[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 126 (Monday, September 15, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11451-S11453]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   FCC VOTE ON MEDIA OWNERSHIP RULES

  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, in recent weeks, there has been a great 
deal of discussion about a June 2 vote by the Federal Communications 
Commission to lift the lid on media ownership rules. Under the new 
regulations, a broadcast network can own and operate local television 
stations that reach as much as 45 percent of the Nation.
  What does that mean? According to the Consumer Federation of America, 
television and newspaper mergers will be allowed in about 200 markets 
where approximately 98 percent of the American people live. TV 
duopolies, where one owner owns two television stations in the same 
market, and perhaps even triopolies, where one owner controls three 
stations in one market, will be allowed in more than 160 markets, 
covering better than 95 percent of the population.
  This is a dangerous vote by the FCC. I fear that it will strangle 
voices that disagree with corporate interests at virtually every level 
of news and commentary.
  Local news media represent a community's window on the school board, 
the city council, the county commission. The local media, more than any 
other resource, educates people about the issues that directly affect 
their lives. But these new rules, as approved by the FCC, threaten that 
role by allowing one person or one corporate interest to control such a 
significant level of discourse and debate. News and information may be 
forced to fit into a corporate plan or personal agenda.
  I have been in Congress for more than 50 years. If there is one 
lesson that I have learned, it is that the media and politicians share 
at least one common bond: both rely on public trust for credibility. To 
earn that trust, the public must know that it can rely on the honesty 
and integrity of the people in critical decisionmaking positions. 
Credibility is jeopardized when questions about the veracity of reports 
are raised or when a news organization is seen more as a biased 
promoter of opinion rather than as a fair arbiter of fact.
  In October 1958, a pioneer of the broadcast industry took the podium 
at the Mayfair Hotel in Chicago to address his colleagues at the annual 
convention of the Radio-Television News Directors Association. On that 
night, when reporters, news directors, sponsors, and network executives 
gathered together to honor excellence in their industry, Edward R. 
Murrow called it his duty to speak about what was happening in the 
radio and television industry.
  Mr. Murrow, one of the most honored and respected journalists in our 
Nation's history, criticized his colleagues for failing in their 
obligation to the people of this country.
  ``Our history will be what we make it,'' Murrow said. ``If there are 
any historians about fifty or a hundred years from now, and there 
should be preserved the kinescopes for one week of all three networks, 
they will find there evidence of decadence, escapism, and insulation 
from the realities of the world in which we live.''
  He continued: ``One of the basic troubles with radio and television 
news is that both instruments have grown up as an incompatible 
combination of show business, advertising, and news. . . . The top 
management of the networks, with a few notable exceptions, has been 
trained in advertising, research, or show business. By the nature of 
the corporate structure, they also make the final and crucial decisions 
having to do with news and public affairs. Frequently, they have 
neither the time nor the competence to do this.''

  Here we are, almost 45 years later. What would Mr. Murrow think of 
today's media? Would he consider the FCC vote a threat to a strong, 
independent media? The news and broadcast industry has had time to 
mature, to evolve into what Mr. Murrow hoped would be a responsible 
venture that exalts the importance of ideas, and not simply panders to 
the lowest virtues in the human race. Alas, I believe Mr. Murrow would 
be disappointed in what he would see today.
  Instead of exalting ideas, mass media today seem more often than not 
to worship at the altar of sex, blood, and scandal. Instead of pursuing 
a higher cause and taking the time to educate the public about the 
issues and events affecting our everyday lives, we read and hear about 
things that serve to titillate or divide us.
  There are a few voices in the media that attempt to educate, to 
inform, rather than to incite. But too often these men and women are 
sent packing because their corporate bosses fear low ratings and a 
commercial backlash.
  This spring, for example, the General Electric-owned cable network 
MSNBC, fired Phil Donahue from his evening talk show. Mr. Donahue was 
one of the few voices in the news-talk genre that did not worship at 
the altar of the salacious story. He did not titillate. He spoke 
frankly, sharing his beliefs and welcoming those who saw otherwise. And 
when confronted with a person offering differing opinion, Phil Donahue 
did not insult or bully that person. Instead, he debated calmly and 
fairly, and treated his guests with courtesy and respect.
  Mr. Donahue was opposed to war in Iraq. He made his views known. He 
debated, he argued, and he persuaded. But at least one insider at the 
MSNBC network said that Phil Donahue was fired because the corporate 
heads at

[[Page S11452]]

the network worried about having a critic of President Bush in its 
programming schedule.
  They worried: What would sponsors think? How would they react? 
Instead of defending constitutional freedom of the press, MSNBC, it 
appears, caved in to the business bottom line. Instead of a critical 
voice, the network has filled the time with yet another carbon copy of 
the typical current day talk show hosts: slanted, biased, and arrogant.
  Is that what the future holds for news outlets? MSNBC seems to be 
following the examples set by News Corporation, the corporate umbrella 
of Fox News channel. Rupert Murdoch, the chairman and CEO of News 
Corporation, has used his influence and his money to buy significant 
influence over the country's politics and priorities. Coincidence? Not 
likely. In fact, one former News Corporation executive stated in a 
profile on Mr. Murdoch earlier this year that:

       He hungered for the kind of influence in the United States 
     that he had in England and Australia. Part of our political 
     strategy here was the New York Post and the creation of Fox 
     News and The Weekly Standard.

  Political strategy? What happened to journalistic strategy? Are we 
doomed to more politics than journalism as a result of the June 2 FCC 
vote? In fact, the complete list of holdings of News Corporation gives 
one pause.
  News Corporation is quickly growing into a media empire. Its main 
holdings are the Fox broadcast networks and the cable networks Fox News 
Channel, Fox Sports, FX, and others, 20th Century Fox studios, 35 local 
American television stations, the New York Post, plus the Times and the 
Sun of London, the conservative magazine the Weekly Standard, the 
publishing house HarperCollins, the Sky satellite system in England, 
and the Star satellite system in Asia, and various publications in Mr. 
Murdoch's native Australia.
  In addition, News Corporation is seeking Federal approval to buy a 
one-third share in DirecTV, the leading satellite broadcast system in 
North America. Should that purchase be approved, News Corporation would 
then control a worldwide satellite system beyond any other company's 
reach.
  Yet the Federal Communications Commission, the people's watchdog on 
broadcast fairness and responsibility, would rubberstamp such mergers 
and monopolies rather than examine them with a skeptical eye. The FCC 
is supposed to be a watchdog, not a lap dog.
  The media enjoy a rare position in our society. Reporters and editors 
are supposed to responsibly detail events and activities, explain ideas 
and innovations to a public who might not, on first hearing, completely 
understand the issue. But complex ideas, such as peace in the Middle 
East or even the doctrine of preemptive strikes on which the war in 
Iraq was based, are pared down into short broadcast packages lasting 2 
minutes, perhaps.
  The focus is on sound bites rather than on sound information. Instead 
of an intelligent discussion, we hear a constant barrage of commentary 
that is supposed to pass for news judgment. We listen to television 
show hosts call Members of Congress the ``lie choir'' because they 
question administration policy. Without foundation, in fact, 
allegations of dishonesty by Senators are tossed around and, although 
baseless, they have the air of fact because they are repeated time and 
time again by pseudo news hosts. This so-called unbiased media is 
nothing more than partisan opinion covered in a thin veneer of news and 
information.
  I do not question the media's right to report on stories and to have 
talk shows which express opinion. That right is clearly laid out in the 
first amendment of the Bill of Rights:

       Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of 
     speech, or of the press.

  This amendment, ratified in December 1791, gives broad power to the 
press. Our constitutional Framers understood that the Republic would 
not function properly if the press were not allowed to operate freely 
and without intervention from Government.
  However, the media industry also must recognize the responsibility 
that it has to the public which relies so heavily on the information 
provided in daily reports. The free press must be a fair press.
  Through the first amendment, our Framers guaranteed a free press. We, 
the people, demand a fair press, one that meets its responsibilities 
and our expectations. A free press cannot exist without the trust of 
the public it serves. To win and maintain that trust, the press must be 
unbiased in its work.
  Unfortunately, expectations may be too high. News organizations often 
rely solely on the word of those speaking from podiums of power. They 
take information as gospel truth without, many times, checking the 
facts or verifying the information.
  At a time when standards should be strong, the news industry seems 
very happy to follow the day's latest scandal. It does not hesitate to 
bring to bear the full light of public scorn when there is the 
slightest suggestion of a misstep by a person in the public light. 
However, when that same light is turned squarely on the media, there is 
little enthusiasm for the intensity.
  Edward R. Murrow experienced this firsthand. While those in 
attendance at the dinner in Chicago in 1958 applauded Mr. Murrow after 
he finished his speech, the response away from the podium, away from 
Mr. Murrow, was quite different. He was castigated by network 
executives who accused him of biting the hand that fed him.
  No less than William Paley, the president of CBS and a good friend of 
Murrow's, was said to be furious after Murrow criticized the broadcast 
industry. He saw it as a breach of loyalty. But Edward Murrow believed 
he carried a greater burden of loyalty to his audience. He saw his 
Chicago remarks as his faithful duty to the people who listened to him 
every night, who relied on him to give them the information they needed 
to know.
  I think Edward Murrow would be ashamed of much of the news 
programming on television today. Like so much of the American public, 
he would not believe that the media, on the whole, are fulfilling the 
responsibility to educate and inform.
  According to a USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll from this past May, only 36 
percent of the American people believe that news organizations get the 
facts straight.
  What can improve the public confidence in the media?
  Perhaps the media in Minnesota have a good start. In 1970, University 
of Minnesota Professor Ed Gerald helped to set up the Minnesota News 
Council, believing then that:

       To the common man, it seems that journalists, at will, can 
     make heroes or scoundrels out of any of us.

  Professor Gerald recognized the sheer power and influence of the 
media. He also knew that, as much as a free press is crucial to the 
Republic, a fair press is needed to ensure the public trust.
  The Minnesota News Council provides an avenue for the public to hold 
media outlets accountable for the reports they air or print. Outside of 
a courtroom and free of charge to either party, the News Council, made 
up of reasonable, qualified people from within the media and outside of 
it, comes together to decide whether a report or story is fairly 
produced or whether it is distorted, untrue, or dishonest. The State of 
Washington has a similar news council. Many nations, including the 
United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada, have news councils.
  At least one noted journalist has long supported the concept of a 
news council, if not on a national level then on State or regional 
levels. For many years, Mike Wallace, CBS News Correspondent and co-
editor of 60 Minutes, has believed that the concept of a news council 
could be an important tool in building the public trust in the media. 
Mr. Wallace, in a 1996 lecture at the Freedom Forum's Media Studies 
Center, said, he is ``convinced that more state news councils, regional 
news councils, and/or a renewed national news council could strike a 
blow for a better public understanding in a time of skepticism about 
us, of who we are and what it is we do.'' Since those remarks, Mr. 
Wallace has continued to urge his colleagues to support the news 
council idea, but the resistance, especially from national media 
organizations, is profound.
  What is wrong with this approach? A news council is not a court of 
law; rather it is a forum where the public and the news media can 
engage each other in examining standards of fairness. It is not a 
radical idea, but a commonsense approach. As the Minnesota News Council 
describes the concept, in their various forms, news councils are 
designed to promote fairness in the

[[Page S11453]]

news media by giving members of the public who feel damaged by a news 
story an opportunity to hold the news organization accountable. What is 
wrong with allowing the public, which has such a poor view of the 
media, to take part in such an endeavor? This type of public dialogue 
can lead to a better understanding of the media industry and its role 
in society by that society, as well as a stronger foundation for more 
accurate, more responsible dissemination of news.

  Solid journalism is also a way to improve the public's view of the 
media. It restores that sense of credibility that is threatened when we 
read about reporters who have published stories without any factual 
background. It would help to reaffirm independent voices, even if those 
voices run counter to the opinions of the corporate management.
  On television and in print, large media conglomerates already control 
the vast majority of what Americans see, read, and hear. A grand total 
of five--five--media companies today control 75 percent of prime time 
programming. Outlets such as cable and the Internet, which could have 
served to check corporate media conglomeration power, have instead 
followed the old adage, ``if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.'' Thus, 
today these same 5 companies control 90 percent of the top 50 channels 
on cable. Similarly on the Internet, existing newspapers and TV 
networks dominate the most popular sites for news and information. 
Technology may have increased the number of media outlets, but it has 
not stopped big media from further extending its reach.
  Former Washington Post assistant managing editor Ben Bagdikian has 
sketched out the growing concentration of media ownership. In 1983, 
when his book, ``The Media Monopoly,'' was first published, Mr. 
Bagdikian reported that ``50 corporations dominated most of every mass 
medium.'' But, with each new edition of the book, that number shrinks 
and shrinks and shrinks: 29 media corporations in 1987, 23 in 1990, 14 
in 1992, and 10 in 1997. The sixth edition, published in 2000, 
documented that just six--six--corporations supply most of America's 
media content. Bagdikian wrote:

       It is the overwhelming collective power of these firms, 
     with their corporate interlocks and unified cultural and 
     political values, that raises troubling questions about the 
     individual's role in the American democracy.

  The June 2 vote by the Federal Communications Commission threatens to 
expand the influence of these few corporations even further, stretching 
their hands around a larger number of local television and radio 
stations, scarfing up newspapers and Internet news outlets.
  This is an opinion shared by consumer advocates, media watchdog 
groups, and various organizations representing the spectrum of 
political and societal views in the United States, from the National 
Rifle Association to the National Organization for Women, from the 
Catholic Conference of Bishops to the Leadership Conference on Civil 
Rights. The Parents Television Council, Common Cause, the National 
Association of Black-Owned Broadcasters, the National Association of 
Hispanic Journalists, the Writers Guild, and the Association of 
Christian Schools, all of these groups questioned the wisdom of even 
greater media consolidation.
  Tens of thousands of Americans have expressed their opposition to the 
FCC rule. In fact, three-quarters of a million people contacted the FCC 
about this new consolidation, and, according to FCC Commissioner 
Jonathan Adelstein, 99.9 percent of them opposed further media 
consolidation.
  In testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation, Commissioner Adelstein was blunt.

       [T]he FCC approved the most sweeping and destructive 
     rollback of consumer protection rules in the history of 
     American broadcasting. I'm afraid democracy was not well 
     served by Monday's decision. Allowing fewer media outlets to 
     control what Americans see, hear and read can only give 
     Americans less information to use in making up their own 
     minds about the key issues they face.
       The decision will diminish the diversity of voices heard 
     over the public airwaves, which can only diminish the civil 
     discourse and the quality of our society's intellectual, 
     cultural and political life. It will diminish the coverage of 
     local voices and local issues as media giants gobble up local 
     outlets and nationalize the stories they broadcast.

  In the end, our new rules will simply make it easier for existing 
media giants to acquire more outlets and fortify their already massive 
market power. As media conglomerates go on buying sprees, they will 
accumulate enormous debt that will force them to chase the bottom 
dollar ahead of all else. This is likely to result in more 
sensationalism, more crassness, more violence, and even less serious 
coverage of the news and local events.
  Recently, there have been obstacles thrown in the way of the FCC's 
Mack truck of a rule. The Senate Appropriations Committee has blocked 
the implementation of the new policy. The unanimous committee approval 
of the fiscal year 2004 Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary 
Appropriations bill was a strong endorsement of media diversity. The 
committee's action follows the House of Representatives vote on July 
23, 400-21, to pass the fiscal year 2004 Commerce-Justice-State 
Appropriations bill. As part of that legislation, the House also would 
prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from implementing this 
policy allowing for media consolidation.
  But the Congress is not the only branch of Government involved in 
this issue. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 
issued a surprise order on September 3, blocking the Federal 
Communications Commission from imposing its new rules just one day 
before those rules were slated to take effect.

       Given the magnitude of this matter and the public's 
     interest in reaching the proper resolution, a stay is 
     warranted pending thorough and efficient judicial review,

  The court concluded in the case.
  Indeed, it is my hope that, with such growing opposition, the 
administration and the Federal Communications Commission will abandon 
such an ill-advised policy.
  I have often said that as long as there is a forum in which questions 
can be asked by men and women who do not stand in awe of a chief 
executive and one can speak as long as one's feet will allow one to 
stand, the liberties of the American people will be secure. That forum 
is this Senate. But the same can be said of the news media--the 
newspapers, radio stations, television stations, and other outlets that 
provide information that is important to the lives of all Americans. 
That freedom, that unbiased coverage, is a key, a foundation stone of 
this Republic. For, without it, the American people can be led to 
disaster without so much as a whisper. Their freedoms can be trampled; 
their rights can be subverted.
  In his speech in Chicago in 1958, Mr. Murrow offered a challenge to 
his colleagues.

       Just once in a while, let us exalt the importance of ideas. 
     Let us dream to the extent of saying that, on a given Sunday 
     night, the time . . . occupied by Ed Sullivan is given over 
     to a . . . survey of the state of American education [or] the 
     time normally used by Steve Allen is devoted to a 
     thoroughgoing study of American policy in the Middle East.

  While Ed Sullivan and Steve Allen are not with us anymore, the need 
for responsibility that Mr. Murrow called for among his colleagues in 
the news industry clearly still remains with us today.
  Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allen). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________