FCC on ‘Verge of Making a Bad Situation Worse,’ Say an Independent Senator and a Former FCC Member

Dec 19, 2012  •  Post A Comment

"The Federal Communications Commission may be on the verge of making a bad situation worse. It is considering a rule change that would clear the way for even more media consolidation. All Americans should be deeply concerned."

So write Sen. Bernie Sanders (Ind.-Vermont) and former FCC Commissioner Michael Copps in an opinion piece on the Politico website

The rule change under consideration involves cross-ownership of media properties. Sanders and Copps write that the last time this rule was debated was in 2007, and then-Senator Barack Obama was against the change.

They add: "Now the FCC is at it again. The commission’s latest proposal would allow more media consolidation by eliminating a ban on cross-ownership in the top 20 media markets. The FCC changes would allow one corporation to own a major newspaper, two television stations and up to eight radio stations, and to provide Internet service all in one market. That would mean fewer voices, less local control and more corporate media consolidation. Although the proposed FCC rule would retain a ‘presumption’ against newspaper ownership by a top-four television station owner in a given market, there is an escape hatch that lets the FCC waive that presumption. Moreover, the new rule would assume a presumption in favor of cross-ownership of major newspapers by television station owners outside of the top four, which means in some cases the new rules would actually favor further consolidation."

To read the entire argument why Sanders and Copps are against the rule change, we urge you to click on the link above.

One Comment

  1. What does anyone expect? The FCC (like almost every other government agency) is about control, so it’s win/win for the FCC and big media.
    For the FCC because there are fewer parties to control and therefore the easier it is to exert control.
    For big media because it allows for easier manipulation and influence of the agency.
    The only parties this is bad for are small media competitors and the public.
    And who listens to them?

Leave a Reply to John Cancel Reply

Email (will not be published)