1
STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN
FCC HEARING ON MEDIA OWNERSHIP
TAMPA, FLORIDA
APRIL 30, 2007
It is great to be in the Sunshine State for the FCC’s fourth official media 
ownership hearing.  Over the past several months, we have visited California, Tennessee, 
and Pennsylvania to hear how the public feels about the state of broadcast media 
ownership and related issues in their communities. Thank you for coming out today to 
tell us about what the media in Tampa Bay is doing right, what areas need improvement, 
and specifically what the Commission can do to help. You are the ones that are directly 
affected by the decisions we make about how many media outlets a single company can 
own and control in your local community. Your opinion really matters.
Tampa Bay is not only the largest media market in Florida.  It is also the 12th 
largest television market and the 19th largest radio market in the nation.  Like other 
media markets, a handful of companies dominate Tampa Bay television and radio.  In
television, two media companies control half of total revenue. In radio, three companies 
own almost half of all commercial radio stations in the Tampa market and control nearly 
90 percent of the market’s radio revenue. In addition, only four companies control 73 
percent of Tampa’s local news market, and one of those companies alone controls one 
third of the market. As alarming as these numbers are, Tampa is better positioned than 
many of the major markets in the country based on today’s very concentrated standards. 
You are one of the few markets with two viable major daily, local newspapers.
It is the Commission’s job to implement your right to a diverse media market, and 
your right to receive, share and exchange a diversity of news, information, and music.  
Our ownership rules are supposed to nurture, promote and maximize competition, 
localism and diversity – not just preserve the bare minimum. What better way to find out 
whether the media is fulfilling your expectations of the American people and their 
obligations under the law than to go out and listen to what you have to say.
Despite disagreements over the Commission’s regulations, there should be no 
disagreement that media ownership is really about democracy.  And fundamental to it is 
the “uninhibited marketplace of ideas,” where everyone has a right to receive, share and 
exchange a diversity of news, information, and music. By controlling the information 
you receive and shaping public discourse, media companies influence our culture, 
politics, and ideas in a very powerful way.
I applaud your efforts, as concerned citizens of the Tampa Bay area, to come out 
here this evening to express your thoughts and to learn more about our nation’s media 
industry. The airwaves belong to you, the people, and as the Supreme Court so clearly 
expressed: “it is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, esthetic, moral 
and other ideas and experiences.”  
2
Media consolidation is not only a problem affecting Tampa, it also impacts the 
state and the nation.  Nationally, five media conglomerates control 80 percent of the 
primetime market.  The Commission’s last effort in 2003 to modify our ownership rules 
would have only made the situation worse.  Rather than owning 73 percent of the Tampa 
market local news market, the top four firms would have likely increased their share to 
nearly 85 percent.  Luckily, three million citizens nationwide from the far left to the far 
right and virtually everyone in between voiced their opposition to our reckless rules. And 
in 2004, the federal court did too, sending the rules back to the Commission, and 
chastising us for failing to consider how the proposed rules would affect minority and 
women ownership, competition and localism. I could not agree more with their opinion.
I hope that this time around, with your help, we can get these media ownership rules
right.
I fully realize that the media landscape is evolving and our rules should keep up 
with the times.  But the idea that further concentration of ownership in broadcasting is the 
only way for media companies to meet the demands of Wall Street investors is far too 
limited.  It is easy to say, “we need to own more outlets.”  But repurposing one local 
newspaper story on the radio and TV does very little for quality journalism, diversity and 
localism, and it harms small business competitors, the backbone of the American 
economy.  The much more difficult goal is to diversify, innovate and become competitive 
on new media platforms.  To date, media outlets have sometimes been slow to respond to 
this changing landscape.  And frankly, it is wrong to blame ownership rules that are 
intended to protect the public interest as the reason for the failure to develop profitable 
business models on new platforms. I am pleased that traditional media companies are 
now creating a more dynamic online presence, but they have more work ahead of them.
The fact of matter is that broadcasting still dominates the media today. In the 
2006-2007 seasons, broadcasters – not cable, satellite or Internet programmers – had the 
top 200 highest rated programs on television. And all but a handful of the top 500 
programs were on broadcast television.  On the radio, the two satellite radio companies 
have a total of about 16 million subscribers and 50 million American last used the 
Internet for music, while over 240 million people listen to terrestrial radio on a weekly 
basis.
Broadcast radio and television continue to have a powerful influence over our 
culture, political system, and the ideas that inform our public discourse. Study after study
has shown that broadcasting is still the dominant source of not just entertainment 
programming, but also local news and information.  The broadcast industry still
produces, disseminates, and ultimately controls the news, information, and entertainment 
programs that most inform the discourse, debate, and the free exchange of ideas that is 
essential to our participatory democracy.
Local news websites still do not provide a viable source of competition to 
traditional broadcast outlets, especially cross-owned outlets.  A study of the Tampa 
market by Free Press found that independent Web sites in Tampa do not produce nearly 
enough original news, attract enough audience or generate enough revenue to compete 
3
effectively with traditional news media outlets and websites. The study shows that only 
three percent of the stories on independent, Tampa-focused Web sites contained original 
reporting of any kind on “hard” news topics such as crime, education and local 
government or politics.  And just last week, a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll found that 
despite the major efforts undertaken by political campaigns to get their message across on 
the Internet, only two percent of those polled said they get most 2008 election news from 
blogs or candidate Web sites.
This hearing is about the Tampa media market and the Commission’s media 
ownership rules.  By law the Commission is responsible for promoting diversity and 
localism and preventing undue concentration of power in the media industry.  You 
deserve what the law already requires — programming that serves the unique needs of 
your local communities.  Before drafting any media ownership rules, we wanted to hear 
what those outside of Washington, DC have to say.  We came to Tampa to hear from you 
about what we can do better to serve your needs and the public interest.  We are anxious 
to listen to what you have to say.