 
weather information, local news, up-to-the-minute market 
reports, and so on, affecting production agriculture. The trend 
today, instead of improving and maintaining these services, 
many radio stations are eliminating or curtailing farm news. 
And this relates, in large part, to media ownership rules, 
which allow large ownership groups to acquire multiple radio 
licenses.''
    Now, in point of fact, if you're a farmer out there, you're 
wondering about the weather, you're wondering about the 
markets, and somebody a thousand miles away buys up that local 
station, puts in a homogenized bit of music and fires the local 
newscaster. And the question is, Is that in the public 
interest? It might be part of the market system, but it 
certainly is not in the public interest. So one cannot say 
there are more choices, there's more competition, and good for 
everybody.
    Now, let me just make a couple of comments, then I have a 
couple of questions.
    Part of the argument here, Mr. Chairman, has been 
interesting. The circumstance of restricted choices has been 
described as a circumstance of expanded opportunities. Mr. 
Overholser, you suggested certain restaurants--we have 13,000 
McDonald's restaurants in the country. Now, if those 
McDonald's, tomorrow, announced they have one new salad on the 
menu, and we were having this discussion about restaurants and 
menus, some of you would probably argue that there are 13,000 
new choices for Americans. It's only one salad, of course. 
Right? But you'd be here arguing that, ``Look at the diversity, 
look at the competition, look at the new things, look at the 
expanded opportunities,'' 13,000 new menu items. Nonsense.
    And, Mr. Thierer, I think you've contributed to this 
discussion. I disagree strongly with you, but you contribute by 
being here. I appreciate that. But I must say this, I have 
always thought that the conservative dogma, the conservative 
doctrine, is one that embraces and nourishes and refreshes the 
notion of competition. And, in fact, I think you're arguing 
exactly against that point, which is surprising.
    Now, I'll give you all a chance to respond to all of that. 
First, let's respond to the question of corn. Since you've not 
planted corn, you won't be too concerned about farm radio 
broadcasts. But do you accept the fact that these are 
diminishing all across the country because of changes in 
ownership and increasing media concentration?
    Mr. Compaine. I would--my wife is from Kansas, and I've 
seen a lot of corn. But I would suggest that needs a lot more 
investigation, because farmers were in the lead back in the 
early 1980s in using online services, from the Agriculture 
Department and others, in getting information. Long before the 
Internet, the agricultural community were buying Radio Shack 
TRS-80s before most people had these. I suspect that many of 
those farmers are getting much more specific information than 
they can get from that radio report by going online to specific 
sites that are giving them exactly what they need for even a 
smaller geographical area and perhaps for the specific kind of 
corn or a specific brand.
    So there may be some the--some of what you say, but I think 
most of it is just because farmers have found a better source 
of information.
    Senator Dorgan. But Mr. Compaine, you're making an excuse 
for diminished services farmers are complaining about, so I 
don't understand that.
    Let me make one other point, if I might, and then ask 
some--just a couple of questions.
    Jim Goodman has appeared before this Committee a number of 
times. He's a broadcaster from North Carolina. And he talks 
about this question that some of you have raised about 
increased competition, increased diversity for viewers. And, 
you know, for example, there is, perhaps, increased competition 
between a program in which you see people eating maggots 
competing with a program of people wife swapping. I'm not sure 
those exist in exactly the same timeframe, but they're both on 
network television. And so that competition now exists. And Mr. 
Goodman appears before this panel, I think, on two or three 
occasions--he's a television owner, and he says, ``You know 
something? I can't keep these programs off my television even 
if I think they're not appropriate because I am told from on 
high that, `You are to broadcast those programs. If not, you'll 
lose the opportunity to have your affiliation with the 
network.' ''
    So, you know, this issue of competition and local ownership 
versus centralized control is one, I think, that's well 
documented by testimony at the very table that you're now 
sitting.
    So let me ask a couple of questions. Then I have 
colleagues, I know, that are anxious to ask question, as well.
    The point that you made, Ms. Overholser, about better 
journalism, you know, I, frankly, don't think we can do much 
about that. But I happen to think increased competition leads 
us in the other direction. If you have, for example, in one 
community, as we have in North Dakota, all of the commercial 
radio stations being purchased by one company, I would ask any 
of you, Does that advance the interest of increased choices for 
consumers--better news, better information--or does it retard 
those interests, in your judgment? I mean, this is not theory; 
I'm just describing the case of Minot, North Dakota. The FCC 
allowed one company to buy all the commercial radio stations in 
that community. Does that advance the interest, Mr. Thierer?
    Mr. Thierer. Actually, I know Minot, South Dakota, if you 
check it up on the--North Dakota, I'm sorry--if you check it up 
on the Well Connected site, you can find that there are a few 
other owners of media outlets in that community.
    Senator Dorgan. All the commercial radio stations----
    Mr. Thierer. Oh, on the commercial radio stations--I'm 
talking about broadly of other types of media outlets.
    Senator Dorgan. We're just talking past each other. I'm 
talking----
    Mr. Thierer. But in a very small----
    Senator Dorgan.--about commercial radio stations.
    Mr. Thierer.--community, there might be a situation where 
one owner does own most of the media outlets, depending on the 
size of that community.
    However, going back to your farming question, to bring this 
full circle, I come from a family of farmers in Illinois, and 
when I was home--when I was home recently visiting some of 
them, I saw the most amazing sight while driving out of the 
state. I was driving past a farm where there was actually a 
satellite dish, for whatever reason, affixed to an old 
dilapidated outhouse. Now, I don't know, I'm hoping they're not 
watching satellite television in there. But the point is, is 
that it was a great sign of the times, that there was new 
technology in an old agrarian setting. And if you go out and 
you watch farmers do their work, you see them on cell phones, 
you see many of them have pagers now, and Blackberries. It's an 
amazing technological revolution that's happening in the 
farming community.
    Do they have enough farming news in all local newspapers 
and media outlets today? I don't know. Farmers are one of many 
constituents of news and information, and they're going to have 
to compete with others. And, of course, farming is on the 
decline, relative to other types of industry. So we have to 
take those realities into account, in terms of what's reported.
    Of course a hundred years ago there was more agrarian 
reporting. There was more agriculture, in relative terms.
    Senator Dorgan. Why should they expect to have to compete 
with others if they are the customers of a radio station in a 
farming community that has decided that, ``We're now owned by a 
company a thousand miles away, and we want to do voice tracking 
and pour homogenized music over that radio station.'' Why is 
that not dis-serving the very consumers for which we gave the 
license for that radio station to be on the air?
    Mr. Thierer. But if there is--certainly there must be some 
sort of an audience for those stations, or else they would go 
off the air. Because, quite frankly, the media is a business, 
and a lot of people live in denial about that. The only way 
that that commercial station's going to remain viable in that 
community or any other is if it has listeners. Advertisers 
aren't going to shower these companies with dollars unless 
there's an audience.
    Senator Dorgan. Well----
    Mr. Thierer. Somebody must be listening.
    Professor Overholser. I wonder if I can make a quick 
response, Senator Dorgan, to your good point, which, of course, 
is that you all can't keep, you know, profit pressures from 
causing great diminishment of journalism. But I mention it 
because I think is important to keep this distinction in mind. 
A proliferation of outlets is what everybody keeps citing to 
say we're good, we're better than ever, when, in fact, a 
decline in journalism is what we need to keep in mind. And I 
believe that the FCC ownership rule changes enhance the 
opportunity for businesses to draw still further away from 
their local communities.
    And if you ask me, the remarkable response that you all got 
from your constituents after the FCC rule changes came in such 
degree and at that moment precisely because there are, indeed, 
people for whom the answer to your question, ``You ask anyone, 
do you really want greater consolidation,'' they'll say no. 
Indeed, there were quite a few people, including owners of 
newspaper companies and television companies. And the coverage 
of those rules was very poor. There's a marvelous Columbia 
Journalism Review article about just how poor it was. And is it 
a coincidence when the owners wanted these rules changes? So I 
think there is an important connection.
    Senator Dorgan. The Chairman indicated--and I'm pleased he 
did--that the FCC rules that have now been remanded back, at 
least in part, would have allowed, in the largest cities in 
this country, one corporation to own three television stations, 
eight radio stations, the newspaper, the dominant newspaper, 
and the cable company itself. I think that's nuts. And I think 
to make the case that that somehow is moving in the public 
interest is absurd. This issue that there is this proliferation 
of opportunities for the American people--go to the news sites 
on the Internet, and I'll tell you that the most visited news 
sites on the Internet are owned by the same dominant companies 
that are on broadcast television, that--there are only five or 
six--essentially five large combines here, and there are a 
handful of people that are now determining what the American 
people see, hear, and read. And a handful of people decided 
that John McCain should not be heard by 40 million people who 
don't have cable television. Shame on them, in my judgment. And 
I hope----
    The Chairman. I agree.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Dorgan. Well, I knew John McCain would agree, 
because he gave a great speech, and I wish he'd have given it 
at our convention. But----
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Dorgan.--and I wish it had been--I wish it had been 
televised there.
    But the fact is, this is a very important debate. Mr. 
Chairman, you've been great in doing these hearings and 
allowing the American people to have at least some glimpse into 
this controversy. I appreciate that.
    And thank the witnesses for being here.
    The Chairman. I thank you.
    And our two colleagues have been very patient. I would 
point out, too, that NPR and PBS carried the conventions in 
their entirety, and their ratings were very good. It's 
interesting.
    Senator Nelson. And so did C-SPAN.
    The Chairman. And C-SPAN--yes, C-SPAN, as well. Yes.
    Senator Fitzgerald?
    Senator Fitzgerald. You can let Senator Nelson----
    The Chairman. Senator Nelson?

                STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA

    Senator Nelson. Mr. Chairman, I wish you'd have given that 
speech at our Boston convention, as well.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Nelson. Senator Dorgan, I think it's nuts, too, 
where you get that kind of concentration in a market. And I 
want to give you an example of that. I have an example of a 
tale of two media markets in Florida. The owners, as we were 
considering this media ownership rule and the cross-ownership, 
naturally, had come and made the arguments. Well, look at the 
Tampa market. Media General owns the Tampa Tribune, and they 
also own one of the prominent stations there, the NBC 
affiliate, Channel 8. And they pointed out the advantages of 
sharing the newsroom and all of that, which is a legitimate 
argument. But the big difference between the Tampa market, on 
this issue of cross-ownership, and the Orlando market is that 
the Tampa market has a vigorous competition between two 
newspapers; not just the one newspaper that also owns the 
television station--the Tampa Tribune--but a vigorous 
competition with the St. Petersburg Times; whereas, the Orlando 
market, the dominant newspaper, by far, is the Orlando 
Sentinel. If the Orlando Sentinel--the Chicago Tribune, in 
fact, owned news stations, such as the television stations, 
then I think you would start to move to a monopoly position 
away from more competition. And I just simply don't think that 
that's healthy.
    But let me ask you about a specific that has come up here 
today. The majority of the FCC and Mr. Compaine and Mr. Thierer 
seem to think that the Internet provides a multitude of voices 
to compete with the media giants. The Third Circuit considered 
this, and they rejected that.
    Now, are you aware--could you share with the Committee--of 
any independent websites that compete in this way? For example, 
do you know of any independent Internet site that has had the 
resources to cover the war in Iraq?
    Mr. Thierer. Of course not, because a lot of those sites 
are small upstarts. They're not going to have those resources. 
In fact, the companies that have the resources are the very 
large companies that many people obviously on this Committee 
would like to break up. And you can't have it both ways. You're 
going to have some companies that are going to be quite large, 
and some that are quite small that play more of a marginal 
role. But the economics of America's media marketplace are not 
those of a corner lemonade stand. It takes a lot of scale, 
sometimes, to provide the resources and the types of services 
that we want to cover a lot of those things. At the same time, 
there can be a very important role played by bloggers on 
websites or independent news sources. I mean, think about what 
the Drudge Report did, whether you like it or not, regarding 
the impeachment of President Clinton. I mean, that is 
important, and that changed history. And so there are other 
examples like that, and there are going to be countless more as 
new technologies evolve in the future. That's my opinion. The 
Internet doesn't change everything, at least not yet, but it 
changes a lot.
    Mr. Compaine. But, if I may, there--I've looked at articles 
about the Middle East on Al Jazeera, the Times of London, the 
Guardian, the Times of India, which is one of the most accessed 
news sites in the United States. So they're not necessarily 
U.S. companies, but that should be an attraction, that we can 
get different perspectives. You get a very different 
perspective reading Al Jazeera's English-language news reports 
than you would getting any American news report, likely. So I 
think that there are far more sources there.
    Senator Nelson. You know, I agree with that, and I 
celebrate that fact, that we have that information at the 
access of our fingertips. Someone like you would go there. But 
the normal American consumer would not necessarily do that and 
they get this steady diet of information from their local 
market. And if you consolidate that, and you lessen the 
competition, then it just seems like we're arguing against--I'd 
like to hear Ms. Overholser----
    Mr. Thierer. But do they only get their news from local 
markets? And what is a media market today? Is Tampa the 
relevant market? Is Orlando the relevant market? Or are Tampa 
and Orlando citizens also receiving a lot of news and 
information from other national sources? Again, FCC statistics, 
88-and-a-half percent of Americans currently voluntarily open 
their purses and wallets and purchase cable and satellite 
television network subscriptions, even though they have free 
over-the-air television choices at their disposal. Pretty soon, 
that number is going to creep up and up and up, and we'll be 
looking at 95-97 percent penetration. At that point in time, a 
lot of people have voluntarily said, ``Hey, I'm willing to take 
other sources of news. It's relevant news.'' And then a lot--
more and more people online--that's new type of information. 
It's not local, it's not national; it's a little bit of both. 
It can be local and national.
    Professor Overholser. I agree with much of this. In fact, I 
think the question of who competes with whom is changing. But I 
would like to respond to your good point, Senator Nelson, about 
the competition in a given city, for example, or the Tampa Bay 
area. I mean, you know, when I first covered the Colorado 
legislature 35 years ago, I would sit around that table at the 
legislature, and there were radio reporters from around the 
state, and there were reporters from newspapers around the 
state, and there were reporters from the AP and the UPI, et 
cetera, et cetera. And there is a loss in that particular 
decline. There may be bloggers at the table in Denver, but what 
I'm talking about is the kind of--it is expensive to produce a 
report, and people don't just go sit at the legislature and 
produce an edited report that the public needs to know.
    Now, in the Bay Area, you've got the St. Pete Times, which 
is owned by the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, which 
doesn't have to ask more than 10 percent net income before 
taxes. It's a terrific media competition. And no doubt, there 
are bloggers and everybody else. But who--you know, we really 
do need to worry about whether we're protecting this stream of 
reporting that the public needs. And it's great we have this 
diverse blogging community. And it makes a difference. It will 
improve standard journalism sources. But I don't think, when we 
talk about putting all the local media in essentially the same 
hands, that we should blithely think that that won't make a 
real difference. It will make a real difference. You have one 
less television reporter, it makes a difference. People notice 
things in a given community; and if you don't have reporters 
noticing things, it won't be noticed.
    Senator Nelson. Mr. Baker, did you want----
    Professor Baker. I agree with that. I mean, out--the 
Internet's great. And for some people, reading Al Jazeera could 
be great. I'm not sure what percentage of the population of 
Tampa does that. My guess is, it's not so large. And my guess 
is, Al Jazeera doesn't report much about what's going on in 
Tampa. And if people want local news, that's just not going to 
provide it.
    The sources of local news that the Internet provides have 
not, in any study I've seen, been demonstrated to be of any 
significant amount. There's local discussion. Internet is 
great. But you need resources to produce good news, the type of 
journalism society has, and that's going to come from media 
entities.
    What we need is a structure that will increase the 
likelihood that the people at the heads of entities are willing 
and able to put resources into journalism. And a 
conglomerated--a consolidated structure is not the structure 
that's going to do that. I think that's the point that--I'm 
very pleased, I think the Senators understand that well. It's 
not surprising that the Senators would understand the media 
quite well, but I think you've shown that very clearly. But 
it's of vital importance that we have people that are willing 
to put resources into production of good quality journalism.
    Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Fitzgerald?

            STATEMENT OF HON. PETER G. FITZGERALD, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS

    Senator Fitzgerald. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Thierer, I wanted to ask you where you're from in 
Illinois.
    Mr. Thierer. Born in Peoria. I know how it plays in Peoria, 
Senator.
    Senator Fitzgerald. Oh, that's great. That's great.
    Mr. Thierer. Family's in the Roanoke area.
    Senator Fitzgerald. Well, fabulous, and welcome to the 
Committee.
    Mr. Thierer. Yes.
    Senator Fitzgerald. And please say ``Hi'' to your family.
    Mr. Thierer. I will.
    Senator Fitzgerald. I tend to believe that we really don't 
have any problems with concentration in media at the national 
level. As Mr. Thierer said, 88 percent of the households 
subscribe to cable or satellite television. We have all sorts 
of national news outlets in print media and in broadcast media, 
and there are almost an infinite variety of choices on the 
Internet. However, if you go into local markets, the one place 
I do see concentration is not so much with television or radio 
stations, although there could be a few small markets where one 
owner owns all the radio stations in town. But I see 
concentration among small-monopoly local newspapers. And if I 
think of cities around Illinois, we really only have two 
vigorous newspapers in Chicago. If I look at Peoria, we have 
the Peoria Journal Star. They have a monopoly in Peoria. The 
Rockford Register has a monopoly in Rockford. The State Journal 
Register has a monopoly in Springfield. The Decatur Herald has 
a monopoly in Decatur. There's a Champaign News Gazette, 
there's a Bloomington Pantagraph. There's one newspaper in each 
of those towns, and they have a monopoly. And they have a 
monopoly on the local, you know, political endorsements. 
Fortunately, all those papers I mentioned endorsed me when I 
ran for election.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Fitzgerald. They have a monopoly on that. 
Candidates certainly have to go through that. If you're a car 
dealer in the town, and you want to advertise your latest 
sales, you've only got one place you can go buy ads, 
essentially: your local newspaper. Now, that's why many 
investment analysts will always tell you, if you want to own a 
newspaper, own one where it's a monopoly, in a small town. 
Never own a second newspaper in a town. When there are two 
newspapers in a town the size of Peoria, rarely can they 
survive. Typically, one of them is run out of business. And I'd 
bet if you go back far enough, there were more than one 
newspaper in all those towns I've mentioned.
    But nobody seems to be mentioning this problem. And I think 
this is an obvious--if some of our panelists are for 
regulation, why not do something about local media monopolies? 
Shouldn't they be outlawed?
    Mr. Compaine. This is something that I've been tracking 
for--back to my dissertation in 1978. There are a couple of 
responses. One is that these papers do have other--the local ad 
dealer--the local car dealer can use direct mail. Direct mail 
has been one of the most thriving forms of competition to 
newspapers. You know, whether it's hung on the door--all sorts 
of approaches. Eighteen percent of our advertising is spent on 
direct mail, still.
    It's an economic problem. The newspaper industry is a 
declining industry. In 1930s, we sold enough newspapers for 1.3 
newspapers for every household. Now we sell less--less than 
half the households buy a newspaper. So it's a matter of 
economics. As you say you can't support--there aren't enough 
advertisers, because advertisers are now advertising on cable--
local advertisers--and direct mail, there are weekly 
newspapers--there just isn't enough advertising to go around to 
support multiple newspapers. The only reason papers today are 
surviving even at the lower level of investment--and the reason 
they can exist is because they don't have direct competition. 
But they have competition----
    Senator Fitzgerald. And they're pretty good businesses, 
aren't they----
    Mr. Compaine. Well, they are, because----
    Senator Fitzgerald.--if they have a local monopoly?
    Mr. Compaine. They are, exactly, but only because they're 
the only one in town. They don't have price--much pricing 
competition. If you look at the price of a newspaper today in 
real dollar terms, it's the same as it was 20 or 30 years ago. 
From the consumer's point of view, they can't raise prices the 
way monopolists can because people just aren't that interested. 
Despite the fact that the surveys say people say they get most 
of their local news from the newspapers, newspaper circulation 
in every one of your towns all around the country is declining, 
not only relative to households, but in absolute numbers. And 
that says something about----
    Senator Fitzgerald. All right. For the panelists who favor 
some kind of controls to prevent concentration in media, are 
you at all concerned about concentration at the local level, or 
is it--should we just ignore it because it's only local?
    Professor Overholser. Well, that's my primary concern, 
Senator. I think the local level--I agree with you, on the 
national level we probably have less to be worried about. On 
the local level, I'm quite concerned. I don't see it being 
economically likely that we'll start having additional numbers 
of newspapers. But if you have a local newspaper and a decent 
local television news and a local radio reporter, and you've 
got people blogging and carrying on, you'll have more vitality. 
I would have--I would--I mean, not only----
    Senator Fitzgerald. Should we do something, though, to try 
to----
    Professor Overholser. But what would you do?
    Senator Fitzgerald.--prevent these--well, that's what I'm--
--
    Professor Overholser. Create new----
    Senator Fitzgerald. I mean, I don't favor any regulation of 
the media at all, really.
    Professor Overholser. See, what I think is that what the 
FCC did was make it more likely that there would be less 
competition at the local level, and that, I think, is ill 
advised. We already have a problem with lack of competition. 
And if those newspapers, by the way, which we declare to be a 
declining business--we're not demanding two-and-a-half times 
the profits that most industries demand--they might actually 
reinvest in their news so that, for example, the St. Pete 
Times, whose circulation is growing considerably--many 
newspapers that actually reinvest in their newsrooms are 
finding that good journalism is good business. But, alas, the 
notion that it's a dying industry, and treating them as a cash 
cow, is contributing to the paucity of local news in many 
communities.
    Senator Fitzgerald. Professor Baker?
    Professor Baker. National concentration is a problem in 
terms of power over the public sphere about national debates, 
issue agendas. But local concentration is an immediate problem 
of people getting inadequate nourishment of local democracy. 
And so, in some ways, that's the more pressing of the two, 
though both are important.
    The policies of the government have been directed toward 
newspapers. And the Newspaper Preservation Act was an attempt 
to create more competition, to keep newspapers alive. It was a 
newspaper-directed regulatory policy that made an exception and 
treated them differently than antitrust laws do, generally.
    Newspapers don't need to be a dying industry. In some 
countries--in Japan and the Scandinavian countries--partly due 
to government policy, the readership of newspapers is almost 
four times what it is in the United States.
    The FCC rules could have an affect on this. Newspapers, as 
pointed out, when they invest in journalism may not maximize 
their profits, but they do get more readers. You can expand the 
readership of a local paper by having a better paper, but it's 
costly to do so, which is the reason why some corporate owners 
have decided they would rather have it be a dying industry, 
they'd rather cut their circulation.
    If you allow consolidation, the likelihood of that type of 
judgment occurring more and more increases. There's also other 
effects--the cross-ownership of a broadcaster and a paper, the 
ownership of the television station and the one newspaper in a 
town, not only increases huge power; the tendency is for the 
reporters at the newspaper to have to take on new jobs, which, 
as was pointed out, means they can do less journalism, so you 
decrease the quality of the most important of the local news 
sources: the newspaper. At the same time, you reduce the 
overall expenditure of resources on journalism when you combine 
the broadcaster and the local newspaper.
    So there are things to be done. There could be policies 
that were solely newspaper directed that would be perfectly 
constitutional and would make at least debatable sense. I've 
argued for some. But those aren't on the table at this point. 
But the things that FCC has--was doing was taking away 
regulations that made perfect sense in terms of maintaining 
both quality at the local level and competition at the local 
level.
    Mr. Thierer. Senator, if I could make one quick point, 
building on your last argument about newspapers that--it is 
true that newspapers are in relative decline as an industry, 
but, by all the statistics the government currently collects, 
other forms of periodicals--whether they be weeklies, 
semiweeklies, various types of journals, magazines, 
newsletters--are all increasing; and, in some cases, increasing 
quite rapidly. In fact, I know in many communities you go home, 
and it's not just the local big newspaper you get, you 
sometimes get a free weekly reader sometimes. I get the McLean 
Herald out in my subdivision. So there are other forms of news 
and information, printed information, that are competing with 
newspapers; not keeping them traditionally to be just 
monopolies, but maybe quasi-monopolies. But the better news is, 
of course, you can go to other communities and find news now on 
the Internet, and download other types of information. Not all 
of it's going to be about your local community, but, again, 
some of that is being driven by a natural organic shift in our 
society away from local news toward national sources. I'm not 
sure what's made that happen. I don't know how the USA Today 
went from nothing in 1982 to the world's most popular paper 
today. I don't read it, I don't like it; it just happened. But 
that's the reality. Forty-nine percent of The New York Times 
delivery is now out-of-market to the doorstep or to business.
    Professor Overholser. That happened on the backs of once-
great newspapers, like the Des Moines Register, also owned by 
the Ganette Company.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. I thank the witnesses. This has been helpful. 
I think it's an issue, as I mentioned in my remarks to Mr. 
Compaine, that has a great deal of interest around America, far 
more than many of us had expected when we took up this issue, 
because some of the aspects of it are rather arcane.
    I remain concerned about continued consolidation. I think 
that radio is the miner's canary. And yet I am also confident 
that the National Association of Broadcasters, who refuse to 
allow even low-power FM stations to come into being--I'd be 
interested, sometime, in your views on that, Mr. Thierer--the 
blocking by the National Association of Broadcasters of low-
power FM stations will probably prevail here again. But we 
won't give up the fight, because sooner or later people are 
going to be very disturbed at the situation as it is evolving, 
which, as I said, I think the 1,200--going from a hundred-and-
some stations to 1,200 stations in just a few years is ample 
evidence of what can happen in other aspects of the media.
    I thank the witnesses for being here today, and I thank you 
for your input. And you've contributed, and I appreciate you 
taking the time and effort to prepare your statements, present 
them, and respond to our questions--in your case, Mr. Thierer, 
insults, as we----
    Mr. Thierer. I'm used to it.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. So we look forward to continuing this debate. 
You've all contributed, and I appreciate it very much.
    This hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                  
