Undermined by efforts to weaken the Federal Communications Commission’s limits on newspaper/broadcast station cross-ownership, the New York Daily News has filed a statement with the FCC against media consolidation.

"Permitting cross-media combinations involving one or more television stations and more than one daily newspaper in the same market would do substantial damage to the Commission's claimed goals of ensuring viewpoint diversity and economic competition in local media markets," the Daily News writes.

In response to the FCC's call for comments on its media ownership rules, dozens of media companies have asked for the elimination of the restriction. But not the Daily News, whose public filing with the FCC called for the Commission to “adopt a blanket ban on cross-ownership involving one daily newspaper and one or more television stations in same market."

Published by Daily News, L.P., New York's Daily News appears to be the only big city newspaper in the nation to have filed recent comments with the FCC advising against lifting its cross-ownership limits. The paper holds no interests in television, radio, or in other dailies published in greater New York, unlike its competitor, the New York Post, whose owner, News Corporation, also owns two television stations in the region, thanks to an FCC waiver on the cross ownership rule.

Background

The FCC first adopted restrictions on ownership by a newspaper publisher of one or more broadcast stations in the same market in 1975. The Supreme Court upheld the decision three years later in FCC v. National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting, stating that "diversification of mass media ownership serves the public interest by promoting diversity of program and service viewpoints as well as by preventing undue concentration of economic power."

Federal law requires the Commission to review its media ownership rules every four years. In 2003 the agency dramatically relaxed its newspaper/broadcast station ownership limits, only to see most of the new guidelines struck down a year later by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

In June of this year the FCC launched a new Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the matter. On October 23rd, the last day of the comment phase of the proceeding, dozens of media companies filed statements urging the Commission to scotch most of its broadcast ownership restrictions. The Daily News filing took the opposite position.

The Daily News' case against lifting the cross-ownership ban

• Simon already said so. A more diverse spectrum of newspaper owners will "increase the probability that their independent content selections will collectively promote a diverse array of media content," the Daily News filing states, "The Commission historically has sought to diffuse ownership media outlets among multiple entities in order to diversify the viewpoints available to the public."

  The Daily News statement reminds the FCC that it once said that "the greater the diversity of ownership in a particular area, the less chance there is that a single person or group can have an inordinate effect" on public opinion. It must not ignore this position now, the filing continues.

• The FCC's purpose is to protect the consumer by promoting competition. Only in a competitive market can the Commission ensure diverse choices, lower prices, and innovative services, the newspapers’ comment argues. The lifting of ownership restrictions allows for consolidation, which, as shown by the results of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, is anti-competitive and damaging to consumers. The FCC continually asserts a pro-competitive position, the Daily News contends, but will fail to uphold that position if it lifts the cross-ownership ban.

  "The Commission's own findings document that the primary source of local news for the overwhelming majority of the public remains television and daily newspapers," the filing states. Without restrictions, one entity could monopolize both venues. "The enormous power that goes with ownership would allow conglomerate media owners to promote their own interests or biases through the media in a manner harmful to democratic discourse."

• Waivers of exemption from these limits have proven to be anti-competitive. In 2003 News Corporation's ownership of television stations WWOR, WNYW, and the New York Post won the company an estimated 11.3% share of revenue in the greater New York media market. Though News Corporation only owns one daily paper, the Post, the entity has recently acquired two newspaper groups with a total of 28 weekly papers, thanks to FCC waivers on cross-ownership limits.

  Were News Corporation to obtain another daily, the Daily News contends, it would control approximately 22% share of revenues in the New York market.

• The FCC recent methodology misjudges media outlets. "While correctly recognizing that not all media are of equal importance to the public,” the Daily News argues, “the Commission [in its 2003 media ownership decisions] incorrectly concluded that all outlets within the same media type should be treated as having equal market shares in determining media diversity . . . In defining the level of diversity in a local market the Commission must look at the actual commercial share a media entity controls in a specific local market, rather than merely focusing on the number of media entities that exist in that market."

  Thus, that hypothetical 22 percent market share would have been acceptable under a “diversity index” that the FCC set up to guide its now struck down cross media rules. The index would have considered the impact of the New York Post no more influential than ownership of much smaller dailies like the Middletown Times Herald Record.

Although the comment section of the FCC's media ownership proceeding has closed, the public may still reply to comments through December 21, 2006.

Excerpts from the Daily News filing on media concentration

"Permitting such a concentration of control would unacceptably reduce the public's access to diverse sources of local news and information and stifle competition in advertising."

"The media concentration resulting from a merger of companies owning multiple newspapers and television stations can only result in a combination anathema to 'the widest dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources'."

"As the Commission has noted, the aggregation of an inordinate market share by a small number of firms will tend to harm public welfare since highly concentrated markets tilt the proper balance of power too far in favor of some firms and against those who would challenge them."

Bookmark/Search this post with:

                  

I am curious if you could tell me where I could read a copy of the Daily News filing?
Thanks.