**Opening Remarks by Commissioner Kevin J. Martin**

Forum On Media Ownership\
Columbia Law School, Kernochan Center for Law, Media, and the Arts,
School

January 16, 2003

Good morning, and thank you for inviting me to participate in this
discussion. I believe there is a tremendous benefit to getting outside
the "Beltway" and actually talking to and, more importantly, hearing
from citizens around the country, as well as members of the industry, to
get your thoughts on the subject of media ownership.

I understand many of you here today are concerned about the
consolidation that has occurred in the media to date, as well as what
could occur in the future. I share your concerns. Every one of us is
dependent on the media -- it's how we get our news, information, and
entertainment. Indeed, the opportunity to express diverse viewpoints
lies at the heart of our democratic system. The decisions the FCC makes
with respect to media ownership will be important to sustaining that
opportunity and our democracy, and they will affect each of us on a
daily, personal basis.

Our media ownership rules may even have an impact on some of the FCC's
other responsibilities and obligations. For example, there seems to be
an increasing concern about the rise of coarse television programming
today. I wonder if this trend is related to some of the concerns about
media concentration. Are executives more willing to put on questionable
programming when they know they won't see you and your family at the
local grocery store tonight, at the game on Saturday, or at church on
Sunday? Commissioner Copps, in particular, deserves credit for raising
these questions and keeping us mindful of these concerns.

The existing media ownership rules were crafted to promote three
principles: competition, diversity, and localism. While the media
marketplace may have changed since those rules were first adopted, our
need to promote these core values has not. I remain committed to doing
everything I can to ensure that the FCC adopts ownership rules that
protect competition, diversity, and localism in today's media
environment.

I recognize, however, that Congress instructed us to review our media
ownership rules every two years to make sure they are still necessary.
It is our fulfillment of this mandate that brings us together today. As
we debate these rules, we must do so mindful of recent court action. As
you know, the courts have been looking at our rules with increasing
scrutiny, striking the rules down when the Commission has not adequately
justified their retention. In fact, the D.C. Circuit has struck the last
five media ownership rules it has reviewed.[^1] In most of these cases,
the court expressly chastised the Commission for failing to consider the
plethora of new voices out there today.

With these recent cases in mind, the Chairman should be commended, not
condemned, for initiating our proceeding and attempting to justify our
rules. Without his actions, his leadership, and our deliberative
process, we could have been left with no rules at all. This is because
the courts have insisted that we recognize that the media landscape has
changed dramatically since most of the broadcast ownership rules were
first enacted.

The number of broadcast networks has doubled. And we now have
*non*-broadcast networks; there are 230 national cable programming
networks and more than 50 premium networks that regularly rival the
broadcast networks in audience share. Their success, naturally, is due
to the introduction and widespread popularity of multichannel video
programming distributors. Indeed, today over 85% of households receive
their video programming via satellite or cable. Finally, the advent of
the Internet has dramatically changed how people send and receive
information. It now represents a significant outlet for diverse views,
as well as an important source of news and information to consumers.

One rule in particular has not been reviewed since these changes have
taken place: the prohibition against owning a newspaper and broadcast
station in the same market. Today, newspapers are treated differently
from all other forms of business that disperse information -- they alone
are *prohibited* from ownership of a broadcast station, even in the
largest markets. Even two broadcast television stations are generally
permitted to combine in large markets.

The Commission stated seven years ago (and several times since) that
this rule might need modifying. But after three notices, it has yet to
act. At a minimum, I think we should act now to provide broadcast
stations and newspapers the same opportunity to combine that two
television stations now have in the largest markets, as long as a
significant number of independent voices remain in the marketplace.

On the other hand, the introduction of new voices into the marketplace
does not mean that all of our limits need to be relaxed, or that
consolidation is not a concern. Indeed, I believe that the FCC needs to
be mindful of unintended consequences from any changes in our rules. For
example, many people have expressed concern about the increased
consolidation that has occurred in local radio. Some of this
consolidation may actually be due to the Commission's definition of a
market rather than the numerical limits set by Congress.

For instance, there are towns in Texas in which one company owns 7 of
the 8 stations licensed to that town. But to be able to own seven
stations in a market, Congress said there should be at least 30 other
stations. Yet, the owner purchased the 7 stations in compliance with our
rules because too often our rules treat small towns like big markets.
The problem lies in the FCC's definition of a "market," and in an
obscure counting method for determining how many stations in a market
one entity owns. We have raised both these issues in the current
proceeding, and we need to take this opportunity to address them.

Clearly, there are no easy answers to the task we confront. And we are
fully aware of how central the decisions we make will be to the lives of
many of you. Thus, I welcome your insights, and look forward to hearing
from you, both today and in the months to come.

[^1]: These are the cable/broadcast cross-ownership rule, the national
    television limit, the local television limit, the cable horizontal
    limit, and the cable channel occupancy limit.