[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 11]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 14541]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  CONCENTRATION OF OWNERSHIP IN MEDIA

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. BARBARA LEE

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                          Monday, June 2, 2003

  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 
decision to allow for monopolies in media markets represents a grave 
day for free speech. It also represents the defeat of the belief that 
the American people will benefit from a variety of viewpoints on 
issues, not the few that will be ushered in by the huge media 
conglomerates.
  The Bush Administration and FCC Chairman Michael Powell have bowed to 
the demands of giant media companies. These companies, in effect, 
claimed that they needed another government handout to remain 
``viable,'' even though they have already been absorbing television 
stations and newspapers.
  With this ruling, the Administration has also indicated that it is 
not interested in preserving multiple media voices and opinions in the 
electronic and print media industries. The old FCC rules protected the 
participation of minority-owned media outlets. In fact, with minorities 
owning only 3.8 percent of United States commercial radio and 
television stations, including 1.9 percent of the country's commercial 
television licenses, we need more protection, not less. Yet under the 
new rules, these minority-owned media outlets will be squeezed out by 
media conglomerates.
  Mr. Powell also argued that new modes of communication, like the 
Internet and digital TV, reduce the need for these rules. Yet, 
television and newspapers remain the public's main sources of 
information. And while the Internet has certainly revolutionized our 
society, a look at the 20 most visited websites reveals that they are 
run by the same companies that own the most popular TV networks and 
newspapers. So Mr. Powell's argument holds no water.
  Media ownership rules are actually more important now than they were 
50 years ago because the power and resources of large media companies 
have grown exponentially over the last fifteen to twenty years. As a 
result, smaller, independent companies do not have the resources to 
compete with Viacom or Newscorp. These rules are needed to ensure that 
we don't lose what's left of our locally owned media and that we do 
have access to diverse sources of information.
  By lifting these rules, we will lose our independent media watchdog. 
Americans don't want a handful of companies controlling their access to 
information.
  We must now redouble our efforts to pass legislation that will ensure 
a democratic media. We must not only mobilize members of Congress but 
grassroots organizations to send a message that the exclusion of all 
other voices except those provided by the media giants is not 
acceptable for our society.
  I am very disappointed that Mr. Powell and his allies on the FCC did 
not heed the American public's deep concerns and leave our media 
ownership rules intact.

                          ____________________