Newsroom: Media Ownership

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Washington, DC— The proposal to relax the limit on ownership of a newspaper and a TV station in the same market put forth by the Federal Communications Commission's Chairman Martin will not serve the public interest because of procedural problems, flawed data gathering, and ambiguous criteria that would subject mergers to a case-by-case review, according to comments filed with the FCC by Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, and Free Press.

The proposal's ambiguity leaves it nearly impossible to tell exactly which mergers would be allowed and which mergers would be disallowed because the criteria by which mergers would be evaluated are completely undefined. This leaves mergers subject to a case-by-case review, allowing media owners to propose any merger they want.

The FCC Commissioners go before the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee today and a final vote on the media ownership proposal at the FCC is scheduled for December 18, 2007.

"Fundamental flaws in the Commission's data gathering, administrative procedures, and ambiguities make it impossible for us to see how this proposal could promote diversity, competition, and meaningful local and minority programming opportunities in the public interest," said Gene Kimmelman, Vice President of Federal and International Affairs for Consumers Union.

Aside from the ambiguity in language, the process to draft and publicly release the proposal was done outside the normal channels of agency procedure, publicizing the proposal through a press release and an Op-Ed in the New York Times. The proposal and the time table for public comment were not conducted using standard Commission process, nor were they published in the Federal Register or put out on Public Notice.

"We believe this process is fundamentally inadequate and runs at cross-purposes with the public interest as a simple matter of proper review and consideration," reads a letter sent to the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee from the consumer groups. "The process used to put the proposal out can in no way replace a proper opportunity to comment on an actual proposed rule. Indeed, the act of the Chairman putting out a proposed rule in an Op-Ed rather than in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking smacks of abuse of administrative process, which has typified this proceeding for the past five years," says the letter.

"The current Martin plan will not serve the public interest or meet minimum legal fairness requirements for FCC rules,"added Kimmelman. We therefore call on Congress to make sure that the FCC addresses all of these concerns before promulgating new media ownership rules."

Click here to read consumer group's comments to the FCC on the Martin plan.

Contact: Jennifer Fuson 202-462-6262

-30-