Does Big Media need to get bigger?

OVER THE LAST 25 years, the number of corporations that dominate television, movies, music, radio, cable and the Internet has dwindled from more than 50 to just a handful of massive conglomerates. Do we really want Big Media to get even bigger?

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin does. He just relaunched the FCC’s formal review of media ownership rules. The agency’s “Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,” issued July 25, is vague, but its intent is clear: to let a few giant media corporations swallow up more local television channels, radio stations and newspapers in a single market.

Martin’s main target is the ban on “newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership” that prohibits one company from owning the major daily newspaper as well as radio and TV stations in the same area. He’d also like to allow one company to own more than one TV station in smaller markets, and more than two in the largest cities. A few powerful firms in major cities have won waivers to the ban, or at least delays on enforcement, but those are the exceptions. (In Los Angeles, the Tribune Co. owns the Los Angeles Times and KTLA-TV Channel 5, an arrangement that probably would be affected by Martin’s actions.)

If the changes are approved, one corporation could own the major daily newspaper, eight radio stations and three television stations in the same town. Once the digital television transition is completed in 2009 -- allowing stations to broadcast multiple signals -- one company could control 12 or even 18 television channels in a single city.

If Martin gets his way, the last vestiges of local media competition would be swept away, smoothing the way for “media company towns” in which News Corp. or, yes, the Tribune Co. could dominate public discourse. Would it really be good for Los Angeles if the Chicago Tribune’s parent company owned The Times, KCAL-TV, KCBS-TV, KTLA-TV and radio stations KABC, KFI, KFWB, KLAC, KLSX, KNX, KRLA and KSPN?

That deja vu you’re feeling is because the FCC tried to push through the same rule changes in 2003 under then-Chairman Michael Powell. In response, millions of people -- spurred on by groups as diverse as the National Rifle Assn. and the National Organization for Women -- contacted the FCC and Congress to voice their opposition. The FCC approved the rule changes anyway, only to see them nearly overturned by Congress and then rejected by the courts.

Despite the overwhelming public opposition, Martin’s latest attempt to eliminate cross-ownership rules is driven by the massive lobbying of a cartel of second-tier big media companies specializing in newspaper and broadcast station ownership, such as Gannett, Media General and Tribune. Their motive? Bigger profits.

But what’s good for Big Media’s bottom line isn’t always good for the rest of us. The first casualty of “media company towns” would be journalism. When one firm owns most of a city’s news outlets, who needs a bunch of competing newsrooms? Investigative reporting and extensive local coverage requires a costly staff. It’s far cheaper to syndicate fare from headquarters than to support a diversity of local voices. If your readers and viewers don’t like it, where else are they going to go?

Once the big chains start selling and swapping their properties to build up larger fiefdoms, the already declining number of independent and minority owners will be further squeezed out. Today, just one in five daily newspapers are owned by individuals or companies that don’t own any other newspapers. According to the most recent FCC data, fewer than 4% of radio stations and 2% of TV stations are owned by minorities.

Industry and Wall Street propaganda says local media can’t compete without further consolidation. Yet media companies already enjoy higher profit margins than most industries. They say we must deregulate. But radio and TV station ownership is by definition regulated -- these are the public airwaves and there are only so many channels available in a community. The only question is on whose behalf will Washington make the rules: major media companies or the public?

A broad coalition of public interest organizations at StopBigMedia.com already has directed tens of thousands of comments to the FCC decrying further media consolidation. Like the millions who spoke out three years ago, the coalition is saying it doesn’t want the largest media companies to swallow up even more local media outlets.

Groups such as Common Cause, Free Press and the National Hispanic Media Coalition are organizing town meetings across the country -- including one in Los Angeles on Aug. 31. And Martin has pledged to hold a “half dozen” official hearings of his own, though he hasn’t announced a time or place for any of them.

Martin’s predecessor ignored public opinion at his peril. We hope the new chairman will listen carefully to the voices of his real constituents, the American public. Nothing less than our democracy depends on it.