Broadcasting And The Public Interest

Karyn Lewis Prof. Bruce Austin Mass Communications Summer 20064 Paper #4: Broadcasting & the Public Interest

Despite the widespread view that America‟s brand of capitalism is the freest in the world, in practice many of its markets are subject to extensive regulation. That is especially so in the media business, where companies are bound by strict limits on market share and cross-media ownership. Lawmakers and regulators have limited the number of TV and radio stations a single company could own almost since the technologies were invented, in the hopes of assuring a robust supply of competing viewpoints.

Tight regulation of broadcasters seemed justified in the days when a small number of networks—NBC, ABC and CBS—had almost the entire audience to themselves. But the rationale for this has weakened, along with the original network‟s ratings share, with the rise of multi-channel satellite and cable televisions. The 1969 Supreme Court decision, which upheld the idea that spectrum is scarce, gave the FCC the responsibility to police the airwaves by deciding ownership limits (Mega-Giants). When this was decided, however, there was no Internet, no widespread cable penetration, and no satellite service. There were just the three above-mentioned networks. There was no digital capacity to allow for the squeezing of more and more channels into the available spectrum, or lowpower TV. There were only a handful of conventional media outlets available in communities, not dozens and dozens as there are today.

Even as cable networks attract greater shares, public interest groups and other critics want more rules to limit the ability of local television broadcasters to conduct business. These proponents of continuing the ban argue that newspapers and local TV stations remain the dominant source of news for most people and that letting them combine would reduce competition and independent viewpoints (Healey). But the other side argues that the

2 | Lewis

media environment is dramatically different today—so different that the rule is no longer necessary. The number of TV stations and radio broadcasters has increased by more than 50%, as have the number of TV broadcast networks. With most households receiving scores of channels via cable or satellite TV, the four largest networks draw less than 50% of the prime-time audience. Cable networks continue to invest in new programming, providing even stronger alternatives to television-station programming. Personal video recorders are growing fast, reducing the effectiveness of the only product that stations sell: advertising time (Fratrik). And in the future, wide access to video programs via the Internet will become a reality, adding an infinite number of choices for the local consumer. That said, isn‟t it true that the plethora of competing sources of information and the open platform provided by the Internet make the current media environment the most diverse and rich in history? Don‟t the proponents understand that further constraints jeopardize the viability of local television stations? Don‟t these critics recognize that, without the modest deregulation of ownership rules proposed by the FCC, television stations in many midsize and small markets would find it difficult enough to keep the lights on, let alone serve their local communities (Fratrik)? Certainly some local television stations will continue to prosper, especially the stronger operations in the largest markets. But even those stations will face more struggles in the future as consumers are offered more choices and have different viewing alternatives. The more immediate concerns are the weaker stations or the stations in the smaller markets. Without any ownership rule relief, local stations now facing increased, unregulated competition from hundreds of cable and satellite-delivered systems are finding themselves in dire times, threatening their position and ability to

3 | Lewis

serve their communities. It‟s clear we are stuck in a system that serves the major media companies and their profitability but does not serve the interests of localism, diversity and the public (Horowitz).

Under the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the broadcaster is a short-term licensee obligated to operate in the public interest (Geller). Through this agreement, broadcasters have accepted the commitment to serve the public interest in exchange for free use of the spectrum. Anti-trust laws should be sufficient enough to guard against monopoly business practices. The public and broadcasters, not government, should be the arbiters of content. Giving the government power over information outlets can pose threats far greater than the perceived dangers of consolidation. Clearly the public is not well-served by broadcasters whose size, scope and content are subject to governmental control with typically partisan interests.

So who wins by further regulating over-the-air television stations? Clearly, not broadcasters who are prevented from becoming more efficient and are saddled with further expensive obligations (Fratrik). And clearly, not the communities served by these broadcasters. There‟s no doubt the provisions that governed the transition from analog to digital television, revised the broadcast ownership rules, and altered broadcast-licensing procedures have had an important impact on the viewing public. Consumers are deciding when, where and how they want content.

4 | Lewis

Fratrik, Mark. “Loosen Up, Already.” Broadcasting & Cable. New York: Apr 18, 2005. Vol. 135, Iss. 16; pg. 37. EBSCO Host Research Databases. Online. 10 July 2007. Geller, Henry. “Promoting the public interest in the digital era.” Federal Communications Law Journal. Los Angeles: May 2003. Vol. 55, Iss. 3; pg. 515. EBSCO Host Research Databases. Online. 10 July 2007. Healey, Jon. “Media ownership rules are so „70s; Technology and public tastes have changed radically but regulations haven‟t kept pace.” Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Oct 14, 2006, pg. B. 17. EBSCO Host Research Databases. Online. 10 July 2007. Horowitz, Norman. “Who‟s Being Protected?” TelevisionWeek. Chicago: Jun 2, 2003. Vol. 22; pg. 10. EBSCO Host Research Databases. Online. 10 July 2007. “Mega-Giants and Scarcity.” Broadcasting & Cable. New York: Dec 6, 2004. Vol. 134, Iss. 49; pg. 53. EBSCO Host Research Databases. Online. 10 July 2007.

5 | Lewis