Senate Challenges FCC Media Ownership Rule
Friday May 16, 2008
Using an obscure oversight authority, Thursday night the Senate "disapproved" a recent Federal Communications Commission rule which would relax restrictions on media ownership; it was a voice vote. President Bush has threatened a veto (pdf).
Should the resolution (SJ 28/HJ RES 79) pass, and be signed into law, it would be only the second time Congress has nullified an agency rulemaking. This is only the fourth time the Senate has voted on such a resolution; two of the four are FCC ownership rule rejections. From Senate Report 110-334:
What Happened
In 1975, the FCC initiated the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule, which prohibits one company from owning a newspaper and a broadcast station in the same market. The intent, to maximize diverse voices in a local market. The 1996 Telecommunications Act directed the FCC to review ownership rules.
In 2003, the Republican-led FCC, under chair Michael Powell, tried to relax cross-ownership rules. More than 3 million individuals protested; Congress rolled back part of the rule in omnibus legislation (a bad practice, in my opinion) after the Senate "disapproved" that rule (Dorgan led that effort, too). The FCC moved ahead, but the courts overturned those rules ("hopelessly flawed") in June 2004.
In December 2007, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin pushed through rules that would allow cross-ownership of newspaper and broadcast outlets in the largest 20 media markets and granted permanent exceptions to papers in five markets (bringing that total to nine). On 5 March 2008, Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) introduced Senate Joint Resolution 28. On 13 March 2008, Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) introduced House Joint Resolution 79. Also, in March, a consolidated appeal of the rules moved forward in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Why This Matters
In 1934, Congress created the FCC, authorizing it to allocate spectrum (airwaves) in order to maximize "the public interest, convenience, or necessity" -- not corporate profits. In 1970, the Newspaper Preservation Act empowered the Justice Department to help preserve diverse voices in a local market by allowing two newspapers to jointly operate non-editorial functions (eg, printing, advertising, distrbution) while keeping editorial decisions separate.
Media industry consolidation accelerated after Congress passed the 1996 Telecommunications Act. According to the Senate report on the resolution, the number of TV station owners dropped 40 percent from 1995-2003 while the number of jointly owned TV/radio stations increased more than 20 percent. In 1994, 33 cities still had two or more newspapers operating under separate ownership (down from 65 in 1975, Media Economics, p154). By 2002, it was about a dozen, most working under "joint operating agreements."
It is in the public interest to have diverse voices in the news sphere in order to foster good -- and inclusive -- government through the actions of engaged and informed citizens. There are certainly pressure on all traditional media from digital networks, but I'm not convinced that joint ownership will save either TV or newspapers. At the local level, newspapers are news organizations first, entertainment organizations second. Television is, in general, the opposite. Local news: about one hour a day, after commercials. Locally-produced entertainment: a minuscule percentage, with the exception of PBS. The remainder: entertainment content from a network with a dash of national news
What's Next
For the resolution to become law, Congress would need a veto-proof vote, which the Senate reportedly had. However, the bill does not appear to have as much support in the House as it had in the Senate (mirroring 2003). For example, the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet (chair, Rep. Edward J. Markey, D-MA) has not acted on HJ RES 79. Nor is there anything scheduled on the Committee on Energy and Commerce (chair, Rep. John Dingell, D-MI) May agenda.
The Senate resolution will be now referred to the House for action.
That puts the issue squarely in Speaker Nancy Pelosi's hands.
Should the resolution (SJ 28/HJ RES 79) pass, and be signed into law, it would be only the second time Congress has nullified an agency rulemaking. This is only the fourth time the Senate has voted on such a resolution; two of the four are FCC ownership rule rejections. From Senate Report 110-334:
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), Congress may review and disapprove virtually all federal agency rules. For any rule, Congress may enact a joint resolution of disapproval, in which case the rule is deemed not to have had any effect. The resolution of disapproval on the 2003 FCC media ownership rule changes is one of only three times that the Senate voted to disapprove an agency rule. Only one joint resolution of disapproval under the CRA has been passed by both the Senate and the House and become law, Public Law 107-5, which dealt with a rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to ergonomics.I'm dumbfounded at the battles that the Senate chooses: media ownership seems the opposite of a "Joe Sixpack" issue, yet it has energized the Senate in a way that other issues (think Iraq, the debt, Social Security, Medicare) have not. Perhaps the recent Pentagon propaganda fiasco contributed to Thursday's vote?
What Happened
In 1975, the FCC initiated the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule, which prohibits one company from owning a newspaper and a broadcast station in the same market. The intent, to maximize diverse voices in a local market. The 1996 Telecommunications Act directed the FCC to review ownership rules.
In 2003, the Republican-led FCC, under chair Michael Powell, tried to relax cross-ownership rules. More than 3 million individuals protested; Congress rolled back part of the rule in omnibus legislation (a bad practice, in my opinion) after the Senate "disapproved" that rule (Dorgan led that effort, too). The FCC moved ahead, but the courts overturned those rules ("hopelessly flawed") in June 2004.
In December 2007, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin pushed through rules that would allow cross-ownership of newspaper and broadcast outlets in the largest 20 media markets and granted permanent exceptions to papers in five markets (bringing that total to nine). On 5 March 2008, Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) introduced Senate Joint Resolution 28. On 13 March 2008, Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) introduced House Joint Resolution 79. Also, in March, a consolidated appeal of the rules moved forward in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Why This Matters
In 1934, Congress created the FCC, authorizing it to allocate spectrum (airwaves) in order to maximize "the public interest, convenience, or necessity" -- not corporate profits. In 1970, the Newspaper Preservation Act empowered the Justice Department to help preserve diverse voices in a local market by allowing two newspapers to jointly operate non-editorial functions (eg, printing, advertising, distrbution) while keeping editorial decisions separate.
Media industry consolidation accelerated after Congress passed the 1996 Telecommunications Act. According to the Senate report on the resolution, the number of TV station owners dropped 40 percent from 1995-2003 while the number of jointly owned TV/radio stations increased more than 20 percent. In 1994, 33 cities still had two or more newspapers operating under separate ownership (down from 65 in 1975, Media Economics, p154). By 2002, it was about a dozen, most working under "joint operating agreements."
It is in the public interest to have diverse voices in the news sphere in order to foster good -- and inclusive -- government through the actions of engaged and informed citizens. There are certainly pressure on all traditional media from digital networks, but I'm not convinced that joint ownership will save either TV or newspapers. At the local level, newspapers are news organizations first, entertainment organizations second. Television is, in general, the opposite. Local news: about one hour a day, after commercials. Locally-produced entertainment: a minuscule percentage, with the exception of PBS. The remainder: entertainment content from a network with a dash of national news
What's Next
For the resolution to become law, Congress would need a veto-proof vote, which the Senate reportedly had. However, the bill does not appear to have as much support in the House as it had in the Senate (mirroring 2003). For example, the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet (chair, Rep. Edward J. Markey, D-MA) has not acted on HJ RES 79. Nor is there anything scheduled on the Committee on Energy and Commerce (chair, Rep. John Dingell, D-MI) May agenda.
The Senate resolution will be now referred to the House for action.
That puts the issue squarely in Speaker Nancy Pelosi's hands.