Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Cross Ownership of Broadcast Stations ) MM Docket No. 01-235 and Newspapers ) ) Newspaper/Radio Cross-Ownership ) MM Docket No. 96-197 Waiver Policy ) Comments of American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations Joel S. Yudken, Ph.D. Christine Owens Public Policy Department 815 16th Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 637-3958 (phone) (202) 508-6967 (fax) [email protected] Dated: December 4, 2001 Introduction These are the comments submitted by the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), filed in response to the Federal Communications Commission Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to consider revisions to its newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule. In this proceeding, the Commission seeks comments on whether and to what extent it should revise this rule which bars common ownership of a broadcast station and a daily newspaper in the same market. The AFL-CIO is a federation of national and international unions representing 13 million working people and their families. Over 171,000 of our members work in the broadcast and newspaper industries. Many of them have particular job-related concerns regarding the on-going restructuring and consolidation of media ownership over the past few decades, a transformation enabled and accelerated by the introduction of powerful, rapidly evolving digital information and networking technologies. Our members also are consumers of broadcasting and print media, and more important, they are citizens of a democratic society whose preservation depends on wide public access to diverse sources of information and viewpoints available through multiple media channels. The AFL-CIO, its member unions, and union members and their families have become increasingly concerned with the growing concentration of media markets, both nationally and locally, and the implications of this trend for democratic public discourse. I. Ownership Concentration Reduces Diversity of Voices 1 In the Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding broadcasting/newspaper cross-ownership,1 the Commission recognizes that while the number of media outlets has grown, the concentration in their ownership has increased as well. Moreover, it acknowledges that this growth has coincided with relaxing of media ownership rules—e.g., the relaxing of the national TV ownership limit and local radio ownership rules. For example, the Commission notes that, “while in 1975 a single entity could not own more than 14 radio stations nationwide, today one entity owns more than 1,000 radio stations nationwide.” Since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was enacted, the number of owners of commercial radio stations declined from approximately 5,100 to approximately 3,800, a decrease of 25 percent. Similarly, since 1995 the number of entities owning commercial TV stations has dropped from 543 to only 350.2 In October, 1999 at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing to consider the antitrust implications of Viacom’s purchase of CBS, Senator Paul Wellstone pointed out that in 1983 about fifty conglomerates controlled more than half of all broadcast and other media in the United States; after a decade and a half of mega-mergers, that figure has shrunk to eight.3 Newspaper ownership has rapidly consolidated as well. Gannett, after a multibillion dollar spate of acquisitions in 2000, has grown from 74 daily newspapers to 99. Gannett now produces one out of every seven newspapers sold in the United States. Three huge chains, Gannett, Knight Ridder and the Chicago Tribune Co., together account for a quarter of all the daily newspaper circulation in the nation.4 1 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, In the Matter of Cross-Ownership of Broadcast Stations and Newspapers, FCC No. 01-235; and Newspaper/Radio Cross-Ownership Waiver Policy, FCC No. 96-197. September 20, 2001 (Rel.) 2 Id. 3 “Media Globalopoly; global companies” The Nation (September 29, 1999) 4 Kunkel, Thomas and Gene Roberts, “Leaving Readers Behind: The Age of Corporate Newspapering.” Vol. 23 No. 4 American Journalism Review (May 1, 2001) 2 Despite this alarming trend, the Commission is questioning its own long-standing premise that the concentration of ownership matters. Both the Commission, when it first made this rule in 1975, and the Supreme Court in a number of cases, have consistently affirmed the importance of limits on media concentration in order to preserve media diversity. The Commission’s 1975 ruling states that “[t]he multiple ownership rules . rest on two foundations: the twin goals of diversity of viewpoints and economic competition.” However, it notes that the cross-ownership rule, in particular, was based on the diversity goal, explaining that “it is essential to a democracy that its electorate be informed and have access to divergent viewpoints on controversial issues,”5 and concluding that it is “unrealistic to expect true diversity from a commonly owned station-newspaper combination.”6 The Commission’s position has been supported by the Supreme Court, which on several occasions found that the First Amendment includes the right of people to receive information, not just the right of speakers to speak. That is, it affirmed the principal of diversity in media, the notion that people should be able to choose among many sources of information, viewpoints and ideas. It also has affirmed broadcasters’ obligation to include programming that serves the public interest.7 Regarding the Commission’s cross-ownership rule, in particular, the Court found that it “was founded on the very same assumption that underpinned the diversification 5 Amendments of Sections 73.34, 73.240, and 73.636 of the Commission’s Rules Relating to Multiple Ownership of Standard, FM, and Television Broadcast Stations, Docket No. 18110, Second Report & Order, 50 FCC2d at 1074 (1975) 6 Id. At 1079-1080 7 Media Access Project et al., Comments in response to the FCC’s Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, FCC No. 96-438 (released November 7, 1996) and its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 96-437 (released November 7, 1996). 3 policy itself….that the greater number of owners in a market, the greater the possibility of achieving diversity of program and service viewpoints.”8 The AFL-CIO is troubled that despite the Commission’s past position, repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court, the Commission now asks for evidence to demonstrate why it should not modify or throw-out the cross-ownership rule. The AFL-CIO believes that the burden of evidence instead should be on those who want to change the rule, to show that weakening it will not create harm. Diversity of ownership is essential for diversity of voice. Loosening or eliminating the broadcasting/ newspaper cross-ownership rule will harm information and viewpoint diversity in the following ways. ! Merging broadcasting and newspaper (and other news media, e.g., web-sites) production organizations into single “content” units will reduce the number of distinct “voices” within local news markets with different perspectives and viewpoints. ! It will contribute to the continued decline in the quality and diversity of local news media outlets. ! It will further erode the amount, quality and diversity of public interest news coverage, including federal, state and local government activities, foreign affairs, political events, and investigative/critical reporting. ! It will further reduce minority ownership of media outlets, reducing content targeted to minority audiences. 8 FCC v. National Citizens Comm. For Broadcasting, 436 U.S. at 814 (1978). 4 II. The Merger of Newspaper/Broadcast Operations in Local Markets Will Reduce Diversity of Voice The growing trend in co-owned news outlets (TV, newspaper, radio, cable, and Internet) places added pressures on news staffs, already overburdened because of newsroom cost-cutting driven by earlier media consolidations, adversely affecting the quality and scope of news operations. More important, the merging of news operations creates a homogenization of news products delivered through multiple media channels, along with diminished local media diversity. Media consolidation has put increasing pressure on local newspapers and broadcast stations to reduce costs and increase profits. As large newspaper chains absorbed large numbers of local newspapers in the late 1980s and the 1990s, editors, whose compensation was more and more of tied to corporate financial performance, made (sometimes draconian) cuts in their newsholes and news staff, requiring newspaper staffs to do more with less, with predictable impacts on quality of their product. For example, after the Asbury Park Press, New Jersey’s second-largest paper—that was once considered one of the most enterprising independent papers in the nation—was sold to Gannett in 1997, the newly appointed publisher slashed the newsroom staff from 240 to 185. The result was an exodus of the Press’ most talented people, shortened stories, de-emphasized government news and more trivialized local news.9 TV news directors have confronted similar pressures from their corporate owners to cut back resources while increasing programming demands. According to a recent study by the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism’s Project for Excellence in Journalism— reported in the Columbia Journalism Review—half of all TV stations surveyed reported they had 5 either budget cuts or layoffs in the last year, the average cut being 8 percent. In