[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 23]
[Senate]
[Pages 32002-32003]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          MEDIA CONCENTRATION

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, about 2 hours ago, the Commerce Committee 
of the Senate took some action on a bill I offered along with my 
colleague, Senator Lott from Mississippi. I wish to talk about the 
Media Ownership Act of 2007 for just a moment. I hope, perhaps, the 
Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission may take note and 
watch what the Commerce Committee did.
  This issue is very important. It has been around for a long time. It 
deals with media concentration. Some years ago--in 2003--the then-
Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Michael Powell, 
rounded up two other votes and by a vote of three to two passed a new 
FCC rule allowing a relaxation of ownership limits for television and 
radio stations, and for newspapers, and here is what they concluded 
back then. It is almost unbelievable. They said it will be OK with them 
if, in the largest American cities, one company owned eight radio 
stations, three television stations, the newspaper, and the cable 
company--they would all be owned by the same company. They said that 
would be just dandy.
  Well, the fact is, it was not fine with me, and I fought it. Senator 
Lott joined me back then. We offered a resolution of disapproval of the 
FCC rule and it passed the Senate. In the meantime, the Federal court 
of appeals stayed the rule, and so the rule never went into effect. But 
it was unbelievable to me that the Federal Communications Commission 
thought that what we really needed in this country was more 
concentration in the media.
  Well, the idea is not dead. The current Chairman of the Federal 
Communications Commission came up recently with an idea of relaxing 
ownership rules, and he announced--in an op-ed piece in the New York 
Times and then in a press release he was going to propose a new set of 
rules that relax the ownership restrictions. So he said: We are going 
to announce the rule in November, and I am going to ask for a final FCC 
vote by December 18.
  He says his proposed rule is a real compromise. It is going to allow 
the ownership of the newspaper and a television station in each of the 
20 largest markets in our country. These top 20 markets, by the way, 
cover one-half of the population of America. He will relax the ban that 
exists on cross-ownership between newspapers and television stations.
  Now, I do not know that anybody is lying awake at night in this 
country thinking about our most serious problems and deciding that one 
of the biggest problems in America is that 
newspapers are not allowed to buy television stations. We have a cross-
ownership ban for good reason, in my judgment, but apparently the 
Chairman of the FCC has been lying awake thinking: We have to fix this. 
So he has come up with a rule that says: Well, let's let newspapers buy 
television stations.
  We just passed a bill, S. 2332, over in the Commerce Committee that 
would stop what the FCC is doing and would not allow them to proceed 
with the December 18 date. It would require that the American public be 
allowed to weigh in on these issues. We say in our bill that passed 
unanimously in the Commerce Committee that you have to have a process 
that is fair to the American public. You cannot decide to announce, 
``Here is my rule,'' in November, and then drive it through to a 
conclusion in December.
  The Chairman says: Well, but we had six hearings around the country. 
We did this. We did that. None of those hearings would have given 
people an opportunity to comment on this rule because the rule did not 
exist when he held the hearings. He waited until the hearings were all 
done and then announced the rule and then has tried to jam this home by 
December 18. That is what the Chairman is trying to do. It is unfair, 
and it makes no sense.
  With respect to concentration in the media, let me say this: I do not 
think it has served this country's interest to have the concentration 
in radio and television, and it certainly does not serve this country's 
interest to decide that we ought to allow the newspapers now to buy the 
television stations. I think that concentration is injurious to this 
democracy. We need the free flow of information.
  It is interesting, most of what people will see, hear, and read in 
America today--Tuesday, December 4--will be controlled by about five or 
six major corporations with respect to television, the Internet, radio, 
and the newspapers. About five or six major corporations in this 
country have a substantial amount of control of what kind of 
information is available to the American people. And some believe there 
needs to be greater concentration?
  We held a hearing recently in the Senate Commerce Committee, and the 
Parents Television Council, which is considered to be on the right side 
of the political spectrum, came and weighed in with opposition to the 
proposal by the Federal Communications Commission. The witness was from 
Los Angeles. He said: I have in my office in Los Angeles, CA basic 
advanced tier cable where I get 48 channels. But he said: That isn't 48 
different voices. Then he went down the list of who controls those 
channels--Time Warner, etc. He just went down the list of the 4 or 5 or 
6 big companies that control those 40-some channels.
  So it goes back to what I have said for long time. When the FCC is 
trying to relax these ownership rules, they say: Well, you now have a 
lot more choices. You have more channels. You have more networks. You 
have more Internet sites. My response was: Yes, there are more voices 
from the same ventriloquist. Really, this country is not, in my 
judgment, served well by a Federal Communications Commission that is 
just hell bent on deciding: We need to have greater concentration in 
radio, television, or newspapers.
  Now, take a look at what has happened with radio concentration. In 
one town in North Dakota--a town of about 40,000 or 50,000 people--1 
company bought up all of the radio stations--all 6 of them. All 6 
commercial stations were bought by 1 company from Texas. Does that make 
sense? It does not to me. The FCC said it was just fine. So what 
happens with respect to news-gathering in that town? Well, you end up 
with fewer newspeople because when 1 company owns all the stations, 
they just consolidate it all.
  There is a real dispute about the story I'm about to tell you and I 
do not know that anybody has ever gotten to the bottom of it. I have 
seen so many different stories. Late at night--at 2 in the morning--a 
train came through Minot, ND, and with anhydrous ammonia cars, 
derailed, went off the tracks, split some anhydrous ammonia cars, and 
this deadly plume enveloped the city at 2 a.m. It caused a death, and 
caused many injuries. Many went to the hospital. It caused great fright 
among the population, not knowing what was happening. We discovered 
later it was a great danger to the population. Well, the emergency 
broadcast function somehow did not work. But notwithstanding the fact 
the system did not work, the townspeople could not get anybody to 
answer the telephone at the local radio station. All the commercial 
stations were owned by the same company from another State. One 
wonders, what if those stations were owned by individual operators who 
lived in town? Do you think they would be able to track somebody down? 
I think so.
  Now, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission is 
galloping off to relax media ownership rules because he thinks that is 
really what is necessary. I met with him today, and I said: What is 
really necessary--he knows this because Senator Lott and I have both 
told him--is to do first things first; one, do a proceeding on localism 
to find out: How has all of this concentration affected localism? That 
is, we provide free licenses to use the airwaves for television and 
radio, in exchange for which they are responsible to serve local 
interests.
  So do we know what they are doing? No. The Chairman of the Federal 
Communications Commission has admitted to me they do not know how many 
stations are using a service called voice-tracking. I will give you an 
example of voice tracking:

[[Page 32003]]

  You are driving down the road on a bright Tuesday morning in Salt 
Lake City, UT, and you have the radio on and after the song ends, the 
disc jockey comes on and says, ``It is a great morning here in Salt 
Lake City. We have the Sun coming up over the mountains. We have a blue 
sky. We have a light 5-mile-an-hour wind. We are going to have a 
wonderful day, aren't we?''
  It turns out the guy is broadcasting from a basement studio in 
Baltimore, MD, pretending he is in Salt Lake City, simply ripping 
information from the Internet to say: It is a bright, sunny day here in 
Salt Lake City. That is called voice tracking. Does that serve local 
interests? It sure does not. So how many stations do this? How 
prevalent is that practice? Don't know. Neither does the FCC.
  How about starting a proceeding on localism to find out whether those 
who are using the public airwaves, free of charge--airwaves that belong 
to the American public, not the licensees--how about finding out how 
they are serving local interests? Or how about a proceeding dealing 
with public interest standards because there are public interest 
requirements for the holding of a license for television and radio 
broadcasting?
  How about first things first? Why the rush to provide more 
concentration allowing cross-ownership of television stations with 
newspapers? The Chairman would say: Well, I am not trying to do more 
concentration in radio and television; I am trying to allow newspapers 
now to begin buying television stations. Why? Well, he said the 
newspapers are not doing very well. I said: When did it become the job 
of the Federal Communications Commission to be the bookkeeper for 
newspapers? My understanding about newspapers is they used to have a 
higher profit margin. Now it has dropped to 16 to 18 percent profit 
margins--pretty good profit compared to all other industries. All of a 
sudden, the FCC thinks the newspapers are having financial trouble and 
so they should relax the rules to allow cross-ownership? I just think 
it is wrong.
  Senator Lott and I offered the Media Ownership Act of 2007 today in 
the Commerce Committee. That bill was agreed to unanimously.
  My hope is that the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission 
is watching and listening because this Congress, on a bipartisan basis, 
says no to further relaxing the controls on cross-ownership. And this 
Congress, on a bipartisan basis, I feel, strongly believes we have too 
much concentration in the media. The Chairman of the Federal 
Communications Commission believes, apparently, we need more. He is 
just dead wrong.
  My hope is that in the coming couple of weeks he will understand that 
it would not be the best course for the Federal Communications 
Commission. It would be wise for the Chairman to decide not to advance 
to a December 18 final vote on the rule he is proposing. It is not in 
the public interest. It is not doing what the FCC should do. My hope is 
he will instead open a public-interest proceeding and open a localism 
proceeding and finish them to their conclusion and do a good job on 
them. That would be a public service for this country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and make a point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________