[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?''

                          ____________________