A kick in the eye. That is what a proposed change to media-ownership rules feels like. Contrary to statements from Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin that couch the proposal as a compromise, it is bad policy that helps only media conglomerates.
A kick in the eye. That is what a proposed change to media-ownership rules feels like.
Contrary to statements from Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin that couch the proposal as a compromise, it is bad policy that helps only media conglomerates. The only compromise will be from corporations figuring out how to add more news outlets in an attempt to meet the bottom-line journalism demanded by Wall Street.
Media reformers, consumer groups and parts of the press oppose the plan because it allows for cross-ownership of a newspaper and broadcast station in the nation’s 20 largest media markets. The plan is made more dangerous because the commission could grant waivers outside the proposed criteria.
The Newspaper Association of America, which has been advocating cross-ownership for years, is displeased because Martin did not go far enough.
- 2 people killed in Seattle-area windstorm identified
- Richard Sherman asks for Tyler Lockett-Mario Kart mashup, the internet answers
- Chargers players upset with Frank Clark
- High winds stall firefighting efforts, fuel Tunk Block, Lime Belt fires
- White House renames Mount McKinley as Denali on eve of trip
Most Read Stories
The public’s interest was obviously not considered. Had it been, Martin would have taken time to digest the six media-ownership hearings, which wrapped up in Seattle — four days before Martin announced his plan with an op-ed in The New York Times.
That leaves the politicians. Martin seems to be trying to position his plan as a compromise for Congress. Expect Martin to favorably compare his rule changes to what the FCC passed in 2003, which were swatted aside by a federal appellate court.
Martin knows how Washington, D.C., works. He has offered up the cable industry to soften Congress on cross-ownership. He wants to force cable companies to adopt such practices as a la carte programming, and limit the percentage of a market one company can reach.
Martin’s cable stance is good public policy. Martin’s cross-ownership plan is not good public policy. The two issues are not related. Congress is smart enough to see through this horse trade.
The cross-ownership rule changes will undermine independent journalism, blinding news outlets in all markets. Congress must protect the public and America’s independent press if the FCC will not.