News » June 6, 2003

Bad to Worse

FCC approves even more media consolidation

By Dan Levine

The Hartford Courant treated its readers to a particularly crafty editorial on April 28, arguing that the Federal Communications Commission should abandon its restrictive rules on media cross ownership because—get this—they violate the right to free speech.

Six paragraphs into its missive, the nation’s longest continuously published daily decided to acknowledge its own stake in the upcoming FCC vote.

“This newspaper is part of Tribune Co., which owns 26 television stations across the country. In addition to the Courant, Tribune’s Connecticut portfolio is made up of WTIC, Channel 61; WTXX Channel 20; the Advocate weekly newspapers; the dailies in Stamford and Greenwich; ctnow.com; and ValuMail, a direct-mail business,” they wrote.

Indeed, the Tribune Company’s business model is most apparent in Connecticut: Prior to June 2, Tribune violated FCC rules twice over by owning two TV stations and a daily newspaper in the Hartford market, escaping divestiture only through a federal waiver. Nationally, the Tribune Company is regarded as one of the main corporate lobbyists trying to crash the media regulatory system, along with Gannett Newspapers and the New York Times Company.

They’re succeeding. The FCC followed its orthodox pro-deregulation chairman Michael Powell and voted 3 to 2 on June 2 to rescind prohibitions on companies owning a newspaper and TV station in the same market, along with expanding the number of TV stations a company is allowed to own nationally.

Now those Tribune waivers in Connecticut are no longer necessary, and the company can export its “synergy” revolution to other markets. Far from a victory for free speech, grassroots activists and their political allies expect a wave of media mergers and acquisitions, cutting down the quantity of voices in the marketplace and the number of reporters scrutinizing power.

But if Tribune’s “Connecticut portfolio” is the logical outcome of Powell’s corporate-friendly brew, perhaps an antidote can be glimpsed in the same state. During the FCC proceedings, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, filed a brief in which he indicates the fight against media consolidation may move away from the FCC and Congress and into the courtroom. “Repeal of these rules would be a disservice to the nation and could require the attorneys general of individual states and other antitrust enforcement officials, to attempt to fill the void … through costly and time-consuming processes, including litigation,” Blumenthal wrote.

Imagine, an antitrust suit against the likes of Tribune, brought by a phalanx of attorneys general, reminiscent of the legal wars against Microsoft (in which Blumenthal participated). At this point, Blumenthal says he has not decided to move against any company, including Tribune. But his rumblings have media activists across the country listening. “I think it’s a very important avenue to pursue,” says Robert McChesney, a University of Illinois professor and co-author of It’s the Media, Stupid. “Antitrust provisions have really deteriorated in their vitality in the last two decades. But the law hasn’t changed—it’s the way it has been enforced and interpreted that is much more business friendly.”

Though a mega-lawsuit in the name of media diversity is enticing, victory would be far from certain, according to antitrust attorneys, as the path from violating the former FCC cross-ownership rules to illegal monopoly is not a smooth one. Just because a company owns a daily newspaper, an alternative weekly chain and two TV stations in a single geographic market—and just because that cross-ownership stifles the diversity of news available to consumers—doesn’t mean the company will meet the criteria of a monopoly that restricts trade.

Antitrust violations hinge on how attorneys define a particular competitive market, says Phil Weiser, an associate professor of telecommunications and law at the University of Colorado Law School. So if the defined market is newspapers, other properties like TV stations would be irrelevant in proving illegal market fixing.

Blumenthal acknowledges the difficulties. “Antitrust cases are far more complex and challenging than enforcement of cross-ownership rules, even though they seek to protect many of the same values,” he says.

Another problem is political. Just how likely is it that Blumenthal can challenge a dominant media power and survive to tell the tale? “The chances a state attorney general would take this kind of case,” McChesney says, “are about the same chances I would win the NBA slam dunk contest.”

But Blumenthal isn’t the only politician with antitrust on the brain. On May 21, Sen. Herb Kohl, a Democrat from Wisconsin, raised the issue in a Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing for Hew Pate, the Department of Justice’s new antitrust chief. Kohl asked Pate for his views on the DOJ intervening in media mergers to protect diversity of voices, with Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) concurring. Competitive factors, not diversity factors, would drive any DOJ decisions, Pate responded.

Still, as the FCC moves along on its crusade, an antitrust suit becomes a “very credible threat,” Weiser says.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  The fight for the media is already lost.  It deosn’t really matter if Big Media ownership percentages are 1, 10, 50 or a 100 percent of a market.  What the market wants, the market gets.  Murdoch, however nasty or unlikeable he may be (he could be the nicest guy in the world for all I know) is anything but stupid.  He has a business to run.  Business runs where the money is.  The money is where the market wants to spend it.  The market, post 11/09/01 (DDMMYY), has swung as far right as it ever has been.  Hence, we have smart people, like O’Reilly, Savage and the rest peddling shit that I presume men of their intellectual caliber can’t believe to a gullible public that is screaming for blood, desperate for payback. 
  The sad fact is that the “media” doesn’t need more marketshare.  It has already won.  Mockingbird has laid its eggs far and wide, and the chicks have come home to roost.  The American public has lost, not just this latest battle, but its capacity for rational thought and independence of mind.  This will allow the ruling class to reap hitherto unheard off profits at a rate unheard of until now.  The stage has been set for a powerful swing to the right, and we are nearing the arc.  The masses have a built in dilemma.  We have a modicum of intellect, and even if it is not as intensely geared towards self preservation as that of the ruling class, when the going gets tough the tough get going.  We will rise to take back what is ours.  Their victory is only temporary.  The further they push us back, the stronger the backlash will be.  I look forward to the revolution.  Even if it won’t be televised.

  Posted by notweny on Jun 14, 2003 at 4:07 AM

  has anyone thought about the fact that we the people own those airwaves. why aren"t we charging fees to the corporations who use them and turn that money towards local public radio stations. then clear channel can own all the damn top 40 stations they want, that just more money in the locals hands.

  Posted by digit on Jul 3, 2003 at 6:08 PM

• register a new account »Posting Security

  To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retreive lost password »

Also featured Seize the Time
Hidden Agenda
Guilt by Association

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!