[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 52 (Tuesday, April 26, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E771-E773]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MEDIA CONSOLIDATION
______
HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to a
presentation by Charles Benton, chairman of the Benton Foundation,
entitled, ``Where's the Public? Media Reform in the Digital Age,''
which he gave at the Engaging in Democracy Series at Ithaca College on
January 25, 2005. It is my hope that Congress will address the problems
of media consolidation that Mr. Benton discusses. It is our duty to
ensure that the public airwaves are meeting the public need.
``I believe the future of media and communications in America is
cause for serious concern. In April 2004, I delivered this message to
the Council on Foundations, and I repeat it tonight. As we move from an
analog world to a digital one, we are truly at a crossroads. At stake
is who controls what we see, hear, and read. At stake is our ability to
get our message out and make a difference. At stake is nothing less
than the health of our democracy. We all have a stake in this debate.
I come here three months after Representative Maurice Hinchey and
Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps spoke to you about
media concentration. Given Congressman Hinchey's representation of this
district, I feel I'm visiting the people who brought the message of
media ownership reform to Washington--perhaps you can think of this
address as Washington reporting back.
The debate over media ownership restrictions is just the tip of an
iceberg that has jolted our time-honored communications policy
priorities of competition, diversity and localism. Some would say we
are now rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic . . . that media
concentration and consolidation are inevitable, and we will drown in a
sea of commercialism. But I see it differently. I believe we are
embarking on a new journey--kept afloat--and indeed propelled--by the
interest, enthusiasm, and energy of a new generation of people
concerned about our media future.
Collected in this hall tonight, I hope, are new enlistees in the
battle to preserve, protect, and strengthen the public space in
America's media environment. Beyond this hall, I hope this message is
received by other committed people and organizations who will offer
their time, talent, and resources to prevail in this ongoing fight.
[[Page E772]]
By law, as reaffirmed in the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
broadcasters have an obligation to serve the public interest. The
government provides broadcasters on loan and free of charge exclusive
access to a portion of the public airwaves--spectrum--for broadcasting
in exchange for their commitment to serve the ``public interest,
convenience and necessity.''
Under the '96 Act, the amount of spectrum given to television station
owners was doubled. The policy rationale for this was to enable them to
convert their signals from an analog to a digital format, thereby
increasing the number and technical quality of their broadcast
channels. For the spectrum needed for one analog channel, broadcasters
can now simultaneously air six standard-quality digital channels or one
or more high-quality high-definition channels.
When at least 85 percent of homes in a broadcasting market can
receive digital signals, the spectrum currently used for analog
channels is to be returned to the government for public safety uses,
with some spectrum to be auctioned off. Digital television and radio
make broadcasting more competitive and valuable in the market, and
should enable broadcasters to better serve basic public needs. Remember
that broadcasters are supposed to serve as public trustees in their use
of the publicly owned airwaves. That at least is the theory on how the
system is supposed to work.
Let's look now at the reality, starting with who owns the media.
Today, five companies own the broadcast networks, own 90 percent of the
top 50 cable networks, and produce 75 percent of all prime time
programming. People of color constitute over 30 percent of America, but
they own only 4.2 percent of the nation's radio stations and around 1.5
percent of TV stations. The current media landscape already
shortchanges our historical commitment to competition, diversity and
localism, but in June 2003, a majority of FCC commissioners voted to
further weaken it. The FCC decided to relax media concentration
safeguards and open the door to a fundamental reshaping of the media
landscape. The action would have significantly deregulated broadcast
media ownership rules, removing restrictions on the number of outlets a
broadcaster could own and control. It would also eliminate ``cross
ownership'' rules that prevented newspapers from buying broadcast
stations and vice versa in the same community. The debate leading up to
the decision sparked an unprecedented outpouring of public concern over
the future of media in America.
Millions of Americans spoke out against relaxing the ownership
rules--more than in any other FCC decision to date--yet the FCC acted
to allow big media companies to get even bigger--reducing competition
at the expense of the public's need for diverse and local content. The
sense that the FCC no longer cares about protecting the public interest
may have led broadcasters to believe they can get away with more
commercialization without protecting the public interest.
But in June of last year, the United States Court of Appeals in
Philadelphia reversed the FCC's action. This is a big, big win for
diversity, competition and localism in the media, the three stated
goals of the FCC. The judges ruled that preserving democracy is more
important than freeing big companies to grow bigger. Perhaps the most
important part of the decision is the Court's holding that the FCC
improperly applied a presumption in favor of deregulation in its review
of the broadcast media ownership rules. Thus, it sent the case back to
the FCC for better analysis of public impact. This court action gives
the public the chance to argue that ownership rules are necessary for
preserving local civic discourse.
In November filings to the Supreme Court, Media General and a
coalition of major TV network owners made clear that they are seriously
considering challenging the Philadelphia court decision by attacking
the bedrock legal rationale for regulating the nation's broadcasters--
Red Lion. In the landmark 1969 Red Lion decision, the court held that
because broadcasters use a scarce government resource--the radio
spectrum--to deliver programming over the air, the FCC is justified in
its special regulation of the industry in the public interest. The
scarcity argument justifies a range of FCC broadcast regulations, from
ownership restrictions to prohibitions on indecent broadcasts. But Red
Lion is used as a rationale for regulations that benefit broadcasters,
too, including obligations of cable operators to carry the signals of
local broadcasters.
Why risk this important commercial benefit? Broadcasters appear sick
and tired of FCC regulations limiting their ability to add broadcast
stations to their portfolios, regulations punishing them for off-color
programming that may seem tame on cable, and regulations requiring them
to serve the public interest, not just their commercial interests.
I am confident that even if the Supreme Court hears arguments
launched by Media General and others against Red Lion and the
``scarcity rationale'' for broadcast regulation that the decision's
underlying principles will prevail. The most important of these,
according to the Supreme Court, is that the First Amendment rights of
viewers are paramount.
These giant companies claim that we live in a time of unprecedented
media choice: hundreds of TV and radio stations provided by terrestrial
broadcasters, cable operators, satellite radio and TV systems, national
and local newspapers, and. the Internet. But who owns most of this
media? You know the names: Time Warner, Fox, Viacom, Disney, GE
Universal. Do we really have diverse, competing and local voices?
Additionally, spectrum remains a scarce resource. Wireless
telecommunications companies are willing to spend billions--some
estimate up to $100 billion--to start providing services over spectrum
currently used by broadcasters. Perhaps if broadcasters are willing to
enter auctions for spectrum--like other users are forced to do these
days--then they can be freed from what they call burdensome regulation.
Until and unless they do so, they should be part of a constructive
conversation to spell out their public interest obligations in the
digital age.
Some responsible broadcasters are doing just that. As long-time
commercial broadcaster Jim Goodmon, who served with me on a
Presidential Advisory Committee that examined and made recommendations
on digital broadcasters' obligations, puts it, ``The broadcast company
is fulfilling a contract between itself as the user of a public asset
and the public body that owns the asset. As with all contracts, both
parties to the agreement need to know exactly the responsibilities that
they have to each other. With minimum standards spelled out, there is
no question. As a broadcaster I would like to know what is expected of
me in serving the public interest. Required minimum standards and a
voluntary code provide the benefit of certainty to broadcasters. I like
to know what the rules are.''
Scarcity is not the only argument for regulating broadcasting.
Television is ubiquitous and has become the engine of our consumer
society. As former FCC Commissioner, Nicholas Johnson, used to say,
``TV programs are the flypaper to get people to watch the ads.'' Its
importance in our democracy is easily highlighted by the vast amounts
spent by candidates and organizations on political advertising. It is
through these ads, unfortunately, not broadcasters' programming, that
most voters learn about candidates and issues.
In exchange for the use of our scarce spectrum, broadcasters have a
commitment to serve the ``public interest, convenience and necessity.''
These basic obligations, called public interest obligations, are
critical tools that are designed to ensure that television, at least in
part, serves fundamental public needs. Unfortunately the vision and the
reality are often at odds.
The FCC has been working on the transition to digital television, at
the behest of the nation's broadcasters, for some 20 years. Absent so
far has been a comprehensive proposal for establishing public interest
obligations that match digital television's capacity.
Americans everywhere have begun to realize that as broadcasters get
bigger, the public's benefits are getting smaller. But there is more at
stake than the impacts of media concentration and consolidation.
Television has never played a more important role in our lives. But
today's television is too often out of touch with today's realities:
parents struggling to find educational programming for their children,
voters struggling to find basic coverage of local campaigns and
elections so vital to our democracy and the effective use of television
for emergency alerts to serve needs of the disabled. In each case,
broadcasters have too often lost touch with the needs of the people who
own the airwaves. We have the right to demand and the FCC has the
mandate to ensure that television and radio stations provide
programming that is in the public's interest, not just in the owners'
commercial interests.
Public interest obligations are about whether our children can turn
on a television and find at least three hours per week of truly
educational content, about whether in an emergency our televisions can
keep us alert and informed. It is about whether we can be active and
intelligent participants in our democracy. It's about whether the blind
and deaf can access closed captioning and video descriptors for digital
works. And about whether we can work towards a day when the voices and
views on our airwaves reflect the diversity of our country.
A growing number of Americans are working to ensure these public
interest goals are met not just because the law says we must, but
because we will be richer as a nation when we do. I hope you will join
that fight. The transition from analog to digital television does not
just represent a technological change, but an important opportunity to
reassess whether the public's airwaves are being used to meet the
public's needs.
[[Page E773]]
Last year the Benton Foundation joined forces with two broad
coalitions of organizations focused on delivering public dividends with
the transition to digital television. Working with these groups, the
FCC recently extended a requirement that broadcasters air a minimum of
three hours a week of quality educational and instructional programming
for children to all of their new digital channels. It is also exploring
proposals that would benefit our democratic process and our society by
requiring broadcasters to (1) Air a minimum of three hours per week of
local civic or electoral affairs programming on the most-watched
channel they operate; (2) Promote the FCC's often-stated goal of
diverse viewpoints and voices on television by ensuring that
independent producers provide a minimum of 25 percent of their most-
watched channel's primetime schedule; and (3) Tell the public how they
are serving the interests of their audiences by making this information
available in a standardized hard copy and website formats.
These really are minimal requirements, but nonetheless often opposed
or ignored by the broadcasters. We are arguing that it's time to put
the remote control back into the public's hands and once again give the
public greater control over the kind of democracy they participate in,
the children they raise, and the security they deserve.
Congress, the courts, regulators and companies are continuing to make
communications policy decisions. These decisions will have far-reaching
consequences for competition and innovation and ultimately consumer
well-being in the media marketplace. While public concern was raised
over the FCC's media ownership decisions, too few individuals are aware
that broadcasters are obligated to serve them--or that they can get
involved in ensuring they do. For those who understand the crucial role
of media in this democracy, our first task is to inform and educate the
public about this debate and the right of all Americans to participate
in it.
In addition to a clearer television picture, consumers need a clearer
regulatory picture for how the digital television transition will
impact their lives. Consumers deserve to know how broadcasters will
serve their day to day television needs--healthy programming for
children, healthy programming for our democracy, and healthy
programming for our communities. Citizens need as much information
about the TV that comes into our living rooms, as about the food that
comes into our kitchens.
But to achieve these goals, parents, voters, community leaders,
activists, and concerned citizens need to pick up the television policy
remote control--and change the tune coming from policymakers in
Washington. It takes letting policymakers know that you want reality
based public interest obligations that can help make a difference in
your lives.
The first product of a coalition of national and local media
advocates is a Citizens' Bill of Media Rights--a positive statement of
principles and goals of a media reform movement. The Bill has recently
been circulated for sign-on. If my message tonight makes you want to
get involved, here's the first thing you can do: Read ``Citizens' Bill
of Media Rights,'' go online, and sign-on.
At the Benton Foundation, we are releasing the Citizen's Guide to the
Public Interest Obligations of Digital Television Broadcasters. Our
guide will serve as a primer for the organizations and people
considering taking the policy remote control out of the hands of media
giants and their lobbyists and returning it where it belongs--in the
hands of the American people, especially in your community. Action item
two: check www.benton.org for the guide.
This year in mid-May, activists, media creators, academics, and
policy makers will meet for three days of learning, sharing, networking
and momentum building at the 2nd 2005 National Conference for Media
Reform in Saint Louis. Visit www.freepress.net for more information.
Action item three: Meet Me In Saint Louis.
There are many valuable resources for keeping up to date on what's
going on in media policy--let me highlight two. At the Benton
Foundation, we provide a service which summarizes the top
communications policy stories of the day. The service, Communications-
Related Headlines, is delivered via e-mail and is also available on our
web site free of charge, www.benton.org. Action item four: subscribe to
Headlines.
HearUsNow.org follows Consumers Union's long tradition of promoting a
fair and just marketplace by empowering consumers to fight for better
and more affordable telephone, cable and Internet services or
equipment. By focusing on major media, technology and communications
issues and emphasizing local stories, HearUsNow.org will help explain
increasingly complex issues and the connections between these issues,
underscore what's at stake, and offer ways to make improvements. Action
item five: Visit www.hearusnow.org.
Obviously, when working against corporate interests ready to devote
billions of dollars to their cause, even more resources will be needed
to win the day. Last April, I delivered this message to an audience of
philanthropists asking them to fund the ongoing efforts to shape our
media future . . . to fund media policy research, education and
advocacy. I am happy to say that there's hope coming from this
important arena: The Arca Foundation board has committed $1 million--
$1.5 million per year for the next 3-5 years to a strategic media
policy campaign for policy advocacy, organizing, research and content
development. With Ford Foundation leadership, the Grantmakers in Film
and Electronic Media's new Working Group on Electronic Media Policy was
formed to respond to the burgeoning interest among grantmakers to build
and share knowledge about key issues in media policy, as well as
undertake targeted activities to help advance the dynamic media policy
field. All participants hope that this funder cooperation will result
in real capacity building for the media reform field.
Several members of Congress, including Representative Hinchey, are
forming a Congressional Media Reform Caucus this month to focus on
media ownership, digital transition, and other media-related issues.
Last year, Representative Hinchey introduced the Media Ownership Reform
Act. This proposed legislation has three goals: (1) To curb the
deregulatory zeal of the Republican majority at the FCC; (2) To restore
the Fairness Doctrine; and (3) To reform the broadcast license renewal
process and require broadcasters to report both on their public
interest performance and their plans for doing so every two years. In
today's political climate, the legislation may seem improbable. But
most significantly, it provides a vision of where we'll be when we have
true democratic media reform in this country.
Again, we're at a crossroads. Left to its own designs, the majority
at the FCC will fight to allow greater consolidation in media ownership
while further weakening public interest obligations. With public
pressure, with your participation, we may help the FCC envision a
democratic media future. In this alternative vision, we, as Americans,
could have a media environment that delivers a vigorous, uninhibited
marketplace of ideas. In this alternative vision, we could have a media
that reflects and responds to local communities. In this alternative
vision, we could have a media environment that embraces and enhances
the public interest.
Wouldn't you like to be part of that debate and help shape this more
democratic and more open media environment? If so, why not join us and
get involved?''
____________________