[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 10]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 14020]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          THE F.C.C. DECISION

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 4, 2003

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. The health of our democracy depends on a full and 
open airing of ideas and opinions. Monday's action by the Federal 
Communications Commission will limit the range of voices and opinions 
Americans will hear in the marketplace of ideas. With marginal media 
coverage and little solicited public participation, the FCC's vote to 
relax media ownership rules has made possible the further concentration 
of the print and broadcast media in the hands of only a small number of 
powerful corporations.
  The FCC's action will only deepen existing concerns about an industry 
plagued by accusations of homogeneity and fears that the news and views 
Americans hear is dominated and controlled by a few powerful voices. 
Years ago, Congress debated the rules that regulate the cable industry. 
One of the strongest arguments in support of cable at that time was 
that the medium would increase the opportunity for a diversity of 
voices in an arena where only a few corporations controlled America's 
access to information. Yesterday, the FCC said its decision to allow 
greater media concentration was motivated largely by the dearth of 
choices offered by the cable industry today. They argue that the 
current rules are outdated and discourage competition. But they ignore 
the fact that the lofty aspirations set years ago for the cable 
industry have fallen short of the mark. Today an alarmingly small 
number of corporations like General Electric, AOL Time Warner, Viacom 
and Disney control not only the conduits through which information 
flows to the public, but increasingly, the program content as well. The 
FCC's decision will only continue this trend.
  This is a dangerous road we are on. As media concentration has grown 
over the years, we have watched as more and more voices have been 
pushed from the public stage. Not only minority voices and alternative 
viewpoints, but increasingly even local community voices are silenced 
as corporate executives adjust program schedules to maximize their 
bottom lines.
  Despite the best efforts of the FCC and those in the media who stand 
to gain the most financially, the public has been able to make its 
opposition to this change known. Members of Congress have received 
thousands of calls from angry constituents who, already concerned about 
the lack of choice, fear that the FCC's decision will mean a further 
erosion of choice. The day before the FCC was to deliver its decision, 
they had to shut down their public email box because it overflowed with 
hundreds of thousands of complaints from ordinary citizens who 
recognized the gathering threat. Ted Turner and Barry Diller wrote 
editorials opposing the FCC's plan and groups across the political 
spectrum from the NRA to now joined the chorus of voices condemning the 
decision.
  It now falls to the Congress to serve the public interest and work to 
reverse this effort to dumb down the American media. The public 
interest is not served by a cookie-cutter approach to important policy 
issues. At stake is a loss of competition, local community perspectives 
and diversity. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to reverse the most troubling aspects of the FCC 
decision.

                          ____________________