[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 7]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 9712-9713]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            MEDIA DIVERSITY

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 10, 2003

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for media 
diversity and localism. The Supreme Court has maintained that the First 
Amendment is designed to achieve ``the widest possible dissemination of 
information from diverse and antagonistic sources.'' Media ownership 
diversity is critical to ensuring that we protect the First Amendment. 
Over the years, the courts have supported the belief of Congress that 
independent ownership of media outlets results in more diverse media 
voices, greater competition, and more local content.
  A free and open media is central to our democracy. It promotes civic 
discussion, encourages public participation in policy debates, and 
ensures representation of ideological, cultural and geographic 
diversity. I cannot overstate the importance of the FCC's review of 
media ownership rules in deciding whether the principles of the First 
Amendment will be embraced in every day reality, or only in theory. 
Clearly, this is the most important telecommunications issue of our 
time.
  The FCC has announced that it will release a proposal on June 2nd to 
possibly eliminate or weaken rules that would have major impact

[[Page 9713]]

on television broadcast ownership concentrations. The rule that bars 
NBC, ABC, CBS and FOX from merging with each other and the rule that 
limits one company from owning broadcast stations that reach more than 
35 percent of households nationwide could disappear.
  The FCC is also examining rules that apply to local markets, 
including the rule that limits companies in the same market from owning 
two or more broadcast TV stations; the rule barring an entity from 
owning a local newspaper and television station in the same market; the 
rule capping the number of radio stations that an entity is allowed to 
own in a market at eight; and the rule restricting a single entity from 
owning more than one television and radio station in the same market, 
unless it is proven that there is sufficient diversity in the market.
  I am adamantly opposed to the FCC relaxing existing rules to allow 
greater media concentration. Existing rules have been put in place to 
ensure that local communities have access to varying viewpoints on 
local issues. These rules must be maintained and should be 
strengthened, instead of weakened. Nothing at all should be done until 
the public and members of Congress have a chance to evaluate and 
comment on any specific proposals to change the current media ownership 
rules. In my view, that requires ample opportunity to consider and 
prepare comments, as well as a sufficient number of local hearings to 
allow all constituencies and all parts of the Nation to voice their 
views.
  Over the last few years, we have seen considerable ownership 
consolidation in the media; while at the same time we have seen 
important public interest protections eliminated. For the first 50 
years after enactment of the 1934 Communications Act, people had a 
right to petition the FCC if they found coverage to be one-sided. The 
``fairness doctrine'' required broadcasters to cover issues of public 
importance and to do so fairly until, in 1987, under immense pressure 
from the media, it was eliminated. The loss of the fairness doctrine--a 
major blow to consumers--was supposed to be alleviated by a blossoming 
of independent, local outlets that would expand diversity by increasing 
competition. In other words, consumers would no longer be able to use 
the fairness doctrine to ensure that their views were represented on a 
specific media outlet but would be able to present those views through 
competing media in the same market. Unfortunately, the public is now 
faced with increased concentration--not increased competition--and no 
longer has the fairness doctrine to fall back on.
  In the last 25 years, the number of TV station owners has declined 
from 540 to 460 and the number of TV newsrooms has dropped by almost 15 
percent. Three-quarters of cable channels are owned by only six 
corporate entities, four of which are major TV networks. Seventy 
percent of all markets have 4 or fewer sources of original TV news 
production. In 1975, there were 860 owners of daily newspapers. There 
are less than 300 today. My constituents and many constituents across 
the Nation are frustrated that they are unable to hear different 
viewpoints and, increasingly, that they are unable to get their own 
viewpoints to others because of barriers to the visual and print media. 
I believe that there is significant argument for the FCC to recommend 
reinstatement of the fairness doctrine. At the very least, they should 
not allow even more ownership concentration that makes the loss of the 
fairness doctrine even more onerous.
  Greater media ownership concentration limits the public's access to 
diverse viewpoints. Radio provides an example of what can happen when 
media ownership rules are abolished. In 1996, Congress eliminated the 
national ownership caps for radio. The result has been greater 
consolidation in the radio industry. In 1995, Clear Channel owned 1.3 
percent of radio stations; today it owns 20.2 percent. In almost half 
of the largest markets, the three largest corporations control 80 
percent of the radio audience. This has made it harder for diverse 
opinions to be heard. Just last month, Clear Channel refused to air an 
advertisement in which Congressman Danny Davis and I expressed our 
opposition to waging war in Iraq. Clear Channel refused to put the 
advertisement on the air. Fortunately, several independent stations 
did.
  Clear Channel, which owns 1200 stations across the country, has 
refused to air songs by the Dixie Chicks who have spoken against war in 
Iraq, it has put out a recommended ``do not play'' list that includes 
John Lennon's ``Imagine'' and 150 other songs, it has actively worked 
to support pro war rallies, and it has refused to play paid ads that do 
not reflect its own views. This is what happens when a few companies 
control the airwaves. The owners' bias is reflected in what they choose 
to put on the air and listeners are limited in what they are able to 
hear.
  Part of the problem is that many entities that own media outlets are 
more focused on their bottom line than the public good and the public's 
right to hear and express diverse views. The founder and CEO and Clear 
Channel said in a recent Fortune Magazine article, ``We're not in the 
business of providing news and information. We're not in the business 
of providing well researched music. We're simply in the business of 
selling our consumers products.'' I appreciate Mr. Lowry's candor and I 
do not dispute his right to pursue profits. However, his statement 
clearly illustrates the problem. Greater media ownership concentration 
will hurt our democracy.
  We must maintain media diversity and localism. We cannot allow 
information to be monopolized, rationed or censored because a free and 
open media is absolutely critical to the functions of a democratic 
society. The stakes are high and the threat to free speech is all too 
real.
  I urge all the FCC Commissioners to hold and attend more public 
forums across the country on any specific proposed changes to existing 
rules, as a major part of their decision-making process.

                          ____________________