Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski announced last month that he was stepping down, and journalism advocates have since been lining up to voice opinions on what Genachowski’s successor should do differently in dealing with media. They want an FCC chief who will put an end to further media consolidation, make political ads more transparent, and increase diversity of media ownership and coverage.
Newspapers may not operate on airwaves that require FCC licenses, and journalism is certainly not a top priority for the commission, but many decisions the agency makes directly impacts our industry; journalists have a far greater stake in what the FCC does than simply reporting on the commission’s actions, and we should care about who President Obama nominates next to head the agency.
Journalists should care who the next FCC chief is because:
—That person will likely decide whether Rupert Murdoch and other big media owners will be allowed to own both newspapers and TV or radio stations in large markets.
—With more newspapers reducing print schedules and relying solely on digital, the next FCC chair will determine ways to either make broadband more accessible and cheaper or whether to maintain the status quo, with rising prices and a limited number of competitors in the marketplace.
—The FCC is the only agency with a mandate to make the media more diverse, local, and accountable. A new chief could choose to use its enforcement powers to ensure diversity is reflected in the voices, perspectives, and owners in media.
—The new chairperson could also determine whether to make political advertising more transparent in TV ads and online.
The FCC cannot cure all that ails journalism in this fragmented and digital age, but it “can help the news industry and the journalistic profession address these challenges and make the most of the new opportunities,” said Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, a professor in Denmark and Research Fellow at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, in a blog post late last month.
Genachowski, nominated as chairman four years ago by President Obama, will leave behind a mixed legacy in media policy circles. With the publication of his “Information Needs of Communities” report, Genachowski acknowledged, at least tacitly, that the commission does have some authority in addressing the challenges confronting the news industry and the changing media landscape. On the other hand, some public policy advocates accuse Genachowski of being too chummy with industry lobbyists, while groups like the Newspaper Association of America believe he’s been too slow in completing tasks like reviewing media ownership rules; Genachowski’s FCC still hasn’t completed the 2010 review, which needs to be done before the next review is due in 2014.
In his blog post, Nielsen argues that while the FCC recognized some of the challenges taking place in the news industry, no major policy initiatives were presented in the Information Needs study, and that Genachowski has done little to address the few minor recommendations the report offers.
Expanding broadband
Craig Aaron, President and CEO of Free Press, which advocates for quality journalism, public media, and cheaper broadband access, says the new chairman should be nothing like the old chairman.
Aaron maintains that cable and Internet rates rose under Genachowski’s watch, widening the gap between those who have effective access to the Internet and those who don’t. Aaron also says that Genachowski paid little to no attention to media diversity, reiterating that the FCC is the only agency mandated to make the media more diverse, local, and accountable.
“When [Genachowski] took the helm, most consumers had at best two choices for home broadband: the local phone company or the local cable company. Four years later, we have the same two choices — only now they cost more,” Aaron wrote in an email blast to supporters. He said the FCC chairman focused on broadband to the near-total exclusion of all other issues, even diversity, though women and people of color own just a tiny fraction of broadcast licenses.
Minority ownership and representation
The FCC's Information Needs of Communities missed a major issue which has not been addressed:, that is, the "Civic Broadcasting Digital Divide". Government and education access cable channel content does not have a place on the broadcast dial and with the looming spectrum auctions even less if not any channels will be available for this vital community content. Almost all local governments do air their cable channels on local broadcast TV which means that depending on the community, 50%-35% of citizens do not have access to the content the local government is paying to produce. Many governments put soem of this content on their websites but those citizens which are part of the digital digital and many others just do not have the bandwidth to get it.
I disagree with the minority ownership point which is made, the hispanic networks are thriving and the #1 watched local TV station the USA is in LA and is owned by a minority outlet, Univision. Women have gone mostly into cable and internet properties instead. Most broadcast TV station full power stations are owned by publicly owned station groups, so their stockholders own them. The privately owned full power stations are another matter, but women do own either alone or jointly the Class A and LPTV stations, since many of these are mom and pop operations. Fully one-third of the low power TV service is faith-based owned so they are represented. There are 100's of native american owned translator stations which cover their mostly rural areas. I would wager that the majority of PBS affiliates have women as leaders, so I question the minority claims as presented.
#1 Posted by Mike Gravino, CJR on Fri 5 Apr 2013 at 10:23 AM
Sorry folks, I left out a key word...
Almost all local governments do NOT air their cable channels on local broadcast TV.
Another point, ALL of the citizens in local communities own the public right of ways which local governments leased to cable and telco cable system providers. But only those citizens which pay for cable/telco cable service got the benefit of the content created with those fees.
TV Satellite service subs and TV antenna users are being left out of the civic discourse!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#2 Posted by Mike Gravino, CJR on Fri 5 Apr 2013 at 10:31 AM
Mike,
Great point about the spectrum auction. It's an issue that definitely needs to get more attention considering citizens' needs for greater government transparency especially in light of cutbacks at news organizations. Many communities have no watchdog at all, perhaps making these public access channels even more necessary.
We will have to agree to disagree about minority ownership. Yes, while there has been a slight uptick for Hispanic media ownership, the same is not true for other racial and ethnic groups. The facts are women comprise over 51 percent of the U.S. population but hold less than 7 percent of all TV and radio station licenses, while the numbers are worse for people of color who make up over 36 percent of the U.S. population but hold just over 7 percent of radio licenses and 3 percent of TV licenses. This is according to the FCC's own data.
Pew just released a similar daunting study a couple of weeks ago that confirms the dismal record. Instead of growth in black/African American ownership of radio station licenses, we're actually seeing a decline. Black radio used to be a stable in communitiies across the country. The number of TV licenses held by blacks/African Americans is far worse.
#3 Posted by Tracie, CJR on Mon 8 Apr 2013 at 10:02 AM
Media researchers such as myself who worked with the FCC on looking at this issue have urged movement on this front:
April 12, 2013
The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear President Obama:
We write to urge you to appoint a new Chairman of the Federal Communications Commissioner who will take seriously the responsibility to engage in much-needed research to advance 21st Century media and telecommunications policy in the public interest.
The Communications Policy Research Network is a group of scholars from a wide variety of fields and institutions across the country. We were all encouraged that you committed to public policy driven by a positive agenda and by careful analysis based on the highest quality information available. The Commission’s initial work to develop a National Broadband Plan was a positive and encouraging start, as was the effort to conduct independent research to determine whether advanced telecommunications services were being deployed in a reasonable and timely basis to all Americans. Heartened by these efforts, many of us devoted considerable time, energy and resources to advise the Commission on how to better understand the critical information needs of a diverse America.
At a fraction of the real cost, we worked closely with the Commission to provide the Commissioners and the staff with a review of the literature on the critical information needs of the American public , which identified and evaluated over 400 studies in this area. Many of us also participated in a research design meeting held by the Commission to determine how to implement the lessons of the literature review. We now understand that the FCC has put this work on hold. This is a disappointment to all of us committed to data-driven public policy.
Departing Chairman Julius Genachowski has not acted on these efforts. He has ignored the advice of the Commission’s own Advisory Committee on Diversity in the Digital Age to update the Adarand studies, ignored the instruction of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to get the research necessary to further the goals of media diversity; and has ignored the Commission’s legislative responsibility to identify market entry barriers to participation in the telecommunications industries, especially for women and people of color.
The FCC cannot claim to be an expert, data-driven agency if it continues to tell the Courts that it does not have the information it needs to establish appropriate policies in the public interest, and if it fails to provide timely and complete reports to Congress on the state of the communications industries.
We underscore that we are not pressing for one particular policy or another; rather, we are insisting that a critically important federal agency like the Commission base its regulatory decisions on the most rigorous and relevant analyses and data. On this dimension, we are disappointed with the lack of action of the Commission to modernize its own framework to understand critical policy issues before adopting the appropriate regulatory measures.
This is why we are calling for a new type of leader at the FCC. Just as the EPA deserves an environmental scientist, and the Department of Justice deserves an experienced litigator, the FCC needs someone who clearly understands how to locate the public interest in the complex world of media and telecommunications today.
Mr. President, we believe you have an opportunity to establish a 21st Century FCC committed to addressing the public interest goals of diversity, competition, innovation and fair and reasonable access for all Americans, using the latest tools of social science analysis. We urge the selection of a new FCC chairperson who will draw on these tools to advance the goals expressed by yourself and
#4 Posted by Dr. Michelle Ferrier, CJR on Tue 30 Apr 2013 at 05:01 PM
The rest of the letter...
Mr. President, we believe you have an opportunity to establish a 21st Century FCC committed to addressing the public interest goals of diversity, competition, innovation and fair and reasonable access for all Americans, using the latest tools of social science analysis. We urge the selection of a new FCC chairperson who will draw on these tools to advance the goals expressed by yourself and other American stakeholders.
The next leader of the FCC must commit to: 1) conduct the necessary research to understand barriers to opportunities to participation in the media and telecommunications industry; 2) conduct the necessary research to understand the impact of existing communications policies on whether the critical information needs of the diverse American public are being met; and 3) conduct the research necessary to understand how the relaxation of existing media ownership policies will adversely affect diversity and minority interests; and 4) conduct the research necessary to keep the Internet open and accessible to all Americans.
We are confident, Mr. President, that you will select a new FCC chair who will put the agency on track, leading us toward an America that is more digital, more diverse and more democratic in the years to come. We and others in the scholarly community stand ready to assist any serious efforts to help you and your appointees build the kind of diverse and digital America our children and grandchildren deserve.
Sincerely,
Ernest J. Wilson III
Dean and Walter H. Annenberg Chair in Communication
Lewis A. Friedland
Professor and Director of the
Center for Communication and Democracy
University of Wisconsin – Madison
School of Journalism and Mass Communication
Co-Chairs, Community Policy Research Network
#5 Posted by Dr. Michelle Ferrier, CJR on Tue 30 Apr 2013 at 05:12 PM