‘Today’s Decision Would Make George Orwell Proud’- FCC Commissioner Michael Copps on the FCC’s Vote to Rewrite the Nation’s Media Ownership Rules

12/26/07

The Federal Communications Commission voted three-to-two on party lines last week to approve a measure that would increase media consolidation. The new rule pushed through by FCC Chairman Kevin Martin lifts a thirty-year old ban on companies seeking to own both a newspaper and television or radio station in the same city. Michael Copps was one of two FCC Commissioners to vote against the rule.

Real Video Stream AMY GOODMAN: The Federal Communications Commission last week voted three-to-two on party lines to approve a measure that would increase media consolidation. The new rule pushed through by FCC Chair Kevin Martin lifts a thirty-year-old ban on companies seeking to own both a newspaper and television or radio station in the same city.

FCC Chair Kevin Martin Refuses to Delay Vote on Proposed Rewrite of Media Ownership Rules

December 17, 2007

From Democracy Now!

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin has refused to delay a vote on his proposed changes to rewrite media ownership laws. The vote is set for Tuesday. We speak with Craig Aaron of Free Press, a national media reform organization.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin has refused to delay a vote on his proposed changes to rewrite media ownership laws. Martin would increase media consolidation by relaxing the rules for companies seeking to own both a newspaper and a television or radio station in the same city. The vote is set for Tuesday.

The FCC Chairman says he has suggested a “relatively minor loosening of the ban on newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership.” But there has been a groundswell of public opposition to his proposal. Last Tuesday, the Senate Commerce Committee unanimously voted to block the FCC’s December 18th vote.

But two days later, Martin insisted on moving forward with the vote during a heated exchange with Senator John Kerry at the Committee’s oversight hearing.

Craig Aaron, communications director at Free Press, a national media reform organization. He joins me now from Washington, DC.

To watch or hear the segment, click here.

Editor’s note: The segment is 53 minutes into the show.

FCC Releases Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Low Power FM

On December 11th, the Federal Communications Commission released a new set of rules on low power FM radio. They also asked a number of other important questions on how to change and adapt low power FM now, and in the future! What do these rules mean? How will they affect current LPFM radio stations, and community groups who want to build stations in cities and towns nationwide? UPDATE: We’ve completed our preliminary analysis of the long Report and Order from the Commission, and it describes our sense of what the FCC did, what it means for LPFM, and what we might want to do next! Click here to download the report, in .doc format: http://www.prometheusradio.org/media/whos_on_second_LPFM_rulemaking_analysis_PRP_dec_13_2007.doc and here to read the report in .pdf: http://www.prometheusradio.org/media/whos_on_second_LPFM_rulemaking_analysis_PRP_dec_13_2007.pdf. And read below for the text of the Commission’s report, and statements from the Commissioners! Click below for the full text of the Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Low Power FM Radio Click below for a document which outlines the sections of the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that will be important to understand for commenting, when the FCC publishes the rulemaking in the Federal Register: http://www.prometheusradio.org/media/LPFM_Rulemaking_Sections_for_Comment_99_25.pdf Click below for the statements of the Commission on the new rules and rulemaking: Kevin Martin, Approving the Order Michael Copps, Approving the Order Jonathan Adelstein, Approving the Order Deborah Taylor Tate, Approving in Part, Dissenting in Part Robert McDowell, Approving in Part, Dissenting in Part

Clear Channel sells 57 stations in six states

Denver-Based Company Buys Spots on the Western Radio Dial

http://www.newwest.net/city/article/denver_based_company_buys_spots_on_the_western_radio_dial/C8/L8/
By Robert Struckman, 11-29-07

A new Denver-based media company called Gap West is buying and is already running 57 radio stations from Clear Channel Communications, including six in Missoula.

The sale has yet to be approved by the Federal Communications Commission, but all signs point to a done deal. Gap West has taken over operations of the stations, which are mostly in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. Neither party would disclose the terms of the deal.

The sale has been in the works for about eight months, said Skip Weller, head of Gap West. The company incorporated officially on Nov. 1 and is funded primarily by Oaktree Capital Management, a Los Angeles-based private equity company. The same company funds Dallas-based Gap Broadcasting, which bought several dozen stations in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana. The two companies will operate independently, Weller said.

The stations involved include all of Clear Channel’s Montana and Wyoming stations as well as the stations in Idaho Falls, Pocatello and Twin Falls, Idaho; in the Tri-Cities and Yakima, Wash.; Duluth, Minn.; and in Burlington, Iowa. (You can find individual stations by searching by state or city here.)

Weller, a 30-year radio veteran, thinks markets like Missoula’s are undervalued by major media conglomerates like Clear Channel.

“These markets have been completely underserved,” Weller said. “To me, certainly, Missoula is like New York. That’s how important it is to me.”

Dave Cowan, who manages the six Missoula stations, said he’s optimistic about a future with Gap West. The recently announced sale ends a long period of uncertainty. Clear Channel announced plans about a year ago to put 448 of its small- and mid-market stations up for sale. (Ray Yeung, a Clear Channel spokesman, said the company wants to focus on the big urban markets. He also emailed this press release.)

“With Clear Channel, we were so off the radar,” Cowan said. “I think it’s going to be a really good thing.”

“I think there are phenomenal opportunities. Just think about your market, think about Bozeman and Laramie,” Weller said.

“We’re going to look at the market and say, ‘What do we think we can do to have some fun with the local listener and pick up an audience.’ It’s not like there’s a hole for a country station or adult contemporary. You have to do a boutique format and have some fun with it,” Weller said.

He said with only 13 markets to work in, his management team will have no trouble giving resources and personal attention to each city. In fact, Gap West could buy more stations, he said.

So, you might ask, what’s the plan once the stations have been revamped and revitalized? Will Gap West go public or will Weller sell to another media conglomerate? Is Gap West in the business of station-flipping?

No, said Weller, though it’s hard to say where things will go. He has no intention to work for a publicly owned company, he said.

“For me, these guys are committed to my ability to take these stations and create more value,” Weller said.

Correction: This story has been altered to correct the spelling of Skip Weller’s name in several references. We apologize for the error.

November 20, 2007

David Max

Missoula, Montana 59802

Dear David :

Thank you for contacting me regarding H. Con. Res. 244, the Local Radio Freedom Act. It’s good to hear from you.

I support the Local Radio Freedom Act because Montana’s rural communities rely heavily on the information and entertainment that local radio stations provide. Whether it’s news, weather, or local announcements, these stations provide an important service that’s hard to replace.                        

A coalition of recording industry and performers’ associations is lobbying congress to support legislation to do away with broadcast royalty exemptions for small commercial stations, noncommercial stations, and college stations. 

The Local Radio Freedom Act acknowledges the many public contributions of local radio stations and notes that radio provides free promotion of artists and performers through air-play, helping to create the most prolific broadcasting, music, and sound recording industry in the world.  The act also recognizes the affect that a new performance fee would have on America’s small radio markets and declares congressional opposition to performance fees charged by record companies on radio stations.                                             

Local radio is a critical public communication tool especially in states like Montana. It’s essential we make sure we aren’t putting this service in jeopardy.

Thanks again for contacting me. For further information or to sign up for my e-newsletter, please visit my website at www.house.gov/rehberg. Keep in touch.

Sincerely,
Denny Rehberg
Montana’s Congressman

BREAKING NEWS! FCC Finaly Announces Seattle Ownership Hearing

ROAD TRIP! BE BOLD! TESTIFY!

 

JOINT STATEMENT BY COMMISSIONERS COPPS AND ADELSTEIN ON

SEATTLE MEDIA OWNERSHIP HEARING

A hearing with only five days notice is no nirvana for Seattle and the Pacific Northwest. This smells like mean spirit. Clearly, the rush is on to push media consolidation to a quick and ill-considered vote. It shows there is a preordained outcome. Pressure from the public and their elected representatives is ignored. With such short notice, many people will be shut out. We received notice of the hearing just moments before it was announced. This is outrageous and not how important media policy should be made.

The Federal Communications Commission today announced the sixth and final public hearing on media ownership issues will be held in Seattle, Washington on Friday, November 9, 2007.

The hearing time and location are as follows:

Time: Location:

4:00 p.m. -11:00 p.m. (Pacific Standard Time) Town Hall Seattle Great Hall 1119 Eighth Avenue (at Seneca Street) Seattle, WA 98101 http://www.townhallseattle.org/greatHall.cfm

The purpose of the hearing is to fully involve the public in the process of the 2006 Quadrennial Broadcast Media Ownership Review that the Commission is currently conducting. This hearing is the sixth and final media ownership hearing the Commission intends to hold across the country. Previous FCC public hearings in the current review of media ownership issues were held in Los Angeles, CA on October 3, 2006; Nashville, TN on December 11, 2006; and Harrisburg, PA on February 23, 2007; Tampa Bay, Florida on April 30, 2007; and Chicago, Illinois on September 20, 2007.

The hearing is open to the public, and seating will be available on a first-come, first-served basis. The hearing format will enable members of the public to participate via “open microphone.”

A live audio cast of the hearing will be available at the FCC’s website at www.fcc.gov on a first-come, first-served basis. The public may also file comments or other documents with the Commission and should reference docket number 06-121 when filing by paper or submit your filing electronically by going to http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi and enter proceeding number 06-121. Filing instructions are provided at http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/comments.html.

Sign language interpreters and open captioning will be provided for this event. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Include a description of the accommodation needed, and include a way we can contact you if we need more information. Please make your request as early as possible. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. Send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

For additional information about the hearing, please visit the FCC’s website at http://www.fcc.gov/ownership. Press inquiries should be directed to Mary Diamond at 202-418-2388 or to Clyde Ensslin at 202-418-0506.

For those of us who have been waiting weeks for this announcement (and trying to help organize the hearing) this has been an incredibly frustrating experience. Public officials have asked Chairman Martin to give reasonable notice for this hearing, so that people from distant locations in the Northwest – for instance PEOPLE FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA – can actually attend the Seattle hearing and give prepared testimony. However, Martin declined to even share information with his own commission and has once again shorted a whole region of citizens on the chance to publicly comment on the future of our media and the future of our democracy. Here is one such letter, written by two elected officials from the state of Washington who continue to provided invaluable leadership on media democracy issues. It’s time to let Montana’s elected officials know that we also expect them to protect our media and our right to a free press!

November 2, 2007

The Honorable Kevin J. Martin
Chairman
Federal Communications Commission

Dear Chairman Martin,

We are pleased to read reports that your office has selected Seattle as the location for the Commission’s sixth public hearing on media ownership, although we are troubled by the speed at which you are attempting to complete the proceeding. We urge you to give at least three weeks advance notice before the Seattle hearing, in order to allow the public time to arrange plans to attend and prepare testimony.

At the Commission’s last public hearing on its localism proceeding held yesterday, it was evident that your last-minute announcement of the hearing on October 24, 2007 effectively barred many people from participating, and ran counter to the shared objective of soliciting broad public input.

Our offices have learned that there is significant interest in this hearing not only in Seattle, but regionally across Washington, and in Oregon, Idaho and Alaska. Individuals traveling from these areas, as well as working people and those with family or health care obligations, need reasonable advance notice in order to participate.

We appreciate your consideration in this matter and look forward to joining you at the media ownership hearing.

Sincerely

Maria Cantwell Jay Inslee
United States Senator United States Representative

cc Commissioner Michael J. Copps
Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein
Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate
Commissioner Robert M. McDowell

BILL MOYERS JOURNAL on MINORITY MEDIA, Friday Nov 2

Big Media is pushing the FCC to relax ownership rules again to give conglomerates more control over what Americans read, see, and hear. What most Americans don’t know is that the FCC plans to fast track the rule changes and cut off public comment in December.

 

Who wins and who loses? This week Bill Moyers reports on the real-world consequences of media policy through the lens of how it affects minority media ownership in America.

 

Airdate: Friday, November 02, 2007 at 9 p.m. and again at 1 a.m. on PBS. Watch a promo at http://youtube.com/watch?v=mymDA0BXOwU

Statement of FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps, Localism Hearing, Washington, DC

Thank you all for being here. You came on short notice, some from afar, and had to prepare on the turn of a dime, but your presence attests your dedication and public-spiritedness and we are grateful for that.

You are going to hear a lot of nice words about localism today. About how localism is one of the core values of broadcast regulation. About how from the earliest days of broadcasting, we’ve required licensees to serve the needs and interests of their local communities. About how localism is good for viewers, good for business, and good for the future of our democracy.

And it’s all true. But my greatest fear is that all those nice words will float into the ether and we’ll walk away and congratulate ourselves that we’ve struck a blow for localism. Meanwhile, consolidation continues to choke the lifeblood out of localism, with its outsourced news, homogenized play lists and distant ownership. Meanwhile, consolidation denigrates diversity, denies minorities and women, and diminishes our already-distorted democratic dialogue. It seems to get worse with almost each passing week. I, for one, can wait no longer. If we truly believe in localism – if it’s not just lip service – the time has come to do something about it.

First, let’s acknowledge that the loss of localism is not something that was inevitable – it was a conscious choice. Back in the 1980’s, we had a Chairman of the FCC who famously said that a television set was nothing but a “toaster with pictures.” And that’s how he and his accomplices set about to treat it – just another household appliance. So they did away with the requirements that promoted localism. Like talking to your community about the issues that concern the people who live there. Like guidelines at license renewal time that examined the station’s commitment to local programming. And like a license renewal process that took place every three years to ensure accountability to the community rather than the every eight years they gave us for the convenience of the industry. So now we have no more community dialogue, no more real accountability, no process to hold stations to their commitment to serve the people. It’s all gone – not by chance, but by design. Think about it! Why on earth would some little Commission think it had the right to pell-mell remove explicit performance requirements from broadcasters who are granted exclusive rights to use public property?

Which brings me to the current proceeding. This is the last official public hearing in connection with the Localism Notice of Inquiry that was launched in 2004. While I appreciate the Chairman’s commitment to complete the localism proceeding before addressing the media ownership rules, the question remains what it means to “complete” the proceeding. Let me be clear what I mean. “Completing the proceeding” means, at a minimum, issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, with clear recommendations, giving the public adequate time to comment on the specific proposals to put localism back into broadcasting, and a timetable for final Commission action.

And let’s be clear: this is not just Commissioner Mike Copps’ view. It’s the bi-partisan view from Congress. Recently, Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan and Republican Senator Trent Lott told us in no uncertain terms that, given the importance of localism, a mere report isn’t enough. They want recommendations in a formal notice of proposed rulemaking with at least 90 days for public comment. “This must be done,” they said “before moving forward with the ownership proceeding.” We just received another bipartisan letter from Republican Senator Olympia Snowe and Democratic Senator Bill Nelson, calling on the FCC to seriously address localism and pending diversity recommendations prior to acting on media ownership. These issues transcend party labels and are in no way unique to red states or blue states. They are grassroots concerns.

The best ways to address these concerns may be through an honest-to-goodness license renewal process and a reinvigorated public interest standard. The bottom line here is that the FCC just has to get out of the business of allowing media conglomerates to acquire new licenses or renew existing ones without requiring that every licensee will actually use the public airwaves to serve the public interest.

We will soon know, it appears, whether the Commission’s rhetoric about localism is the real thing or whether this proceeding is being truncated because the Commission needs to place a check mark in the Localism box that stands in the way of loosening such ownership rules as newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership that powerful industry players are pushing like mad. But Localism must never be seen as a means to an end—it’s an end in itself. It is at the heart of what the public interest is all about. All deliberate speed in getting some localism back? By all means. A rush to judgment to clear the way for more big media mergers? No way. Right now there are too many Americans openly wondering whether this is all a big show – pretty window dressing to distract the public so the FCC and Big Media can cut their back room deal in peace. No one on this Commission, even if some feel differently about the pros and cons of changing the ownership rules, should want to perpetuate those kinds of public misgivings about the FCC. We need a process that allays fears rather than one that creates them.

I received an e-mail yesterday from a gentleman who works at a small-market radio station in the Midwest. In the e-mail he talks about the difference between a truly local station and the stations owned by big corporations in dealing with heavy rain storms that hit the area. He wrote of the big stations:

“These stations have their programming piped in from another community. They have also signed up for a service for their weather reporting which is recorded and sent from a thousand miles away. There were flood warnings and flash flood warnings, yet there was never a mention of that severe weather during the peak of the storms. Nobody even works in those buildings, they have an engineer come in to take meter readings and check on things a couple times per day.

“If this is the type of localism we are to expect, then the public interest is not being served by these companies.

“They can raise all the money they want for local charities and air numerous local public service announcements, but if the local citizens are not even warned about looming severe weather, what good is it?”

It’s a good question. And it goes beyond the weather forecast to whether we can have a media environment in this country that truly reflects our communities and diversity and creativity and that nourishes the civic dialogue on which our future depends. Let’s, for Heaven’s sake, treat this issue with some sense of civic sobriety and seriousness of purpose. It is in this vein that I look forward to hearing from our panels and public today. Thank you again for being here.

Response From Senator Jon Tester – Low Power FM

Dear David:

Thank you for contacting me about preserving lower power radio stations so that local, community radio stations can continue to flourish. Community radio is an integral part of small town life, and I very much understand the need to maintain this important service.

In this day and age there are so many options available that we often forget how important it is for cities and towns to have their own radio stations where they can broadcast about issues affecting their specific locale. This is especially important in the most rural parts of Montana where locally updated broadcasts serve informational and security purposes.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to expand local radio access for Montanans. Be assured that I will keep your views in mind as this issue comes to my attention in the Senate, and please do not hesitate to contact me again in the future if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Jon Tester
United States Senator

Expand Low Power FM! Senate to Vote on Low Power FM Bill on October 30th

Great news — after a comprehensive hearing on the future of the radio industry, with much discussion on low power FM radio, the Senate Commerce Committee is ready to vote on whether or not to expand low power FM radio back to your community. Call or write your Senators today to tell them bring community radio back to America’s cities and towns, by supporting Senate Bill 1675, the Local Community Radio Act of 2007!   Click here to send a letter or make a call — now! Read below to learn more!  Congress limited low power FM radio license availability, back in 2000, when big broadcasters were concerned that 100-watt radio stations, licensed to nonprofit groups, would interfere with big broadcasts, especially in big cities. But, at the order of Congress, working with the independent MITRE corporation, the FCC did a comprehensive engineering study — proving that there was plenty of room for LPFM stations in big cities, as well as small communities.   Congressman Mike Doyle and Congressman Lee Terry introduced an companion bill to the bill in the Senate — House Bill 2802 — also called the Local Community Radio Act of 2007. This bill will, if passed, expand access to community radio all across the country.   This bill would tell Congress to recognize that there is no possible interference from low power FM radio stations in America’s big cities, and to allow the FCC to grant station licenses there. It’s time to educate our legislators, and to ask them to cosponsor these vital bills. This is the first bill introduced on low power FM in the House of Representatives in many years. A companion bill has come out from Senators John McCain and Maria Cantwell in the Senate — Senate Bill 1675 — and together, we’ll be ready for our national push to bring community radio to millions more people, and thousands of communities, in the United States!Low power FM was limited — kept from America’s cities, but with proof from FCC and a $2.2 million dollar study, the time is now to expand low power FM. In 2000, the Federal Communications Commission established the Low Power FM (LPFM) radio service — noncommercial, local, low-powered radio that schools, community groups, churches, and any nonprofit could use to broadcast local information to their local community. There are about 800 LPFM stations on air all across the country – but groups in big cities who applied for these great new stations all lost out. Why?  Because the big broadcasters — represented by the National Association of Broadcasters — convinced Congress to limit low power FM to the most rural areas, claiming that little LPFM stations would interfere with big radio stations in big cities — making the radio dial unlistenable. In the law that Congress passed (the Radio Broadcast Preservation Act of 2000), they also asked the FCC to study whether or not LPFM stations would really cause interference. The FCC hired a big, independent engineering firm — the MITRE corporation — to study this potential interference — and $2.2 million later, they proved that LPFM was a great idea in big cities as well as small communities. Congressmembers Lee Terry and Mike Doyle, along with Senators John McCain and Maria Cantwell, just introduced their legislation that would bring LPFM to most of America’s big cities and to thousands of other small communities. Can you educate your legislators and let them know that new community radio in your town is one great step to building and strengthening communities across the nation?  Many groups came together to support this essential legislation, including the Alliance for Community Media, the United Methodist Office of Communications, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Future of Music Coalition, the Media Access Project, the National Hispanic Media Coalition, Free Press, the United States Public Interest Research Group, the Christian Coalition, the United Church of Christ, Office of Communication, Inc., Consumers Union, and many more organizations.  You have a chance -this week- to help your Congressmembers support legislation that could bring new, local, accountable, independent community radio to your community and to communities across the nation!   To write a letter to them now, visit http://cu.convio.net/community_radio from Consumers Union, or http://www.freepress.net/lpfm from Free Press.