[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 81 (Wednesday, June 4, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Page S7403]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page S7403]]
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 159--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THE JUNE
2, 2003, RULING OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WEAKENING THE
NATION'S MEDIA OWNERSHIP RULES IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND SHOULD
BE RESCINDED
Mr. PRYOR (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Edwards, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr.
Graham of Florida, Mr. Reed, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Landrieu, Mr.
Jeffords, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Carper, and Mrs. Murray)
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation:
S. Res. 159
Whereas the Federal Communications Commission moved with
unreasonable haste in considering the issue of media
concentration and did not previously disclose the proposed
ownership rule the Commission implemented in its June 2,
2003, ruling on media ownership rules;
Whereas the Commission did not provide an opportunity for
the public to review, debate, and comment on the proposed
changes prior to the ruling;
Whereas it would have been appropriate for the Commission
to include such public review, debate, and comment on the
specific provisions of its proposal prior to issuing a ruling
with such broad implications;
Whereas there is no indication that the Commission has
adequately addressed the impact of the proposed ownership
rule changes on industry market share and consumer prices;
Whereas greater media concentration could threaten the
diversity of and extent of local content in broadcast
programming and news, and has the potential to inhibit or
remove local control over such programming;
Whereas, despite the rapid growth of vital Spanish-language
media outlets in the past several years, there is no
indication that the Commission considered treating Spanish-
language media separately for purposes of its broadcast media
ownership restrictions, thereby failing to extend to Spanish
speakers the same protections afforded members of the
English-speaking broadcast community; and
Whereas it is in the public interest to maintain local
control and promote diversity in television programming,
which the previous ownership rules had been designed to
ensure: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the June
2, 2003, ruling of the Federal Communications Commission
weakening the Nation's media ownership rules is not in the
public interest and should be rescinded.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, lying on the desk before us is a resolution
relating to the Federal Communications Commission's June 2, 2003,
ruling weakening the Nation's media ownership rules. I say very
emphatically that those rules are not in the public interest and should
be rescinded. I have laid that on the desk for my colleagues. I
encourage all Members to get a copy of that and read it. I respectfully
request that if anyone wants to be a cosponsor, I would love to have
them cosponsor that today.
As we all know, 2 days ago, the Federal Communications Commission by
a vote of 3 to 2 rolled back longstanding rules governing media
ownership. This ruling eases the ban on cross-ownership of newspapers,
television stations, and radio stations, and allows media corporations
to own more outlets locally and nationwide.
The new rules have the potential of placing significant control over
what the public sees and hears and reads in the hands of a small number
of media conglomerates. Ultimately, having a few entities control a
vast percentage of the American media market will stifle the diversity
of ideas, viewpoints, and opinions.
It reminds me a little bit of Henry Ford who at one point told his
customers that could order any color they wanted as long as it was
black. I feel the same way--that we may be getting to that point with
regard to our media; that we can see and read and hear anything we want
as long as it comes through them.
The diversity of viewpoints is critical to our democracy. It is one
of the foundations of American society and the American system of
government. One thing we believe very strongly in America is the
marketplace of ideas--a free and open and robust marketplace of ideas
where people can exchange ideas and concepts freely and openly and not
have that go through a national corporate conglomeration.
I am very confident that this proposed rule change sets the stage for
homegeniztion--not diversification but homogenization. That is not a
good thing for this country. It is not a good thing for our system.
Supporters of the FCC ruling say that the large media mergers do not
stifle diversity. What they say is you can turn on cable right now and
you get dozens--maybe hundreds--of channels in some systems, or you can
turn on a radio station. But let me say this. Is it really diversity
when the ideologies, the principles, and the viewpoints are being
presented through the myopic lens of a singular, cookie-cutter point of
view? I am concerned that is where we are getting to today with this
ruling that will rush us headlong into this calamity.
I think if the majority of Americans look at this issue they would
understand that it does; that this ruling does not promote diversity
but, in fact, limits it.
There is a broad array of special interest groups, of consumer
advocates, of civil rights and religious groups, small business,
whatever--a broad array of interests--that are opposed. They are
opposed to this ruling for very sound reasons. That is why I rise today
to offer this resolution.
I also wish to take this moment to publicly support the efforts of
Senator Ted Stevens and Senator Fritz Hollings because they are taking
the lead in trying to codify the 35-percent ownership cap. I am not
only supportive of their legislation but I am also a cosponsor.
This resolution is in no way competition to that but, in my view,
this resolution is a logical extension of their efforts. It is
unfortunate that we have to come here today to consider resolutions and
legislation on this issue. The frustrations and the hostility out there
in the public domain about this ruling and about corporate ownership of
media outlets has been exacerbated by the FCC's inability to
communicate to the public in rational terms and explain why this
proposal is a good idea.
In spite of 2 years of study, we need more time to study this. So
far, the advocates of this position have made a very unconvincing case.
One thing we need to understand in this country is that there is a
fundamental difference in owning and operating a newspaper and in
owning and operating regular television stations. Anyone today, if they
chose to, could start a newspaper. All you really need in today's world
is the ability to do some desk-top publishing and get out there and
have a way to distribute your publication. But to have a radio station
or a television station requires a license from the Government. That
license is a sacred trust. It is a trust that they are going to have
broadcasts in the community interest. They are going to have the
programming that the community wants. They are going to play a vital
role in our system when it comes to news and information and getting
information out to the public which is important for them to have.
One example of the FCC's shortcoming on this issue is the fact that
the FCC has made no case for examining the Spanish language media as a
separate market. I think everybody in this room understands it is a
separate market. But because they have not seen it as a separate
market, they look at mergers and acquisitions and their analysis is
skewed in favor of the merger and the acquisition.
Thank you, Mr. President and other Members of the Senate, for the
indulgence and this time.
I would like to remind everyone that this is out here for everyone to
look at. I would very much appreciate as many cosponsors as we could
have. I think it is important that the Senate send a very clear message
on this topic.
____________________