*Pages 1--8 from  Microsoft Word - 38113*
 1 
 REMARKS  OF  MICHAEL  J.  COPPS,  COMMISSIONER 
 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION  FUTURE  OF  MUSIC  COALITION  POLICY  SUMMIT 
 WASHINGTON,  DC  MAY  3,  2004 


 What  a  great  way  to  start  the  week!  Thank  you  for  having  me  over.  Thank  you  for  the  kind  introduction.  And  thank  you  for  being  here  and  for  your  involvement  with 
 issues  that  are  so  very  critical  to  the  future  of  our  country.  As  I  look  around  this  room,  I  see  people  who  labored  mightily  in  the  battle  against  more  media  consolidation 
 otherwise  known  as  the  battle  for  media  democracy.  The  Future  of  Music  Coalition  under  the  leadership  of  Jenny  Toomey  and  Michael  Bracy  has  been  all  over  this  issue 
 from  Day  One,  youre  still  on  the  case,  and  when  the  dust  settles,  I  do  believe  youll  be  enjoying  the  sweet  smell  of  success.  So  I  jumped  at  the  chance  to  come  over  here  this 
 morning  to  thank  you  for  the  hard  work  and  creative  thought  that  so  many  of  you  have  put  into  the  media  consolidation  fight. 


 Of  course,  no  one  should  have  been  surprised  about  musicians  and  other  creative  artists  joining  the  fight  for  good,  progressive  media  policy.  History  records  that  creative 
 artists  have  often  been  leaders  for  progressive  change  and  democracy  in  times  of  great  social  and  political  testing,  and  their  music  not  only  influenced  a  moment  in  the  past  but 
 still  reaches  out  to  us  down  the  corridors  of  the  passing  years.  In  this  present  struggle  over  the  future  of  the  media,  groups  such  as  the  Future  of  Music  Coalition,  the  Recording 
 Artists  Coalition,  AFTRA,  the  American  Federation  of  Musicians,  and  the  Recording  Academy  weighed  in  frequently  and  effectively  with  their  concerns  about  spiraling  media 
 concentration.  Over  4000  recording  artists  sent  us  a  letter  opposing  media  concentration.  In  addition  to  platinum  selling  artists,  many  local  musicians  have  stood  up,  spoken  out, 
 filed  comments  and  otherwise  gone  on  the  record  to  highlight  the  dangers  of  media  concentration. 


 And  then  there  was  the  Tell  Us  the  Truth  Tour!  What  an  experience  that  was!  I  got  to  be  up  on  stage  in  Madison,  Wisconsin  where  a  lot  of  you  also  were  on  that 
 wonderful  night  last  November  7  as  the  tour  played  its  first  concert.  What  a  debt  of  gratitude  we  owe  to  those  incredibly  busy  artists  who  gave  up  their  time  and  resources  to 
 raise  public  awareness  of  an  issue  that  Big  Media  was  doing  its  best  to  hide  from  the  American  people.  These  musicians  werent  doing  it  for  money  or  because  it  would 
 advance  their  careers.  No  they  volunteered  because  they  wanted  to  awaken  the  country  to  an  issue  that  affected  not  only  them  and  their  fellow  artists,  but  affects  each  of  us  as 
 citizens.  Everywhere  the  tour  went,  these  committed  artists  not  only  gave  us  the  great  gift  of  their  music  but  they  held  press  conferences,  they  discussed  media  concentration, 
 and  they  performed  a  tremendous  public  service.  So,  I  want  to  thank  once  again  Billy  Bragg,  Steve  Earle,  Lester  Chambers,  Tom  Morello,  Mike  Mills,  Boots  Riley,  Jill  Sobule, 
 Janeane  Garofalo,  Peter  Jenner  and  everyone  else  involved  in  that  truly  magical  tour. 
1
 2 
 It  took  a  lot  of  people  to  bring  this  issue  to  the  forefront  of  the  nations  consciousness.  It  took  people  raising  their  voices  in  song,  in  protest,  in  books  and 
 pamphlets,  in  whatever  media  and  whatever  forum  they  could  manage  to  penetrate,  to  get  this  issue  front-  and-  center  and  to  force  the  issue  of  media  concentration  outside  the  pages 
 of  The  Federal  Register  and  into  the  mainstream  of  America.  Working  together,  you  succeeded  in  moving  this  issue  outside  the  Beltway  and  out  onto  the  highways  and 
 byways  leading  into  every  city,  town  and  village  in  America.  You  made  a  difference.  What  a  difference  you  made! 


 Because  of  the  efforts  made  by  you  and  so  many  like-  minded  groups  and  individuals,  millions  of  Americans  now  understand  that  media  concentration  is  not  a 
 threat  --  it  is  a  reality.  Because  of  your  efforts,  it  is  no  longer  insider  information  that  Big  Media  conglomerates  own  not  only  television  and  radio  stations,  but  newspapers  and 
 cable  channels  and  cable  networks  and  production  studios  and  music  promotion  and  advertising  firms  and  even  those  hallowed  portals  of  the  Internet  that  were  supposed  to 
 be  forever  free.  Because  of  your  efforts,  there  is  the  growing  realization  that  having  a  few  powerful  masters  controlling  the  production  of  what  we  see  and  hear  and  read,  as 
 well  as  controlling  its  distribution,  is  inimical  truly  inimical  to  the  interests  of  us  all.  Its  just  plain  bad  for  America. 


 Whats  good  for  America  is  the  kind  of  citizen  action  you  became  part  of.  Across  the  political  and  cultural  spectrum,  people  banded  together  in  a  common  cause.  In  these 
 times  when  so  many  issues  divide  us,  you  participated  in  mobilizing  an  unprecedented  army    a  coalition  of  left  and  right,  liberals  and  conservatives,  Democrats  and 
 Republicans,  who  understood  the  dangers  of  too  much  concentration  and  who  went  to  work  to  do  something  about  it.  Concerned  parents  and  creative  artists,  religious  leaders, 
 civil  rights  activists,  labor  organizations,  young  people,  old  people,  broadcasters  and  many,  many  others  united  on  this  issue.  You  made  it  a  national  issue. 


 So  you  have  already  made  a  difference.  Part  of  that  difference  is  to  be  seen  over  at  the  FCC.  The  Commission  now  must  explain  its  acts  to  a  far  more  informed  and 
 involved  citizenry  than  it  did  just  a  year  ago.  The  obscurity  of  this  issue  that  Big  Media  and  some  at  the  Commission  relied  on  in  the  past  is  gone  forever.  Another  part  of  the 
 difference  you  made  can  be  seen  up  on  Capitol  Hill,  where  long-  time  champions  of  good  media  policy  found  themselves  joined  by  many  more  colleagues  than  they  ever  expected. 
 The  U.  S.  Senate  has  voted  to  overturn  the  FCC  decision  in  its  entirety  and  over  200  Members  of  the  House  of  Representatives  have  asked  the  House  Leadership  for 
 permission  to  vote  on  the  same  resolution  of  disapproval.  They  were  denied  that  vote  a  denial  of  democracy  that  should  worry  us  all.  And  part  of  the  difference  you  made  can  be 
 seen  in  the  courts  because  a  united  coalition  took  one  look  at  those  god-  awful  rules  that  the  Commission  majority  passed  on  June  2  and  marched  them  right  into  court,  a  court 
 which  immediately  stayed  the  new  rules,  heard  arguments  and  is  now  writing  a  decision  on  what  to  do  about  it. 


 No  question,  then,  that  you  made  a  difference  and  congratulations  are  in  order.  But  now,  my  friends,  we  must  move  beyond  congratulation  to  challenge.  This  is 
2
 3 
 demonstrably  not  the  time  to  slow  down.  Big  Media,  on  its  side,  isnt  slowing  down;  neither  should  you.  This  is  the  best  opportunity  this  country  will  have,  perhaps  for  years, 
 to  do  something  about  media  concentration  and  to  make  sure  the  publics  airwaves  serve  the  publics  interest.  So  dont  permit  yourself  the  luxury  of  sitting  back.  Dont  accept 
 anyones  counsel  of  caution  or  assurances  that  this  problem  can  be  settled  sometime  later  on.  It  needs  to  be  fixed  now.  And  if  its  not  fixed  now,  the  consolidation  genie  will  be 
 out  of  the  bottle  with  an  energy  the  likes  of  which  we  have  never  seen  and  that  genie  is  hungry  to  complete  every  kind  of  merger,  acquisition  and  swap  imaginable.  It  could 
 happen  easier  than  you  think.  It  will  happen  without  your  vigilance  and  without  your  continued  involvement. 


 You  folks  in  music  bring  a  special  perspective  to  the  Big  Media  debate.  Because,  in  addition  to  all  those  other  things  that  Big  Media  increasingly  owns,  it  increasingly 
 owns  the  creativity  that  goes  into  our  mass  media.  Think  about  that.  They  own  the  distribution,  they  own  the  production  and,  more  and  more  they  are  getting  hammerlock 
 control  on  creativity  itself.  Anything  with  the  name  independent  on  it  seems  to  be  on  the  endangered  species  list.  Thats  why  Id  like  to  see  some  sort  of  set-  aside,  like  25- 
 35%  of  prime-  time  hours,  for  independent  creators  and  producers.  Theres  a  lot  more  creativity  and  genius  out  there  across  America  that  our  media  should  be  reflecting  than 
 the  lowest  common  denominator  entertainment  from  Madison  Avenue  that  currently  infuses  so  much  of  the  programming  we  see  and  hear.  More  independent  programs 
 would  also  be  a  boon  to  localism,  diversity  and  competition  those  three  essential  building  blocks  for  a  healthy  and  dynamic  media  environment,  currently  all  under  the 
 gun.  Localism,  competition  and  diversity,  by  the  way,  arent  luxuries,  nice  things  to  have  if  we  can  afford  them.  They  are  necessities  for  a  thriving  American  society  and  we  cant 
 afford  not  to  have  them.  They  are  essential  for  the  quality  of  entertainment  our  citizens  enjoy.  And  they  are  essential  for  the  vitality  of  Americas  civic  dialogue.  We  need  them 
 across  our  entire  media  landscape.  Your  FCC  ought  to  be  nourishing  these  all-  American  traits,  not  subverting  them. 


 What  I  see  at  this  particular  Commission  is  a  tectonic  shift  in  policy-  making  across  the  whole  wide  range  of  media  and  telecommunications  issues  that  are  under  our 
 jurisdiction.  It  is  a  shift  in  decidedly  the  wrong  direction.  We  are  endangering  competition  by  putting  too  much  power  into  the  hands  of  too  few  people.  We  are 
 pushing  aside  local  creativity,  talent  and  production  and  replacing  them  with  culturally  stultifying  news,  information  and  entertainment  homogenization.  In  the  process,  my 
 friends,  the  FCC  is  short-  changing  its  responsibility  to  protect  the  public  interest. 
 The  public  interest  some  claim  its  unworkable,  even  unknowable.  Forget  about  it  its  the  angel  that  never  appears.  Yet  there  it  is,  appearing  some  110  times  in  our 
 enabling  telecommunications  statute,  put  there  to  be  our  lodestar.  And  all  these  qualities  I  have  been  talking  about  are  exactly  what  the  public  interest  is. 


 I  know  that  many  of  you  are  feeling  the  effects  of  consolidation  as  you  seek  to  get  your  creative  product  out  to  a  wide  audience.  You  know  better  than  I  what  happens  when 
 distribution  channels  are  put  beyond  your  reach.  Radio  deregulation  gives  us  powerful 
3
 4 
 lessons.  The  loosening  of  ownership  caps  and  limits  eight  years  ago  created  real  problems  in  radio,  most  experts  agree.  Now,  arguably,  consolidation  also  created  some 
 economies  and  efficiencies  that  allowed  broadcast  media  companies  to  operate  more  profitably  and  may  even  have  kept  some  stations  from  going  dark  and  depriving 
 communities  of  service.  And  thats  fine.  Thats  why  many  Congressmen  and  Senators  voted  like  they  did.  But  the  consolidation  that  ensued  went  far  beyond  what  anyone 
 expected,  leading  to  outrageous  concentrations  of  social,  cultural  and  political  influence.  Conglomerates  now  own  dozens,  even  hundreds    in  one  case  more  than  a  thousand   
 radio  stations  all  across  the  country.  Many  markets  are  oligopolies  at  best.  Competition  in  many  towns  has  become  non-  existent  as  a  few  companies  --  in  some  cases  a  single 
 company  --  bought  up  virtually  every  station  in  the  market.  More  and  more  programming  seems  to  originate  hundreds  of  miles  removed  from  listeners  and  their 
 communities.  And  we  know  there  are  one-  third  fewer  radio  station  owners  than  there  were  before  these  protections  were  eliminated.  And  minority  ownership  is  on  the  way  to 
 becoming  an  historical  curiosity. 
 Respected  media  watchers  argue  that  this  radio  concentration  has  led  to  less  coverage  of  local  news  and  less  public  interest  programming.  When  it  comes  to 


 entertainment,  you  good  folks  in  the  Future  of  Music  Coalition  found  in  your  multi-  year  study  an  homogenization  of  music  crowding  out  local  and  regional  talent.  Others  point 
 out  that  radio  serves  now  more  to  advertise  the  products  of  vertically  integrated  conglomerates  than  to  entertain  Americans  with  the  best  and  most  original  programming. 


 Rather  than  learn  the  lessons  of  radio  concentration,  the  FCC  plunged  ahead  and  voted  to  visit  this  policy  of  Clear  Channelization  on  the  rest  of  our  media.  And  if  those 
 rules  are  allowed  to  go  into  effect,  a  single  company  will  be  able  to  own  up  to  three  TV  stations,  eight  radio  stations,  the  already  monopolistic  newspaper,  the  cable  system  and 
 potentially  the  portals  of  the  Internet  in  the  larger  markets.  The  big  networks  will  be  permitted  to  buy  up  even  more  local  TV  stations  than  they  already  have  to  cover 
 potentially  up  to  90  percent  of  the  market.  Newspaper-  broadcast  cross  ownership  would  be  acceptable  in  179  of  our  210  media  markets,  and  TV  duopolies  would  receive  the 
 green  light  in  up  to  162  markets.  Its  breath-  taking. 
 At  issue  in  the  Commissions  dismal  decision  of  last  June  is  how  Americas  TV,  radio,  newspapers  and  even  the  Internet  are  going  to  look  for  years  to  come.  Who  is 
 going  to  control  the  media?  How  many  --  or  rather,  how  few  --  companies?  And  for  what  purposes?  How  will  we  assure  quality  TV  and  music  instead  of  being  so  often  fed  a 
 diet  of  pre-  canned,  nationalized  fare  aimed  primarily  at  selling  products?  Will  we  still  be  able  to  get  real  local  news  and  clashing  points  of  view  so  we  can  make  up  our  own  minds 
 on  the  issues  of  the  day?  The  issues  here  boil  down  to  whether  a  few  large  conglomerates  will  be  ceded  content  control  over  our  music,  entertainment  and 
 information;  gatekeeper  control  over  the  civil  dialogue  of  our  country;  and  veto  power  over  the  majority  of  what  we  and  our  families  watch,  hear  and  read.  These  are  incredibly 
 huge  stakes. 
 What  you  have  to  also  remember  is  that  this  is  only  the  latest,  most  radical  step  in  a  twenty-  year  history  of  undermining  the  public  interest.  The  first  great  wave  hit  in  the 
4
 5 
 1980s,  when  the  guiding  rationale  at  the  Commission  was  that  television  is  nothing  more  than  a  toaster  with  pictures.  Well,  that  Commission  burned  the  toast.  And  this  present 
 Commission  is  upping  the  toasters  amps.  Step  by  step,  rule  by  rule,  bit  by  bit,  we  have  allowed  the  dismantling  of  public  interest  protections  and  flashed  the  green  light  to  the 
 forces  of  consolidation,  until  now  a  handful  of  giant  conglomerates  are  on  the  inside  track.  Fundamental  protections  of  the  public  interest  have  been  allowed  to  wither  and 
 die.  Vertical  safeguards,  such  as  the  financial  syndication  rules,  are  long  since  gone.  Horizontal  protections  were  whittled  significantly  down  long  before  June  2.  License 
 renewal  is  a  joke.  Requirements  like  ascertaining  the  needs  of  the  local  audience,  the  Fairness  Doctrine,  teeing  up  controversial  issues,  providing  demonstrated  diversity  in 
 programming  all  these  and  more  have  long  since  been  abandoned.  Rigorous  public  interest  scrutiny  is  more  a  quaint  relic  of  the  past  than  an  effective  safeguard  to  protect 
 against  excessive  concentration. 
 Over  the  years,  the  Commission  has  come  to  rely  more  and  more  on  marketplace  forces  as  a  proxy  for  serving  the  public  interest.  Dont  get  me  wrong  I  dont  have 
 anything  against  folks  making  a  buck  from  their  media  investments.  We  decided  long  ago  in  this  country  that  the  media  would  be  part  and  parcel  of  our  great  system  of 
 capitalist  enterprise  and  thats  fine.  But  our  licensees,  in  return  for  the  privilege  of  using  airwaves  that  belong  to  somebody  else  somebody  called  The  People  undertook  and 
 pledged  to  serve  the  public  interest.  Its  a  very  different  and  very  special  industry.  And  when  its  foundation  stones  begin  to  crack  and  things  like  diversity  and  localism  and 
 competition  are  imperiled,  then  its  past  time  that  we  wake  up  and  do  something  about  it.  I  think  the  heart  and  soul  are  going  out  of  much  of  our  media.  And  by  neglecting  to  do 
 justice  to  proposals  such  as  requiring  more  independently  produced  programs,  or  disciplining  the  mad  bazaar  of  media  consolidation  deals,  or  encouraging  more  diversity, 
 we  are  skirting  perilously  close  to  taking  the  public  interest  out  of  the  public  airwaves. 
 During  the  hearings  on  media  concentration  that  my  colleague,  Commissioner  Adelstein,  and  I  held  across  the  country,  we  saw  and  heard  first-  hand  the  stories  of  so 
 many  hundreds  of  citizens  about  the  detrimental  impact  that  consolidation  has  already  had  on  their  local  media  and  their  fears  about  where  still  more  concentration  will  lead. 
 We  heard  from  people  laid  off  from  the  newsroom  when  local  news  got  the  ax  from  the  new  owner.  We  heard  from  creative  artists  who  couldnt  get  air  time  for  their  music 
 because  they  werent  on  the  centralized,  homogenized  play-  lists.  We  heard  from  independent  programmers  who  couldnt  find  outlets  for  their  programming  because  the 
 networks  and  the  studios  had  that  hammerlock  on  so  much  of  what  is  produced. 
 Everywhere  we  went  we  heard  anguish  over  the  prospect  of  more  local  and  independent  stations  facing  imminent  takeover  by  one  of  the  media  giants.  People  are 
 worried  because  it  is  precisely  these  independents  that  are  serving  diverse  audiences  in  local  communities,  and  it  is  at  these  kinds  of  stations  where  I  still  find  a  large  measure  of 
 broadcaster  dedication  to  serving  the  public  interest.  The  fear  is  that  they  will  be  the  first  casualties  of  a  buy-  out,  taking  local  diversity  with  them.  Those  few  that  remain  will  find 
 themselves  less  and  less  captains  of  their  own  fate  and  more  and  more  captives  of  Wall 
5
 6 
 Street  and  Madison  Avenue  manipulators.  Thats  just  not  the  way  things  are  supposed  to  be. 
 There  were  so  many  important  questions  that  should  have  been  addressed  in  the  ownership  proceeding  that  were  not.  Let  me  mention  a  couple. 
 What  might  be  the  effects  of  further  concentration  on  Americas  minorities  in  terms  of  providing  Hispanic  Americans  and  African  Americans  and  Asian-  Pacific 
 Americans  and  Native  Americans  and  other  groups  the  kinds  of  programs  and  access  and  viewpoint  diversity  and  career  opportunities  and  even  advertising  information  about 
 products  and  services  that  they  need?  Americas  strength  is,  after  all,  its  diversity.  Diversity  is  not  a  problem  to  be  overcome.  It  is  our  greatest  strength.  Our  media  need  to 
 reflect  this  diversity  and  to  nourish  it.  Yet,  the  number  of  minority  owners  has  dropped  by  a  shocking,  and  nationally  embarrassing,  14  percent.  And  there  has  been  an  even 
 greater  drop  in  minority  station  managers  and  newsroom  employees.  Why  not  ask  these  questions  before  we  change  the  rules  instead  of  creating  the  potential  for  even  more 
 harm? 
 What  is  the  impact  on  small,  local  broadcasters?  Consolidation  could  sweep  them  all  before  it.  Media  analysts  expect  that  the  only  option  for  most  local  broadcasters  will 
 be  to  sell  if  the  new  rules  go  into  effect.  And  that  those  that  want  to  remain  will  face  an  extremely  tough  road.  During  our  hearings,  we  heard  from  small  broadcasters  that  had 
 already  been  squeezed  out  of  the  market.  Thats  not  good  for  them  and  its  not  good  for  you  and  me,  either. 


 Then  there  is  the  question  of  local  artists  getting  airtime  on  local  stations.  In  our  hearings,  we  heard  time  and  again  that  if  you  do  not  have  a  major  label  contract  with 
 promotional  money  behind  it,  you  can  forget  about  airtime.  We  heard  that  various  types  of  paid  consideration  and  business  relationships  influence  programming  decisions  more 
 than  do  the  merits  of  recordings.  We  heard  from  recording  artists  like  Tift  Merritt  in  North  Carolina  who  have  major  label  contracts  but  cant  get  airtime  in  their  home  states. 


 My  colleague  Commissioner  Adelstein  has  already  spoken  up  on  this  issue.  It  is  now  time  for  the  Commission  to  take  seriously  these  allegations  that  institutional  and 
 structural  barriers  are  preventing  so  much  music  from  getting  onto  the  public  airwaves.  Does  local  music  no  longer  have  a  place  on  local  commercial  radio?  Is  that  in  the  best 
 interests  of  our  citizens? 
 In  the  near  future,  the  Commission  will  launch  an  inquiry  to  examine  localism.  It  is  important  that  this  proceeding  not  become  business  as  usual.  If  you  have  experiences 


 you  can  share,  I  hope  you  will  do  so.  In  the  meantime,  the  FCC  ought  to  do  more  than  just  ask  preliminary  questions  designed  to  determine  if  we  need  to  change  our  disclosure 
 rules.  We  should  investigate  allegations  of  pay  for  play  that  might  form  the  basis  for  enforcement  action  under  current  rules.  And  we  should  obtain  and  analyze  data  and 
 playlists  from  the  industry  to  determine  if  ever  more  media  consolidation  makes  this  problem  worse.  A  recent  study  of  a  sample  of  FM  rock  stations  undertaken  by  Gabriel 
 Rossman  at  Princeton  found  that  the  larger  a  station  group  is,  the  less  there  is  of  song  and 
6
 7 
 artist  diversity.  The  FCC  should  use  this  study  and  build  on  it  to  understand  what  is  happening  in  radio  and  music  rather  than  just  proceeding  pell-  mell  in  the  happy  notion 
 that  the  market  will  solve  all  problems.  Sometimes  markets  create  problems. 


 Two  more  quick  thoughts.  First,  there  is  now  an  additional  way  for  you  to  be  involved  in  these  issues.  As  we  make  the  transition  to  digital,  there  is  a  crying  need  to 
 update  our  rules  on  the  public  interest  obligations  of  those  who  are  given  the  right  to  use  spectrum,  particularly  those  who  will  multi-  cast  additional  program  streams.  The 
 potential  of  digital  television  and  radio  is  enormous  and  I  believe  the  rewards,  for  everyone,  can  be  enormous,  too.  But  while  we  have  been  very  attentive  to  expediting  the 
 mechanics  of  the  digital  transition  things  like  DTV  tuners  and  the  like  and  while  weve  made  progress  there,  on  the  central  questions  of  what  the  digital  transition  means 
 for  the  public  interest,  we  have  a  bad  case  of  lock-  jaw.  The  result  is  a  great  big  digital  gap.  We  actually  started  having  a  discussion  about  digital  television  and  the  public 
 interest  a  few  years  ago  and  it  was  a  pretty  good  one.  The  Commission  even  initiated  a  couple  of  specific  proceedings  one  on  childrens  programming  for  DTV  and  the  other  a 
 requirement  for  disclosure  of  the  stations  public  file  on  the  Internet.  But  three  years  later  they  have  yet  to  be  completed. 


 I  want  us  to  finalize  action  on  these  two  specific  rulemakings  and  then  go  beyond  that  with  a  more  comprehensive  proceeding  on  the  public  interest  obligations  of  digital 
 television  broadcasters.  I  am  pleased  to  see  that  a  coalition    the  Public  Interest,  Public  Airwaves  Coalition    has  formed  on  this  issue  to  press  for  such  things  as  more  local  civic 
 and  electoral  affairs  programming  and  more  independent  programming. 
 I  hope  youll  take  me  up  on  getting  involved  in  this,  and  expanding  the  public  interest  discussion  to  include  radio.  We  have  an  opportunity  in  radio  to  avoid  the 
 experience  we  have  had  so  far  with  digital  television  and  accord  the  public  interest  the  high  priority  it  deserves.  The  additional  program  streams  that  are  becoming  digital 
 reality  could  be  a  real  boost  for  localism,  competition,  and  diversity.  I  hope  we  will  not  miss  this  opportunity  to  make  sure  that  the  American  people  realize  the  full  benefits  of 
 the  digital  transition. 
 Finally,  one  last  area  that  merits  attention  in  our  effort  to  increase  localism,  competition,  and  diversity  is  low  power  FM.  These  community-  based  stations  are 
 licensed  to  local  organizations  and  can  help  in  significant  ways  to  meet  the  needs  of  under-  represented  communities.  Low  power  benefits  recording  artists  by  providing  more 
 outlets  for  airplay,  especially  on  a  local  or  regional  level.  It  provides  community  coverage  in  often  strikingly-  successful  ways.  The  Chairman  of  the  FCC  announced  last 
 summer  that  the  FCC  was  going  to  license  more  low  power  FM  stations.  We  need  to  fast-  track  this  effort. 


 In  closing,  as  we  approach  the  one  year  mark  since  that  big  FCC  vote  on  media  concentration,  we  have  a  lot  of  challenges  ahead.  But  let  me  tell  you  my  mood.  I  am 
 encouraged.  I  am  enthused.  And  I  believe  that,  if  the  grassroots  pressure  continues,  we  can  see  progress  real  progress  in  the  months  ahead.  What  encourages  me  most  is  that 
7
 8 
 one  consequence  of  the  June  2  vote  that  the  Commission  majority  did  not  count  on.  Their  rush  to  loosen  the  rules  and  their  reluctance  even  to  share  the  draft  rules  with  the 
 American  people  --  or  the  Congress  --  before  they  voted  awoke  a  sleeping  giant.  The  people.  Citizens  across  this  land  of  ours  let  their  voices  be  heard.  They  got  downright 
 mad  that  far-  reaching  changes  were  being  plotted  and  planned  behind  closed  agency  doors.  They  didnt  like  the  Commission  messing  around  with  their  airwaves  that  way. 
 And  they  made  up  their  minds  to  make  a  difference. 
 So  we  heard  from  2.3  million  people,  and  99.9  percent  of  them  came  down  opposed  to  greater  media  concentration  not  a  bad  ratio  when  you  stop  to  realize  that  on 
 so  many  issues  these  days  we  see  50-  50  divides.  I  believe  this  groundswell  of  public  opinion  will  yet  save  the  day.  But  it  really  comes  down  to  you,  on  your  staying  involved, 
 on  staying  the  course  and  even  stepping  up  your  efforts,  and  on  all  of  us  putting  maximum  energy  and  maximum  commitment  into  the  crusade  for  media  democracy. 


 Yes,  powerful  economic  forces  that  favor  consolidation  are  out  there  and  they  are  converging  with  worrisome  regulatory  policies  that  pave  the  way.  But,  after  traveling  the 
 length  and  breadth  of  this  country,  I  believe  these  forces  will  yet  be  countered  because  so  many  Americans  want,  deserve,  and  are  demanding  action  on  how  their  airwaves  are 
 going  to  be  used  to  serve  the  public  interest. 
 If  we  role  up  our  sleeves    if  we  continue  to  work  together  now    all  of  us    business  people,  artists,  workers,  regulators,  consumers,  even  independent  broadcasters, 
 citizens  everywhere  we  can  settle  this  issue  of  who  is  going  to  control  our  media  and  for  what  purposes,  and  we  can  resolve  it  in  favor  of  airwaves  of,  by  and  for  the  people  of 
 this  great  country.  Lets  make  it  happen. 
 Thank  you. 
8