Advertisement

Reflecting on Media Ownership Debate

Share
Times Staff Writer

A yearlong political battle to restructure the nation’s media industries culminates this morning with a vote at the Federal Communications Commission that is expected to substantially deregulate the broadcasting sector.

On the eve of what many view as the agency’s most important decision in years, the Los Angeles Times asked all five commissioners to reflect on the significance of their task, the fairness of the process and what lessons they learned. Four responded, but the commission’s chairman, Republican Michael K. Powell, declined to be interviewed.

Though the four generally agreed on the importance of the media ownership debate, the commissioners differed strongly on whether they thought the proceeding was inclusive enough, whether courts would uphold their final decisions and whether the public would benefit from the reforms.

Advertisement

As they wind down from an exhaustive proceeding -- which drew hundreds of thousands of public comments and an avalanche of industry lobbying -- a majority also agreed that Congress should change the statute that requires the FCC to undertake such a comprehensive review every two years.

Some of their comments:

Question: How important is Monday’s vote?

Kathleen Q. Abernathy (Republican): There’s been a lot of hype. If you look at other decisions we’ve faced, such as facilitating new broadband wireless devices, that’s probably a bigger deal. But in terms of what consumers care about, this is major. It’s been hyped up that we’re going to hand over the reins of the media to one or two hypothetical media moguls. That’s not going to happen. But until the proposal is out, there’s going to be that fear.

Jonathan S. Adelstein (Democrat): This is the biggest change in American broadcast media rules in the history of the country.

Michael J. Copps (Democrat): It’s the most important we’ve taken in years. It goes to the heart of everything we see and hear in the media.

Kevin J. Martin (Republican): It’s one of the most important things that the commission will vote on this year, maybe longer.

Q: This is not the first time the FCC has tried to update media ownership rules. Previous attempts have failed. How hard was the fight behind the scenes, and what was the key to getting it done amid so much opposition?

Advertisement

Abernathy: I didn’t anticipate how much concern would be raised over this. It’s difficult. You’re balancing core values of free speech. It helped that we were a new commission. When I came in, I immediately saw that the rules were internally inconsistent. And because we were all new, we were willing to step back and look at the rules anew and take them on.

The other reason is we were required by statute to do so. And when you have a number of recent court losses [in which the FCC’s media rules were remanded or thrown out] you don’t have the luxury of saying this is too hard. You have to respond.

Copps: I’ve been out on the road, doing 12 or 13 public hearings around the country. I think we’ve been successful in taking this issue to the American people despite the fact that there were folks out there who didn’t want us to.

But it’s still a pretty horrid outcome. The new numbers are significantly different. But at the same time it may be marginally less horrid than it would have otherwise been last fall when it appeared they wanted to totally eliminate the rules. That was my greatest fear. I attribute that to the outpouring of concern that we have seen.

Q: Was it a fair and open process?

Abernathy: Absolutely. There has not been any group I haven’t listened to. And as a result, the item has changed over time. We had to rely a lot on the input we were getting from consumers, consumer interest groups and Capitol Hill.

Adelstein: I would have preferred if we had been given another month. We would have been able to do better work. But more importantly, I wish we could have given the public the opportunity to comment on this.

Advertisement

Copps: I’m not entirely happy with the process. We were really not acting in the spirit of notice and comment. A regulatory agency dealing with something this important should have put the text of the rules out there for the American people to see. All we wanted was a little more time. That’s not unreasonable. The refusal on the part of others to support more public hearings and participate was not good process either. It’s a tragedy in my eyes.

Q: Will the fighting on this issue leave any lingering feelings of hurt or distrust?

Abernathy: I hope not. There are many sides to this debate. So it doesn’t surprise me that some of my colleagues landed in a different place.

Adelstein: I don’t sense any loss of trust or bad feelings. People have strong policy feelings, but it’s not personal.

Copps: No one is glowering at anyone else. It’s a friendly group of people, even if we have differing views.

Martin: I don’t know. You’d have to ask some of the other participants. I try to deal with the issues.

Q: When the process began, there was talk about comprehensive overhaul of the rules, getting away from prophylactic caps and arbitrary numbers. Powell proposed creating a “diversity index,” which would have been a whole new way to approach enforcement. But the final outcome appears to be based largely on the existing framework, albeit with different numbers. At the end of the day, did the majority come to believe that the existing framework works best, or was this a reflection of political compromises?

Advertisement

Abernathy: Well, I suppose we could have said that there’s so much competition today that we don’t need rules anymore. That would have been new and novel. We could have said that it’s technologically impossible for anyone to gain too much market share today. Well, we couldn’t land there, though some argued that. What we tried to do instead is take a regulatory framework and adjust it to the technological realities of today. And we tried to look at all the rules together and reconcile them internally so when they go up to the court they’ll make sense.

Adelstein: There were a lot of good ideas and thoughts being considered early on. I’m afraid the process did degenerate into more of a political exercise in getting the votes. At some point, it veered off into a much more extreme type of proposal that I couldn’t live with. That’s unfortunate because I really tried to find common ground.

Martin: We will be making comprehensive changes to all our rules. I did have concerns with some proposals that involved complicated mathematical formulas applied on a case-by-case basis. In the end, I prefer simple rules that are more predictable and easily enforced.

Q: Is the commission going to be able to show the courts that the new numbers are any less arbitrary than the old ones?

Abernathy: I think so. We’ve gathered an extensive record on how consumers receive information and what the various choices are. In the end I would hope that the court will give us discretion based on the record.

Adelstein: I’m not sure they will. They went a lot further down the deregulatory path than I think is justified by the record and by the evidence. I don’t think they have any greater justification for these numbers than we had for the old numbers. And certainly I don’t think they benefit the public.

Advertisement

Martin: I hope so. I think it’s important to look closely at what the courts said. They weren’t concerned so much with where the line was drawn or what the number was. They took issue with whether the rules were consistent.

Q: Many in Congress launched a heavy last-minute campaign to block the FCC or slow it down. Is there anything Congress can do now? Is it surprising or frustrating that lawmakers would intervene given that Congress passed the law that required the FCC to look at these rules every two years and get rid of those that can’t be justified?

Abernathy: It’s not surprising. Anytime you have this many constituents who are concerned about something, I would expect them to express their concern. It’s our job to be sensitive to what they say and to comply with the statute. One of the benefits of being an independent agency is we can stand back and say, “We understand your concerns. We’re going to follow the statute.” We’ll take the heat.

Adelstein: Congress has the authority to change anything we do. A lot of members have expressed concern about this and want to take matters into their own hands, which I think would be a good thing because this is an issue that affects our democracy.

Copps: I think there’s going to be tremendous concern in Congress. We’ll have to see if they do anything.

Martin: I don’t feel frustrated. It’s Congress’ prerogative to make the laws, and I would implement any law they passed.

Advertisement

Q: Should the FCC formally ask Congress to reconsider the two-year requirement, and do you think such a proposal could pass?

Adelstein: Congress should consider changing it. It can be destabilizing for the markets, and I’m not sure that every two years there are enough changes in the market to justify doing a complete review.

Copps: As a matter of principle, it’s too burdensome. On the other hand, after the vote Monday I may welcome the chance to revisit some of this again in two years. So I’m torn.

Martin: I’m not certain that we should even ask. I think we should focus on implementing the rules we have.

Q: Three months ago, some were questioning Powell’s political leadership after the telephone deregulation squabble. From a personal standpoint, is this a vindication for him?

Abernathy: Absolutely. He was willing to work with us in crafting an item all three of us can support. He didn’t get exactly what he wanted. As I didn’t. As Commissioner Martin won’t. But he was able to get out something this controversial and monumental and not have it die. There were many who predicted that we would not be able to withstand the political pressure.

Advertisement

Copps: I view this as a defeat for the American people. We’ll see how the politics of this breaks out. I’m surprised by the number of Republicans and Democrats expressing concern. In terms of the long-term politics, I wouldn’t be so sure that this will turn out as well as some think it will turn out.

Martin: Bringing this kind of issue before the commission and getting it out is definitely a victory. He’s done an admirable job.

Q: It’s been a long process, and it’s almost over. How are you feeling personally?

Abernathy: I’m glad we’re doing it. But I will be glad when this is over. It’s like the worst root canal I’ve ever had.

Adelstein: Busy. I’m still trying to get ready for Monday.

Copps: It’s been both exhilarating and tiring.

Martin: I think we all feel a little tired.

Advertisement