Stuck in the middle

0

If anybody out there thinks FCC Chairman Kevin Martin got it exactly right with his proposal for a limited rollback of cross-ownership restrictions, they don’t seem to be talking. There is, however, no shortage of people who think he went too far or didn’t go far enough. Take a look under the click.


Gannett Company, which owns many newspapers and 23 television stations, opined, "Gannett agrees the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership ban must be changed, but today’s proposed rule is far too limited and does not reflect the realities of the marketplace." This position was reiterated by Newspaper Association of America honcho John Sturm, who said, "The Chairman’s proposed solution to the onerous, decades-old newspaper/broadcast cross ownership ban is extremely limited and does not go nearly far enough to deal with the issues that he himself raises in his statement and in the New York Times today, however well-intentioned. The fundamental issues he raises concerning the vitality of newspapers and assuring that local news remains available to the public in print and in broadcast are not confined to the top-20 markets."

Watchdog Free had a somewhat different take. Noting Martin’s concern for struggling print media, it said, "Oh, the poor, poor newspaper industry. They have fallen from average profit margins of 30% to around 20% today — still dramatically higher than the vast majority of other industries. Martin’s rationale is the best bluff he can offer up while he does the bidding of media giants like Tribune Company and its new owner Sam Zell." Maria Cantwell (D-WA) added, "Again and again, Chairman Martin has attempted to ram through rules that will encourage media concentration despite the public’s loud and clear opposition. I’m disappointed but unsurprised that after claiming the hearings were going to be a critical part of the FCC’s process, and giving the public merely a week’s notice on the hearing, he has released a proposal that ignores the over nine hours of testimony from Washingtonians barely 72 hours later..If Congress has to act to stop media consolidation, we will."

Cons and cons

Gannett Company, which owns many newspapers and 23 television stations, opined, "Gannett agrees the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership ban must be changed, but today’s proposed rule is far too limited and does not reflect the realities of the marketplace."

This position was reiterated by Newspaper Association of America honcho John Sturm, who said, "The Chairman’s proposed solution to the onerous, decades-old newspaper/broadcast cross ownership ban is extremely limited and does not go nearly far enough to deal with the issues that he himself raises in his statement and in the New York Times today, however well-intentioned. The fundamental issues he raises concerning the vitality of newspapers and assuring that local news remains available to the public in print and in broadcast are not confined to the top-20 markets."

Watchdog Free had a somewhat different take. Noting Martin’s concern for struggling print media, it said, "Oh, the poor, poor newspaper industry. They have fallen from average profit margins of 30% to around 20% today — still dramatically higher than the vast majority of other industries. Martin’s rationale is the best bluff he can offer up while he does the bidding of media giants like Tribune Company and its new owner Sam Zell."

Maria Cantwell (D-WA) added, "Again and again, Chairman Martin has attempted to ram through rules that will encourage media concentration despite the public’s loud and clear opposition. I’m disappointed but unsurprised that after claiming the hearings were going to be a critical part of the FCC’s process, and giving the public merely a week’s notice on the hearing, he has released a proposal that ignores the over nine hours of testimony from Washingtonians barely 72 hours later…If Congress has to act to stop media consolidation, we will."

RBR/TVBR observation: Most inside-the-Beltway actions worthy of comment attract both pros and cons. Martin has managed the feat of attracting cons and cons, but seems to be a little short on the pro side. That is one of the special attributes of communications issues. Just ask the NAB, which often gets stuck in the middle of internecine warfare among its constituents, who have many goals in common but a seemingly equal number of concerns that pit one subgroup against another. Although we knew Martin’s proposal would have detractors, we actually thought for a few moments yesterday that the spirit of compromise seemingly built into Martin’s proposal would turn a hot ongoing story into a quieter, cooler affair. It seems the regulatory climate will remain deep in the hottest equatorial zone. We suggest that Martin begin wearing a rhetorical pith helmet.