*Pages 1--8 from  Microsoft Word - 28358.doc*
 STATEMENT  OF  MICHAEL  J.  COPPS,  COMMISSIONER 
 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION  BEFORE  THE  SENATE  COMMITTEE  ON 
 COMMERCE,  SCIENCE,  AND  TRANSPORTATION  JUNE  4,  2003 


 Mr.  Chairman,  Senator  Hollings,  Members  of  the  Committee,  I  am  honored  to  appear  before  you  today  and  to  participate  in  this  discussion  of  the  most  important  issue 
 before  the  Commission  this  year    media  concentration.  So  much  rides  on  the  outcome  of  this  issue  and,  in  light  of  the  Commissions  action  Monday,  dealing  with  it  as  soon  as 
 possible  becomes  critical.  I  look  forward  to  our  discussion  and  to  receiving  the  guidance  of  the  Committee.  In  these  opening  remarks,  I  will  limit  myself  to  discussing  Mondays 
 decision  to  dismantle  most  of  our  media  concentration  protections. 
 I  strongly  dissented  to  this  decision.  I  dissented  on  grounds  of  substance.  I  dissented  on  grounds  of  process.  I  dissented  because  I  believe  the  Commissions  actions 
 empower  Americas  new  Media  Elite  with  unacceptable  levels  of  influence  over  the  ideas  and  information  upon  which  our  society  and  our  democracy  so  heavily  depend. 


 We  are  at  a  crossroads    for  television,  radio  and  newspapers  and  for  the  American  people.  The  decision  the  FCC  made  on  Monday  will  recast  our  entire  media 
 landscape  for  years  to  come.  At  issue  is  whether  a  few  corporations  will  be  ceded  enhanced  gatekeeper  control  over  the  civil  dialogue  of  our  country;  more  content  control 
 over  our  music,  entertainment  and  information;  and  veto  power  over  the  majority  of  what  our  families  watch,  hear  and  read. 


 Two  very  divergent  paths  beckoned  us. 
 Down  one  road  is  a  reaffirmation  of  Americas  commitment  to  local  control  of  our  media,  diversity  in  news  and  editorial  viewpoint,  and  the  importance  of  competition. 
 This  path  implores  us  not  to  abandon  core  values  going  to  the  heart  of  what  the  media  mean  in  our  country.  On  this  path  we  reaffirm  that  FCC  licensees  have  been  given  very 
 special  privileges  and  that  they  have  very  special  responsibilities  to  serve  the  public  interest. 


 Down  the  other  road  is  more  media  control  by  ever  fewer  corporate  giants.  This  path  surrenders  to  a  handful  of  corporations  awesome  powers  over  our  news,  information 
 and  entertainment.  On  this  path  we  endanger  time-  honored  safeguards  and  time-  proven  values  that  have  strengthened  the  country  as  well  as  the  media. 


 So  the  stakes  are  high    higher  than  they  have  been  for  any  decision  the  five  people  sitting  before  you  today  have  ever  made  at  this  Commission.  How  should  we  have 
 decided  which  path  to  choose? 
1
 2 
 We  should  have  begun  by  examining  the  law.  What  does  the  law  tell  us?  The  Communications  Act  tells  us  to  use  our  rules  to  promote  localism,  diversity  and 
 competition.  It  reminds  us  that  the  airwaves  belong  to  the  American  people,  and  that  no  broadcast  station,  no  company,  no  single  individual  owns  an  airwave  in  America.  The 
 airwaves  belong  to  all  the  people.  The  law  tells  us  that  the  last  time  Congress  legislated  on  this  topic  --  and  keep  in  mind  this  was  only  seven  years  ago,  not  in  the  1940s  or  the 
 1960s,  but  in  1996  --  it  thought  that  restrictions  on  how  large  a  single  media  corporation  could  get  and  how  much  power  one  company  could  amass  were  important  and  necessary. 
 And  the  Supreme  Court  has  upheld  media  protections,  stating  that  it  is  the  purpose  of  the  First  Amendment  to  preserve  an  uninhibited  marketplace  of  ideas  in  which  truth  will 
 ultimately  prevail,  rather  than  to  countenance  monopolization  of  that  market,  whether  it  be  by  the  Government  itself  or  a  private  licensee.  Speaking  of  jurisprudence,  I  am  often 
 reminded  of  Judge  Learned  Hands  admonition  that  The  hand  that  rules  the  press,  the  radio,  the  screen,  and  the  far-  spread  magazine,  rules  the  country.  Those  words  come 
 down  through  the  years  with  shining  clarity  and  continuing  relevance. 
 We  should  then  have  looked  deeply  at  the  world  of  experience.  What  practical,  real  world  experience  do  we  have  to  guide  us?  Radio  deregulation  gives  us  powerful  and 
 relevant  lessons.  When  Congress  and  the  Commission  removed  radio  concentration  protections,  we  experienced  massive,  and  largely  unforeseen,  consolidation.  We  saw  a 
 34  percent  reduction  in  the  number  of  radio  station  owners.  Diversity  of  programming  suffered.  Homogenized  music  and  standardized  programming  crowded  out  local  and 
 regional  talent.  Creative  local  artists  found  it  evermore  difficult  to  obtain  play  time.  Editorial  opinion  polarized.  Competition  in  many  towns  became  non-  existent  as  a  few 
 companies  bought  up  virtually  every  station  in  the  market.  This  experience  should  terrify  us  as  we  consider  visiting  upon  television  and  newspapers  what  we  have  inflicted  upon 
 radio.  Clear  Channelization  of  the  rest  of  the  American  media  will  harm  our  country. 
 We  should,  finally,  have  sought  out  the  counsel  and  wisdom  of  the  American  people.  Commissioner  Adelstein  and  I  have  attended  public  hearings  across  the  country 
 with  conservatives  and  liberals,  broadcasters  and  creative  artists,  concerned  parents  and  civil  rights  activists,  church  leaders  and  educators.  Our  Commission  has  seen  close  to 
 three  quarters  of  a  million  people  register  their  views    more  than  for  any  proceeding  in  Commission  history.  And  in  a  nation  that  can  be  deeply  divided  on  important  issues, 
 these  citizens  are  uniquely  unanimous  on  the  question  of  whether  this  Commission  should  allow  further  media  concentration.  They  are  screaming  that  we  should  protect 
 local  broadcasting,  diversity  of  programming  and  opinion,  and  the  ability  to  compete  with  the  huge  companies.  We  should  heed  their  conservatism    their  urgent  call  to  refrain 
 from  abandoning  time-  honored  protections  when  so  much  is  at  stake  and  so  much  is  unknown  about  the  consequences  of  what  we  are  doing  here  today. 


 The  majority  instead  chose  radical  deregulation    perhaps  not  quite  so  radical  as  originally  intended  a  year  ago  before  Americans  found  out  what  was  going  on  and  began 
 to  speak  out    but  radical  nevertheless.  This  decision  allows  a  corporation  to  control  three  television  stations  in  a  single  city.  Why  does  any  company  need  to  control  three 
 television  stations  anywhere?  The  decision  allows  the  giant  media  companies  to  buy  up 
2
 3 
 the  remaining  local  newspaper  and  exert  massive  influence  over  a  community  by  wielding  three  TV  stations,  eight  radio  stations,  the  cable  operator,  plus  the  already 
 monopolistic  newspaper.  The  decision  further  allows  the  already  massive  television  networks  to  buy  up  even  more  local  TV  stations,  so  that  they  could  control  up  to  an 
 unbelievable  90  percent  of  the  national  television  audience.  Where  are  the  blessings  of  localism,  diversity  and  competition  here?  I  see  centralization,  not  localism;  I  see 
 uniformity,  not  diversity;  I  see  monopoly  and  oligopoly,  not  competition. 


 Will  the  vaunted  500-  channel  universe  of  cable  TV  save  us?  Well,  90  percent  of  the  top  cable  channels  are  owned  by  the  same  giants  that  own  the  TV  networks  and  the 
 cable  systems.  More  channels  are  great.  But  when  theyre  all  owned  by  the  same  people,  cable  doesnt  advance  localism,  editorial  diversity  or  competition.  And  those  who 
 believe  the  Internet  alone  will  save  us  from  this  fate  should  realize  that  the  dominating  Internet  news  sources  are  controlled  by  the  same  media  giants  who  control  radio,  TV, 
 newspapers  and  cable. 


 Some  would  have  us  believe  that  this  was  merely  an  ordinary  examination  of  our  rules  that  we  conduct  every  two  years.  Lets  not  kid  ourselves.  This  was  the  granddaddy 
 of  all  reviews.  It  sets  the  direction  for  how  the  next  review  will  get  done  and  for  how  the  media  will  look  for  many  years  to  come.  I  have  seen  the  concern,  the  deep  feeling  and 
 outright  alarm  on  the  faces  of  people  who  have  come  out  to  talk  to  Commissioner  Adelstein  and  me  all  across  this  country.  Are  they  emotional?  You  bet.  And  I  think 
 they  are  going  to  stay  that  way  until  we  get  this  right. 
 Why  did  the  Commission  get  this  so  wrong?  Good,  sustainable  rules  are  the  result  of  an  open  administrative  process  and  a  serious  attempt  to  gather  all  the  relevant 
 facts.  Bad  rules  and  legal  vulnerability  result  from  an  opaque  regulatory  process  and  inadequate  data.  Unfortunately,  todays  rules  fall  into  the  latter  camp.  This  proceeding 
 has  been  run  as  a  classic  inside-  the-  Beltway  process  with  too  little  outreach  from  the  Commission  and  too  little  attention  paid  to  the  public.  This  is  the  way  the  Commission 
 usually  does  business,  we  are  told.  Well,  I  submit  this  is  too  important  to  be  treated  on  a  business-  as-  usual  basis.  So  Commissioner  Adelstein  and  I  traveled  across  the  country  to 
 attend  as  many  hearings  and  forums  as  we  could. 
 I  am  also  troubled  that  the  Commission  refused  to  publicly  disclose  the  rules  before  voting  on  them.  What  possible  harm  can  come  from  transparency?  How  can 
 telling  Congress  and  the  public  what  we  plan  to  do  possibly  be  bad?  Isnt  the  animating  spirit  of  our  notice  and  comment  procedure  to  make  sure  our  people  know  as  much  as 
 possible  about  the  specifics  of  what  is  being  proposed? 
 Even  with  incomplete  information,  the  public  reaction  against  the  proposed  changes  has  been  unlike  anything  the  FCC  has  ever  experienced.  Of  the  nearly  three 
 quarters  of  a  million  comments  we  have  received,  nearly  all  oppose  increased  media  consolidation    over  99.9  percent. 
3
 4 
 Weve  heard  bipartisan  concern  from  more  than  150  Members  of  Congress,  including  a  majority  of  this  Committee,  as  well  as  the  Congressional  Black  Caucus,  the 
 Congressional  Hispanic  Caucus  and  the  Congressional  Asian  Pacific  American  Caucus,  asking  us  to  slow  down  and  put  these  proposals  out  for  public  comment  before  we  vote. 


 Dozens  of  organizations  have  weighed  in  with  their  concerns  about  media  concentration.  Among  others,  we  have  heard  from  Children  Now,  the  Writers  Guild  of 
 America,  the  Parents  Television  Council,  the  Communications  Workers  of  America,  AFTRA.  the  National  Association  of  Hispanic  Journalists,  the  National  Association  of 
 Black  Journalists,  the  Conference  of  Catholic  Bishops,  the  Center  for  the  Creative  Community,  Common  Cause,  the  American  Civil  Liberties  Union,  the  National  Rifle 
 Association,  the  American  Civil  Liberties  Union,  the  National  Organization  for  Women,  the  Family  Research  Council,  the  National  Association  of  Black  Owned  Broadcasters, 
 Rainbow  Push,  the  Media  Access  Project,  Consumers  Union,  the  Consumer  Federation  of  America,  Move  On,  the  Center  for  Digital  Democracy,  United  Church  of  Christ,  the 
 Minority  and  Media  Telecommunications  Council,  the  Leadership  Conference  on  Civil  Rights,  and  many,  many  more  across  a  broad  political  and  geographic  spectrum.  City 
 councils  across  this  country  in  such  places  as  Chicago,  Seattle,  Philadelphia,  San  Francisco,  Atlanta,  and  Buffalo,  as  well  as  a  whole  state  --  Vermont  --  have  gone  on 
 record  against  media  concentration.  Note,  please,  that  several  of  these  are  cities  where  Big  Media  would  have  us  believe  that  all  is  well  with  the  consolidation  they  have 
 introduced. 
 As  Brent  Bozell  of  the  Parents  Television  Council  so  aptly  put  it,  When  all  of  us  are  united  on  an  issue,  then  one  of  two  things  has  happened.  Either  the  Earth  has  spun  off 
 its  axis  and  we  have  all  lost  our  minds  or  there  is  universal  support  for  a  concept.  Well,  its  the  concept    a  transcending,  nationwide  concept. 


 The  FCC  is  not,  of  course,  a  public  opinion  survey  agency.  Nor  should  we  make  our  decisions  by  weighing  the  letters,  cards  and  e-  mails  for  and  the  letters,  cards  and  e-mails 
 against  and  awarding  the  victory  to  the  side  that  tips  the  scale.  But  even  this  independent  agency  is  part  of  our  democratic  system  of  government.  And  when  there  is 
 such  an  overwhelming  response  on  the  part  of  the  American  people  and  their  representatives  in  Congress  assembled,  we  ought  to  take  notice.  Here  the  right  call  is  to 
 take  these  proposals,  put  them  out  for  comment  and  then  --  only  then  --  call  the  vote.  The  spirit  underlying  the  notice  and  comment  procedure  of  independent  agencies  is  that 
 important  proposed  changes  need  to  be  seen  and  vetted  before  they  are  voted.  We  havent  been  true  to  that  spirit. 


 And  what  did  we  vote  on?  The  majority  allows  TV  networks  to  control  up  to  45  percent  of  the  national  audience    up  to  90  percent  once  the  strange  decision  to  keep  the 
 UHF  discount  is  considered.  This  decision  is  made  without  an  adequate  explanation  for  why  45  percent  is  not  just  an  arbitrary  number  pulled  out  of  a  hat,  and  despite  exhaustive 
 and  largely  uncontested  evidence  supporting  the  existing  cap  by  local  broadcasters.  I  frankly  doubt  the  courts  will  be  impressed. 
4
 6 
 There  are  other  things  this  order  could  have  done.  Commenters  addressed  the  need  to  require  more  independent  programming  on  our  airwaves  so  that  a  few 
 conglomerates  do  not  act  anti-  competitively  to  control  all  of  the  creative  entertainment  that  we  see.  These  proposals  should  have  received  the  serious  attention  they  deserve  in 
 this  decision.  Over  the  past  decade,  we  have  witnessed  a  substantial  increase  in  the  amount  of  programming  owned  by  the  networks.  In  addition  to  the  obvious  loss  of 
 diversity,  this  has  also  entailed  the  loss  of  thousands  of  jobs,  including  creative  artists,  technicians  and  many,  many  others.  Years  ago,  we  had  protections  against  this  kind  of 
 program  ownership.  Now  that  the  majority  is  loosening  outlet  ownership  rules,  we  ought  to  be  looking  at  the  consequences  of  having  no  limits  on  who  owns  the  programming. 


 The  Order  could  have  addressed  having  a  legitimate  license  renewal  process  to  partially  protect  against  the  risks  of  further  consolidation.  The  system  has  degenerated 
 into  one  of  basically  post-  card  license  renewal.  Unless  there  is  a  major  complaint  pending  against  a  station,  its  license  is  almost  automatically  renewed.  A  real,  honest-  to-goodness 
 license  renewal  process,  predicated  on  advancing  the  public  interest,  might  do  more  for  broadcasting  than  all  these  our  other  rules  put  together. 


 The  Order  could  have  considered  the  impact  of  media  concentration  on  local  broadcasters.  As  I  have  traveled  across  the  country,  I  have  spoken  to  local  broadcasters. 
 We  should  recognize  and  reaffirm  the  proud  heritage  of  local  broadcasters,  most  of  who  are  strongly  committed  to  serving  the  public  interest.  Unfortunately,  consolidation  has 
 already  meant  that  broadcasters  are  less  and  less  captains  of  their  own  fate  and  more  and  more  captives  to  Wall  Street  and  Madison  Avenue  expectations.  Increasing  consolidation 
 threatens  their  very  survival.  Media  analysts  expect  that  the  only  option  for  local  broadcasters  will  now  be  to  sell.  They  conclude  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.  These  rule  changes  can  only  accelerate  this 
 trend.  Yet,  we  have  failed  even  to  consider  the  impact  on  these  independent  broadcasters. 


 The  Order  could  have  analyzed  the  impact  of  media  concentration  on  indecent  and  excessively  violent  programming.  Some  have  suggested  that  there  may  be  a  link 
 between  increasing  consolidation  and  increasing  indecency  on  our  airwaves.  The  Commission  fails  to  address  this  issue  in  its  analysis.  It  seems  plausible  that  there  is  such 
 a  connection.  I  dont  know  the  answer  to  this  question.  I  do  know  this:  we  have  no  business  voting  until  we  take  a  serious  look  at  the  matter  and  amass  at  least  a  credible 
 body  of  evidence. 
 The  Order  could  have  addressed  the  impact  of  media  concentration  on  women  and  minority  groups.  We  know  that  there  are  substantially  fewer  radio  station  owners  today 
 than  there  were  before  the  rules  were  changed  in  1996.  People  of  color  now  make  up  less  than  four  percent  of  radio  and  television  owners.  The  National  Association  of  Black 
 Owned  Broadcasters  tells  us  that  the  number  of  minority  owners  of  broadcast  facilities  has  dropped  by  14  percent  since  1997. 
6
 7 
 We  have  not  even  attempted  to  understand  what  further  consolidation  means  in  terms  of  providing  Hispanic  Americans  and  African  Americans  and  Asian-  Pacific 
 Americans  and  Native  Americans  and  women  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.  And  our  media  need  to  reflect  this  diversity  and  to  nourish  it. 


 Todays  Order  puts  most  such  questions  off  into  the  future,  with  the  exception  of  a  curious  plan  to  allow  a  small  business,  perhaps  a  minority  firm,  to  buy  a  consolidated 
 block  of  outlets  from  an  incumbent  who  exceeds  the  limits.  That  would  require  deeper  pockets  than  most  such  firms  could  afford.  I  would  prefer  to  look  for  real  opportunities 
 for  small  entrepreneurs  instead  of  encouraging  them  to  buy  large  consolidated  properties. 
 All  this  means  that  I  am  deeply  saddened  by  the  Commissions  actions.  Some  have  characterized  the  fight  against  this  seemingly  pre-  ordained  decision  as  Quixotic  and 
 destined  to  defeat.  But  I  think,  instead,  that  well  look  back  at  this  3-  2  vote  as  a  Pyrrhic  victory. 


 This  Commissions  drive  to  loosen  the  rules  and  its  reluctance  to  share  its  proposals  with  the  people  before  we  voted  awoke  a  sleeping  giant.  American  citizens  are 
 standing  up  in  never-  before-  seen  numbers  to  reclaim  their  airwaves  and  to  call  on  those  who  are  entrusted  to  use  them  to  serve  the  public  interest.  In  these  times  when  many 
 issues  divide  us,  groups  from  right  to  left,  Republicans  and  Democrats,  concerned  parents  and  creative  artists,  religious  leaders,  civil  rights  activists,  and  labor  organizations  have 
 united  to  fight  together  on  this  issue.  Senators  and  Congressmen  from  both  parties  and  from  all  parts  of  the  Country  have  called  on  the  Commission  to  reconsider.  The  media 
 concentration  debate  will  never  be  the  same.  The  obscurity  of  this  issue  that  many  have  relied  upon  in  the  past,  where  only  a  few  dozen  inside-  the-  Beltway  lobbyists  understood 
 the  issue,  is  gone  forever. 
 I  didnt  carry  that  Commission  vote  on  Monday.  Was  I  disappointed?  Sure,  of  course.  Am  I  discouraged?  Not  a  bit.  I  am  encouraged.  Let  me  tell  you  why.  I  am 
 encouraged  that  this  Committee  is  following  up  so  quickly  with  urgent  oversight  of  Mondays  vote.  I  am  encouraged  by  the  increased  attention  this  issue  is  receiving 
 throughout  the  Congress.  I  am  encouraged  that  judicial  avenues  of  redress  remain  open  to  our  people,  and  even  administrative  redress  through  reconsideration  petitions  at  the 
 Commission.  Im  not  putting  all  my  bets  on  this  latter  one,  but  I  do  urge  my  colleagues  to  listen  anew  in  the  weeks  and  months  ahead. 


 But  far  more  than  any  of  this,  I  am  encouraged  by  my  fellow  citizens.  After  traveling  almost  the  length  and  breadth  of  this  land  and  talking  with  thousands  of  people 
 of  every  size,  stripe  and  persuasion,  I  am  convinced  that  the  vast  majority  of  them  want,  deserve,  and  are  increasingly  demanding  a  renewed  discussion  of  how  their  airwaves  are 
 being  used  and  how  to  ensure  that  their  public  property  is  serving  the  public  interest.  I  congratulate  the  hundreds  of  thousands  of  people  who  have  attended  hearings,  filed 
 comments,  written  letters  to  the  editor,  and  contacted  the  Commission.  They  have  made 
7
 8 
 a  difference.  And  I  believe  they  will  stay  the  course,  looking  to  you,  their  representatives,  to  tackle  what  I  am  convinced  is  a  great  emerging  grassroots  issue.  The 
 people  understand  the  issue,  because  it  goes  to  values  and  virtues  that  are  part  of  democracys  soul.  It  goes  so  far  beyond  statistics  about  the  boundaries  of  radio  markets, 
 or  the  formulas  behind  diversity  indexes,  or  the  precise  mix  of  properties  one  company  can  own  in  various  sized  media  markets.  It  goes  to  protecting  the  freedom  and  openness 
 of  their  media;  encouraging  diversity  of  entertainment,  diversity  of  information,  diversity  of  ownership  and  diversity  of  viewpoint;  and  keeping  a  large  chunk  of  the  media  local, 
 making  it  available  to  new  entrants,  preserving  its  competitiveness.  Taking  only  a  little  license,  I  think  the  concern  underlying  all  those  cards,  letters  and  e-  mails  that  have  come 
 into  the  Commission  can  be  summed  up  this  way: 
 Dear  Commissioner:  I  understand  youre  messing  around  with  the  peoples  airwaves.  I  dont  think  I 
 like  what  youre  doing.  I  know  I  dont  like  the  way  youre  doing  it.  Im  a  citizen  and  I  expect  to  be  told 
 what  your  plans  are  before  you  do  it.  Get  a  grip.  Straighten  out  your  priorities.  Thank  you. 
 Yours  truly, 
 What  animates  this  concern  is  clear:  these  good  citizens  want  us  to  settle  this  issue  of  who  will  control  our  media  and  for  what  purposes  now,  and  they  want  to  resolve  it  in 
 favor  of  airwaves  of,  by  and  for  the  people.  Mr.  Chairman,  Senator  Hollings,  Members  of  the  Committee,  I  look  forward  to  working  with  you  to  make  it  happen. 
8