In September 2007, Sen. Barack Obama sent a warning to the Federal Communications Commission, which had been ordered by a federal court and Congress to use caution revising its rules. The FCC wanted to drop multi-station ownership limitations and the ban on simultaneous ownership of print and broadcast media in a single market.
"I believe the FCC media-ownership rules remain necessary and are critical to the public interest," he said. "We should be doing more to encourage diversity in ownership in broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets and the expression of diverse viewpoints," as well as provide "greater clarity" of broadcasters' public-interest obligations.
The FCC made that rule change
in December 2007.
Obama co-sponsored
S.2332: A bill to promote transparency in the adoption of new media ownership rules by the Federal Communications Commission, and to establish an independent panel to make recommendations on how to increase the representation of women and minorities in broadcast media ownership.
And he joined Sen. John Kerry in a threatening letter to FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin:
Your testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee Dec. 13 restates your intention to move forward aggressively with a proposal that would relax media-ownership rules with respect to the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule. We reiterate our call from July of last year and in various forums over the past two months for you to delay this vote for a period of time sufficient for the commission to examine the status of minority and women media ownership in the United States and to establish a policy to effectively address the need to promote greater diversity in media markets.
With respect to this issue, the intent of the Senate Commerce Committee was made clear with its decision to unanimously report S. 2332, the Media Ownership Act of 2007. Section 2 of this bill would require the Federal Communications Commission to establish and convene an independent panel to make recommendations for specific rules to increase the representation of women and minorities in the ownership of broadcast media. The bill further states that the FCC must act on the panel’s recommendations before voting on any changes to its broadcast and newspaper ownership rules.
We recognize the widespread animosity aimed at the direction of the commission regarding Tuesday’s scheduled vote. We understand that for a variety of reasons, you are being asked to postpone the vote to permit more time for the commission to fully understand how a relaxation in the cross-ownership rule will impact other important issues such as localism. It is our hope that the sum of these objections will convince you to delay this vote until a time following the commission’s consideration of other pressing matters. Specifically, we believe that moving forward with this change will have a direct and detrimental impact on the state of media diversity. Should you decide to move forward with this vote against the expressed bipartisan, bicameral intent of Congress, we will approach Appropriations chairman Byrd with a request that funds be denied for the implementation of this rule.
In October 2007, Obama had previously written to Chairman Martin calling for an independent review panel.
It is time to put together an independent panel, as Commissioner Adelstein has recommended, to issue a specific proposal for furthering the goal of diversity in media ownership. I object to the agency moving forward to allow greater consolidation in the media market without first fully understanding how that would limit opportunities for minority, small business, and women owned firms.
Last week,
Broadcasting & Cable had an email interview with Sen. Obama that follows up on his September 2007 statement and gives an extended view of his thoughts on media reform.
As in other areas, such as financial markets, Obama called for more, rather than less, regulation and reinvigorated anti-trust enforcement in the communications industry.
Q: You signaled that you would put the teeth back into antitrust enforcement. What would that mean for media companies that want to merge?
A: There is a clear need in this country for the reinvigoration of antitrust enforcement. Our competition agencies, the Department of Justice and the FTC , need to step up review of merger activity and take effective action to stop or restructure those mergers that are likely to harm consumer welfare, while quickly clearing those that do not. Specifically, for media mergers, the Department of Justice and the FTC should closely scrutinize all mergers for their implications for competition and consumer choice. The FCC should more seriously evaluate the impact of proposed mergers on the ability of divergent communities to participate in the national media environment.
Obama on media consolidation and its "ill effects":
Q: What prompted you to weigh in on media ownership and diversity at an
FCC field hearing in Chicago last year?
A: I strongly favor diversity of ownership of outlets and protection against the excessive concentration of power in the hands of any one corporation, interest or small group. I strongly believe that all citizens should be able to receive information from the broadest range of sources. I feel that media consolidation during the Bush administration has had the effect of eliminating a lot of the diversity of information sources available to persons who have to rely on more traditional information sources, such as radio and television broadcasts and newspapers.
Q: What ill effects has the country suffered from media consolidation, if any?
A: This country’s media ownership rules that both chairman
Powell and chairman Martin have wanted to dismantle protect us from excessive media concentration. However, even under current rules, the media market is dominated by a handful of firms. The ill effects of consolidation today and continued consolidation are well-documented -- less diversity of opinion, less local news coverage, replication of the same stories across multiple outlets, and others. We can do better.Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) introduced
S. J. Res. 28: A joint resolution disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission with respect to broadcast media ownership, in March 2008.
Q: You co-sponsored the Dorgan bill
to block the FCC’s media-ownership change, which Martin has argued was a moderate compromise that took into account the input of opponents to consolidation. Why block it?
A: Chairmen Martin and Powell both argued that their previous effort to deregulate the media market was moderate, as well. Both the courts and a majority of the Senate disagreed the first time. And a few weeks back, the Senate disagreed with chairman Martin again. While he argues that the rule is no longer in the public interest, the public response has heavily weighed in against him. And common sense tells us that the consolidation of outlets in local markets will lead to fewer opportunities for diverse expression of opinions.
After the Senate approved Dorgan’s unusual legislative measure, a "resolution of disapproval" of the FCC’s media ownership rule change,
Obama said, “Our nation’s media market must reflect the diverse voices of our population, and it is essential that the FCC promotes the public interest and diversity in ownership.”
Last month, from an article called “
Obama Stands Up to Bush, the FCC, and Big Media,” we see Obama’s continuing exertion against ever more media consolidation.
The FCC decision to consolidate yet more media was opposed by 99% of public comments. As Paul Rosenberg noted in his comments, this might be the single least popular decision by the Bush administration ever. But Obama, as he did with his media and tech plan, took this further, and called for diversity and representation for the public interest in media ownership.
With ownership levels for minorities and women in media in the low single digits, Obama is really saying that it’s time to reshape our media system.
-snip
I’ve heard quite frequently from political operatives that this race is not Obama versus McCain, but Obama versus the media. And it’s clear that without breaking down the structure of the media conglomerates, public discourse will remain as polluted and dishonest as it is now. And so President Obama is telegraphing his intentions to be a media reformer. Now it’s up to us to help him get there.
But wait just a minute.
Robert W. McChesney & John Nichols ask: "
Who'll Unplug Big Media?"
There is a clear difference between McCain and Obama when it comes to what the candidates say about media issues, and an even clearer difference in their records. Although many GOP voters, and some back-benchers in Congress, are supportive of media reform, the commanding heights of the party are a wholly owned subsidiary of the media giants. On the surface McCain may appear to be a complex figure who straddles the fence. In the increasingly distant past he occasionally tossed out a soundbite recognizing citizen concerns. But in recent years he has invariably championed the corporate lobbies. McCain's free-market rhetoric about government-created and indirectly subsidized media monopolies is increasingly recognized for what it is: propaganda to advance the policy objectives of massive corporations.
-snip
Barack Obama is different. Obama's campaign has produced the most comprehensive, public-interest-oriented media agenda ever advanced by a major presidential candidate. Like Hillary Clinton, the Illinois senator has been an outspoken defender of net neutrality. The Obama camp's position paper on media issues echoes Copps when it says that as President, he "would encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum." In a recent speech Obama called for strengthened antitrust enforcement, specifically warning against media consolidation. An Obama presidency would, he and his supporters say, use all the tools of government to promote greater coverage of local issues and better responsiveness by broadcasters to the communities they serve. Like Copps, Obama favors investment to connect remote and disenfranchised communities to the Internet and to make public broadcasting a more robust voice in the national discourse.
There is
always cause to remember that citizens, too, have an important role to play.
..The right President will make achieving all these ends easier. The right Congress will make the task easier still. But above all, we will need the right media reform movement--one that is aggressive in its demands regardless of who sits in the White House, savvy in its approach to the FCC and Congressional committees, bipartisan and determined to build broad coalitions, and focused not just on playing defense but on shaping popular media for the twenty-first century.
