*Pages 1--5 from  Microsoft Word - 57848.doc*
 STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONER  MICHAEL  J.  COPPS, 
 CONCURRING  IN  PART,  DISSENTING  IN  PART 
 Re:  2006  Quadrennial  Regulatory  Review  &  2002  Biennial  Regulatory  Review  Review  of  the  Commissions  Broadcast  Ownership  Rules  and  Other  Rules 
 Adopted  Pursuant  to  Section  202  of  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996,  Cross-Ownership  of  Broadcast  Stations  and  Newspapers,  Rules  and  Policies 
 Concerning  Multiple  Ownership  of  Radio  Broadcast  Stations  in  Local  Markets  Definition  of  Radio  Markets  (MB  Docket  Nos.  06-  121,  02-  277,  MM  Docket  Nos. 
 01-  235,  01-  317,  00-  244) 
 One  thing  we  can  probably  all  agree  on  is  the  need  to  start  this  proceeding.  It  has  been  two  years  since  the  Third  Circuit  sent  back  to  us  the  misguided  handiwork  of  the 
 previous  Commission.  We  owe  the  court  a  response  to  its  instruction  to  revisit  this  proceeding  and  to  do  it  right  this  time.  Additionally,  Congress  instructed  us  to  review  all 
 our  media  ownership  rules  in  a  quadrennial  review,  which  by  statute  must  commence  this  year  another  reason  why  we  should  proceed.  Meanwhile,  the  rush  to  consolidation 
 continues.  Since  we  last  voted  on  this  issue  three  years  ago,  there  have  been  more  than  3300  TV  and  radio  stations  that  have  had  their  assignment  and  transfer  grants  approved. 
 So  even  under  the  old  rules,  consolidation  grows,  localism  suffers  and  diversity  dwindles.  For  these  reasons,  I  agree  that  we  need  to  start  this  proceeding  now. 


 But  in  Washington,  things  arent  always  what  they  seem.  In  fact,  this  innocuous-looking  document  initiates  the  single  most  important  public  policy  debate  that  the  FCC 
 will  tackle  this  year.  Dont  let  its  slimness  fool  you.  It  means  that  this  Commission  has  begun  to  decide  on  behalf  of  the  American  people  the  future  of  our  media.  It  means 
 deciding  whether  or  not  to  accelerate  media  concentration,  step  up  the  loss  of  local  news  and  change  forever  the  critical  role  independent  newspapers  perform  for  our  Country. 


 Its  tempting  to  see  this  debate  as  important  only  to  giant  media  moguls.  Some  companies  want  the  government  to  make  the  decision  to  rush  into  more  media 
 concentration  behind  closed  doors  in  sequestered  Washington  bureaucracies.  But  I  believe  that  Americans  need  to  know  what  the  FCC  is  doing  and  that  we  have  a  solemn 
 obligation  to  encourage  public  participation  in  the  decision.  Its  important  because  if  we  make  the  wrong  decision  our  communities  and  our  country  will  suffer.  This  debate  will 
 have  far  reaching  implications  for  the  credibility  of  information  Americans  get  from  the  media  for  the  vitality  of  the  civic  dialogue  that  determines  the  direction  of  our 
 democracy  and  for  whether  TV  and  radio  offer  entertainment  that  is  creative,  uplifting  and  local  or  degrading,  banal  and  homogenized. 


 Lets  review  some  history.  We  all  know  that  in  2003  the  FCC  tried  to  eliminate  important  safeguards  that  protected  media  diversity,  localism  and  competition.  A 
 majority  of  Commissioners  approved  stunning  there  is  no  other  word  for  it  rules  that  would  allow  one  corporation  to  own,  in  a  single  community,  up  to  three  TV  stations, 
 eight  radio  stations,  the  cable  system,  the  only  daily  newspaper  and  the  biggest  Internet 
1
 2 
 provider.  How  can  it  be  good  for  our  Country  to  invest  such  sweeping  power  in  one  media  mogul  or  one  giant  corporation? 
 Three  years  ago  the  FCC  tried  to  inflict  this  massive  wave  of  further  consolidation  onto  an  already  highly  concentrated  media  industry.  The  majority  of  the  Commission 
 voted  to  do  so  without  seeking  adequate  input  from  the  American  people,  without  conducting  adequate  studies  and  without  even  revealing  to  the  country  what  the  new  rules 
 would  be  before  forcing  a  vote.  I  pleaded  with  the  majority  to  do  more  comprehensive  research,  to  ask  the  tough  questions  and  to  halt  the  blind  rush  to  more  consolidation.  My 
 pleading  fell  on  deaf  ears.  A  public,  transparent  process  was  not  what  was  wanted.  Instead,  our  far-  reaching  review  of  critical  media  concentration  protections  was  run  as  a 
 classic  inside-  the-  Beltway  process  with  too  little  outreach  from  the  Commission  and  too  little  opportunity  for  public  participation. 


 The  Commissions  stealth  process  three  years  ago  and  the  ownership  rules  that  resulted  from  it  galvanized  Americans  all  across  this  country.  In  response,  millions  of 
 Americans  from  right  and  left,  Republican  and  Democrat,  concerned  parents,  creative  artists,  religious  leaders,  independent  businesses,  civil  rights  activists  and  labor 
 organizations  united  to  protest  the  Commissions  actions.  Senators  and  members  of  Congress  from  both  parties  and  from  all  parts  of  the  country  called  for  those  rules  to  be 
 overturned.  Commissioner  Adelstein  and  I  traveled  the  country  attending  hearings  on  this  issue.  On  media  consolidation,  there  are  no  red  or  blue  states  there  is  only  an  all-American, 
 grassroots  issue  about  what  government  proposes  to  do  to  the  peoples  airwaves.  The  Senate  voted  twice  to  overturn  the  rules  and  the  House,  it  was  clear  to  all, 
 would  have  done  so  if  permitted  to  vote.  In  time,  the  court  held  that  the  FCCs  ownership  rules  were  legally  and  procedurally  flawed,  sending  them  back  to  the  FCC  to 
 begin  again,  which  brings  us  to  today. 
 All  of  that  is  wrapped  up  in  this  little  document.  Dont  underestimate  it.  We  have  a  choice  to  make.  Will  we  repeat  the  mistakes  of  the  past?  Or  will  we  work  for  a  process 
 and  an  outcome  that  respect  the  millions  of  Americans  that  care  deeply  about  their  communities  media  and  what  their  kids  watch,  hear  and  read?  Well  soon  know  what 
 choice  the  FCC  makes.  Well  undoubtedly  have  some  hearings  and  some  research  this  time  I  think  at  least  that  part  of  the  lesson  has  been  learned.  But  Americans  know  the 
 difference  between  a  fig  leaf  and  a  real  commitment. 
 If  you  see  hearings  in  your  hometown,  instead  of  a  just  a  few  preselected  cities,  youll  know.  If  you  see  FCC  Commissioners  come  to  listen  to  your  point  of  view 
 personally,  instead  of  expecting  you  to  hire  a  $500  an  hour  lobbyist  to  get  heard,  youll  know.  If  the  FCC  contracts  for  independent,  well-  funded  studies  and  seeks  public 
 comment  on  those  studies,  instead  of  buying  a  few-  half  hearted,  time-  crunched  papers  that  slide  into  the  record  without  comment,  youll  know.  And,  critically,  if  the  FCC 
 shows  you  the  specific  rules  that  will  reshape  the  American  media  before  forcing  a  vote,  instead  of  rushing  from  this  short  document  to  a  final  vote,  youll  know. 
2
 5 
 to  argue  that  many  of  the  nations  broadcast  licenses  were  given  away  decades  ago  when  women  and  people  of  color  were  unlikely  to  obtain  them.  Those  sins  of  omission  need  to 
 be  excised  and  new  strategies  to  encourage  diversity  in  ownership  and  jobs  and  programming  need  to  be  put  in  place.  While  people  of  color  make  up  over  30%  of  our 
 population,  they  own  only  4.2%  of  the  nations  radio  stations  and  1.5%  of  the  nations  TV  stations!  More  recent  statistics  suggest  that  even  these  numbers  are  in  free  fall.  I 
 believe  the  ownership  of  our  media  should  look  more  like  the  diversity  of  our  people.  But  if  all  the  Commission  does  is  ask  a  few  pat  questions  and  then  sweep  this  issue  under 
 the  rug  one  more  time,  we  are  not  laying  the  groundwork  for  progress. 
 Let  me  conclude  with  a  challenge  to  our  nations  media  to  take  up  this  issue,  highlight  it,  give  it  the  attention  it  merits,  inform  the  debate  and  spark  a  national 
 conversation  on  these  issues  all  across  this  broad  land  of  ours.  With  relatively  few  exceptions,  the  media  big  media  especially  failed  the  test  last  time,  and  failed  it  badly. 
 I  hope  that  was  not  because  some  very  important  media  enterprises  have  financial  interests  riding  on  the  outcome  of  the  ownership  proceeding.  Major  media  companies  are 
 at  pains  to  assure  us  their  newsgathering  operations  are  independent  of  their  corporate  interests.  Here  is  an  excellent  opportunity  to  test  that  proposition.  Because  ignoring  the 
 issue  of  media  concentration  is  not  going  to  make  it  go  away. 
 Launching  this  proceeding  is  the  easy  part.  Now  comes  the  hard  work.  So  much  hangs  in  the  balance.  If  we  are  serious  about  it  and  do  not  treat  this  proceeding  as 
 business-  as-  usual,  if  we  approach  these  issues  with  receptivity  on  all  sides  to  hard  facts  and  compelling  evidence  and  if  we  reach  out  really  reach  out  to  people  all  across  this 
 land,  I  believe  the  Commission  can  arrive  at  a  decision  that  will  withstand  judicial  and  Congressional  scrutiny  and  more  importantly,  the  scrutiny  of  the  American  people.  I  for 
 one  am  ready  to  roll  up  my  sleeves  and  work  with  my  colleagues  to  get  the  job  done  and  done  right  this  time.  The  American  people  have  a  right  to  expect  more  from  this 
 Commission  than  they  got  from  the  previous  one. 
5