*Pages 1--3 from  Microsoft Word - 24436.doc*
 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    its  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  FCCs  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  wont  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  todays  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. 


 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. 
1
 2 
 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  Commissions  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  FCCs  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. 
2
 3 
 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. 
3