Home >  Nation & World >  U.S. News

Tuesday, June 03, 2003

By Ann McFeatters, Post-Gazette National Bureau

WASHINGTON-- In a landmark but controversial ruling certain to be challenged on Capitol Hill and in the courts, the Federal Communications Commission yesterday voted along strict party lines to permit more mergers of media properties, allowing fewer conglomerates to control more of Americans' sources of news and entertainment.

	Related story WQEX likely to attract more suitors

The FCC received hundreds of thousands of comments, most of them negative, from special-interest groups and the public. Nevertheless, the FCC voted 3-2 to loosen prior restrictions that prevented big companies from acquiring newspapers and TV stations in the same media market.

The ruling also removes barriers to how many viewers one media firm may service.

All three Republican commissioners voted for the changes, and both Democrats voted no.

Previously, one company could reach no more than 35 percent of the viewing public in a given market. This new ruling expands that to 45 percent. Yet some recent mega mergers in the media industry have effectively resulted in some companies already exceeding that 35 percent limit.

The courts have said the FCC had to weigh in on what to do about that, which is what it did yesterday. Moreover, the 1996 Telecommunications Act forces the FCC to reconsider its regulations every two years.

Critics immediately charged that the ruling, if it stands, would mean that there would be less local news and entertainment and more standardization of what the public can access on the airwaves. FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, a Democratic appointee and an ardent foe of the rules changes who has characterized what is likely to result as "drivel," repeatedly said yesterday that the decision will harm consumers. "This is a big, big deal," he emphasized.

But FCC Chairman Michael Powell,who is the son of Secretary of State Colin Powell and a zealous proponent of the changes, defended the commission action as essential to competition. He said that in an era of rapid change and wide access to multiple sources of information, including print, cable, satellite and Internet, restrictions on ownership are less justified. He said most Americans would notice little if any change in the content of their sources of news and entertainment.

Except for the commission itself, there was no discernible pattern to the political alliances of opponents and supporters. For example, the National Rifle Association, the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops and the National Organization for Women -- three groups that rarely agree on anything -- all opposed the FCC action. Fax machines hummed all day, as various groups and more than 150 members of Congress published statements in reaction.

Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, a Democratic candidate for president, vowed to work to pass a law blocking the FCC's ruling. And Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., a Senate Commerce Committee member, called the ruling "dumb and dangerous."

Dorgan's panel intends to hold hearings into the ruling. He and Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., found themselves in unusual agreement that the decision could remove local autonomy from station ownerships.

The Common Cause activist organization declared, "This is a dark day for democracy." The group argues that with less home-grown control of media, local political debate will suffer.

Big media companies such as Gannett Inc., the Tribune Co. and Rupert Murdoch's News Corp were delighted. They argued that the federal government should not be in the business of restricting sales and purchases of media companies, contending that there are more sources of news and entertainment than ever.

But critics warned they'll keep fighting against the ruling. "This corrupt process and ruling fly in the face of democracy and drown out the voice of the little guy in favor of corporate monopolies," said Eli Pariser, campaign director of MoveOn.org, a group which says its goal is "to bring ordinary people back into politics."