[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15308-15309]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        SAVING FREEDOM OF SPEECH

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, we are in trouble. The Federal 
Communications Commission, by a three to two vote, is prepared to bring 
about monopolistic control of the news, monopolistic control of the 
media, monopolistic control of entertainment. Public interest rules for 
cross ownership and market control are being abolished and no one 
points this out more cogently than Mortimer B. Zuckerman, Editor in 
Chief, in the June 23, 2003 edition of the U.S. News and World Report. 
The Congress will be compelled to act if we are to save freedom of 
speech in this country. To understand the issues I ask unanimous 
consent that the article be printed in the Record. I also commend to my 
colleagues the Columbia Journalism Review--www.cjr.org--of who owns 
what, listing the holdings of the five behemoths Viacom, News 
Corporation, AOL-Time Warner, Walt Disney Company and General Electric 
too much under the present rulings.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From U.S. News & World Report, June 23, 2001]

                     A Sure-fire Recipe for Trouble

                       (By Mortimer B. Zuckerman)

       Three anonymous political appointees to the Federal 
     Communications Commission have just delivered a body blow to 
     American democracy. Large media companies are to be allowed 
     to buy up more TV stations and newspapers, becoming more 
     powerful and reaping a financial bonanza. Astonishingly, the 
     FCC has done this without public review, without analyzing 
     its consequences, and without the American people getting a 
     dime in return for their public airwaves. Under the FCC deal, 
     big media companies must make no commitment to provide better 
     news, or even unbiased news. Ditto with local news coverage 
     and children's programming. In fact, the new rules 
     dramatically worsen opportunities for local news coverage, 
     for diversity of views, and for competition. ``The public be 
     damned!'' was a robber baron's slogan from the Gilded Age. 
     Seems to be just what the FCC is saying.
       Consider the enormity of the changes. The commissioners 
     removed the ban on broadcasting and newspaper cross-
     ownership. They raised the national cap on audience reach by 
     station-group owners to 45 percent. They allowed ownership of 
     two stations in more markets, and even three in a handful of 
     markets. There's more, but you get the idea.
       Monopolies. These FCC rules allow new merger possibilities 
     without any public-interest review. The details are 
     complicated, but basically, thanks to the FCC, one company 
     now can own UHF TV stations in 199 of the nation's 210 TV 
     markets, which is pretty much the equivalent of owning 
     stations in every TV market in every state except California. 
     That means a single company could influence the elections for 
     98 U.S. senators, 382 members of the House of 
     Representatives, 49 governors, 49 state legislatures, and 
     countless local races. Employing another strategy now allowed 
     by the FCC, that same company could own VHF stations in every 
     TV market in 38 states, with the power to influence elections 
     in 76 U.S. senate races, 182 House races, 38 gubernatorial 
     races, and 38 state legislatures, along with countless local 
     races. There are other scenarios. But again, you get the 
     idea.
       Easing the rules on cross-ownership means that in many 
     local markets one company could own its leading daily 
     newspaper--and, often, its only newspaper--its top-rated TV 
     station, the local cable company, and, as a bonus, five to 
     eight radio stations. Previously, no TV and newspaper mergers 
     were allowed in the same market, except when a firm was 
     failing. Now the merger of the dominant newspaper and TV 
     station could create local news monopolies in 200 markets 
     serving 98 percent of all Americans.
       What's going on? Several years ago, the FCC allowed one 
     company to own as many radio stations as it wanted. The 
     unintended result is the monopolization of many local markets 
     and three national companies owning half the stations in 
     America, delivering a homogenized product that neglects local 
     news coverage. Small to midsize firms know that major 
     networks will gobble up affiliates, cut local programming 
     costs, and program centrally from their own stations. 
     Independents will be squeezed out. ``For Sale'' signs are 
     already going up. More consolidation, more news sharing, and 
     fewer journalists add up to an enhanced danger of media 
     corporations abusing market power to slant coverage in ways 
     that fit their political and financial interests--and 
     suppressing coverage that doesn't. One defense of this 
     outrage that big media companies offer is the diversity of 
     the Web. Well, yes. But does anyone really think the Internet 
     is anything like an organized political or media power, much 
     less a counterweight to a claque of billion-dollar media 
     behemoths?
       The good news is that the nation, finally, is waking up. 
     The FCC has received hundreds of thousands of protests. 
     Congressmen, both Democrats and Republicans, are alarmed. So 
     are groups as diverse as Common Cause, the National Rifle 
     Association, and the Screen Actors Guild. One of our more 
     thoughtful conservative columnists, William Safire of the New 
     York Times, writes that ``the concentration of power--
     political, corporate, media, cultural--should be anathema to 
     conservatives.'' John Roberts in the Chicago Tribune deplores 
     the ``blatantly disingenuous, if not dishonest, explanations 
     being given by FCC Chairman Michael Powell and his supporters 
     for their actions.''

[[Page 15309]]

       No prizes for guessing who supports the commission: the 
     major media conglomerates who have coincidentally spent more 
     than $80 million on lobbying, plus over $25 million in 
     political contributions, in the past three years and stand to 
     gain enormously from this.
       Regardless of their political ideology, we cannot risk 
     nonelected media bosses having inappropriate local, regional, 
     or national power. The FCC was created to ensure that the 
     public interest is served by the media companies that use our 
     airwaves. Everyone is entitled to a mistake sometime, but the 
     FCC is abusing the privilege. Congress must act now and 
     reverse the FCC's irresponsible new rules.

                          ____________________