FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: News Media contacts:

June 2, 2003 Catherine Bohigian at (202) 418-2100

Emily Willeford at (202) 418-2100

**STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER KEVIN J. MARTIN\
ON BIENNIAL REVIEW OF BROADCAST OWERNSHIP RULES**

First, I want to congratulate Chairman Powell for his leadership on this
issue. He has long advocated his vision for a new media ownership
framework. Through his hard work and dedication, we are bringing this
proceeding to a close and will finally adopt these proposed new rules.

I also commend Commissioners Copps and Adelstein for their tireless
efforts in reaching out to the public, informing them of the issues, and
encouraging them to participate in the process. While I ultimately
disagree with them on the course of action the Commission should take, I
appreciate and respect the contribution they have made to this debate.

The decision we make today is as difficult as it is critical. The media
touches almost every aspect of our lives. We are dependent on it for our
news, our information, and our entertainment. Indeed, the opportunity to
express diverse viewpoints lies at the heart of our democracy. In fact,
I agree with many of the concerns about consolidation and preservation
of diversity that have been expressed by my colleagues this morning.

I also believe, however, that the FCC must respond to congressional and
judicial calls to update our rules for the 21^st^ century. We are under
a legal mandate to review our broadcast ownership rules and determine
whether they are still "necessary" in today's marketplace. If they are
not, we must repeal or modify the rules. And according to the courts,
this is an obligation that the Commission did not take sufficiently
seriously in the past. Indeed, the courts have overturned the last three
broadcast ownership rules they reviewed because the Commission did not
sufficiently take into account new voices present in the current
marketplace.

Therefore, we must analyze today's marketplace. As Congress anticipated
and as the courts have ordered us to recognize, the media marketplace is
not stagnant. Factors such as rapidly improving technology and
innovation have contributed to a media landscape that is continually
evolving---and considerably different from the one when most of the
broadcast ownership rules were first adopted. I recall having extremely
limited choices on our family television set when I was growing up.
There was no cable. There was no satellite. Even with our roof antenna,
we received just five channels---the three major networks, one
independent, and one public television station. Our national news was
delivered to us by the three networks for one-half hour, straight from
New York City, at the same time every evening. No CNN, FOX, MSNBC, or
CNBC. Local news was broadcast by the local stations just once at 6:00
and once at 11:00. And at that time, news from 24 hour local cable
channels was far off on the horizon.

While my parents still live in the same house, they now have access to
seven broadcast networks, hundreds of digital cable channels (including
a local cable news channel), many more radio stations, and thousands of
sites on the Internet. Indeed, people today have access to more
information from more diverse sources than at any time in our history.

Clearly, the media marketplace has changed significantly since our media
ownership rules were first adopted. Yet what has *not* changed is the
importance of the three principles our original rules were intended to
promote: competition, localism, and diversity. Fundamentally, our rules
must still promote competition, localism, and diversity to nourish a
vibrant media marketplace.

I am particularly pleased that, for the first time in 28 years, the
Order we adopt today finally concludes a review of the
newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule, which has prohibited a company
from owning a newspaper and broadcast station in the same market.
Adopted in an era with little cable penetration, no local cable news
channels, few broadcast stations, and no Internet, the rule was based on
a market structure that bears almost no resemblance to the current
environment. Indeed, because of these marketplace changes, we have
revised all our other media rules at least once since the ban's
adoption. As a result, newspapers have been the *only* media entities
prohibited from owning a broadcast station in the markets they serve,
regardless of how large the market was or how many newspapers or
broadcast stations were present. For example, in the large markets, two
broadcast television stations have been permitted to combine and could
own up to six radio stations, as well. Yet, newspapers remained
prohibited from owning even a single radio station. Today we correct
this imbalance, finally giving newspapers the same opportunities other
media entities enjoy in medium and large markets. In so doing, we
recognize that newspaper/broadcast combinations may result in a
significant increase in the production of local news and current
affairs, as well as an improvement in the quality of programming
provided to their communities.

I also am pleased that, where the Commission determines that existing
rules should be modified, we have crafted simple, clear rules. I remain
skeptical of overly complicated mathematical formulas and the
uncertainty they can beget in the marketplace.

I appreciate the staff's hard work in developing a diversity index, and
I found much of their analysis helpful in informing us of general
markets trends. I also appreciate my colleagues' recognition that the
diversity index cannot be used in particular transactions. A concept as
complex as diversity cannot be quantified with mathematical precision.

Finally, I note that the decision regarding the national ownership cap
was particularly difficult. The record contained strong evidence on both
sides of this issue. I believe the affiliates made a compelling case as
to why a national limit needs to be retained. I agree that a balance
between the affiliates and the networks is important to maintaining
localism, and thus I did not support proposals in the record to
eliminate the cap altogether. Yet, the networks also made persuasive
arguments that a 35% cap is not necessary---in particular, that we do
not have sufficient evidence to conclude that the two networks currently
reaching over 40% of the country have caused actual and significant harm
today.

The Order we adopt today attempts to respond to the courts' admonitions
and our Congressional mandate by recognizing the availability of these
new media outlets, evaluating their impact on our core goals, and
modifying our rules as appropriate.

\# \# \#