MAXINE WATERS
MEMBER OF CONGRESS
35TH DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA
CHIEF DEPUTY WHIP
COMMITIEES:
FINANCIAL SERVICES
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CAPITAL MARKETS AND
GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES
RANI<IIIIG MfMBER
JUDICIARY
SU8COMMITIEE ON INTElLECTUAL PROPERTY,
COMPETITION, AND THE INTERNET
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION POLICY
AND ENFORCEMENT
(tCongre55 of tbe m1niteb ~tate5
1!.Jou9'e of l\epre9'entatibe9'
mIlasbington, 1BctC 20515-0535
December 20,2012
PLEASE REPLY To:
WASHINGTON DC OFFICE
2344 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
o WASHINGTON, DC 20515-0535
PHONE: 1202) 225-2201
FAX: 1202) 225-7854
DISTRICT OFFICE:
~ AINEI.E.S .QE.lli;f
10124 SOUTH BROADWAY
SUITE 1
o Los ANGELES, CA 90003
PHONE: 1323) 757-8900
FAX: (323) 757-9506
The Honorable Julius Genachowski
Chairman
Federal Communications Commission
445 lih Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20554
Dear Chairman Genachowski,
I write to express my concerns with reports that the Commission intends to revive
some form of the same lax media cross ownership rules that the Third Circuit Court invalidated
in July 2011. In striking the Commission's rule, and effectively reinstating the current ban on
newspaper-broadcast cross ownership, the Court ordered the agency to clarify how its proposed
rule changes would impact media diversity and promote ownership opportunities for women and
minorities. Since the Commission apparently has yet to conduct such a study, any effort to relax
media ownership rules now would be in direct violation of the court's order. I therefore urge the
Commission to complete its long overdue diversity analyses before proceeding with any
proposed changes to the current ban on newspaper-broadcast cross ownership.
Section 257 of the Communications Act requires the FCC to submit triennial reports
identifying and eliminating market entry barriers for entrepreneurs and other small businesses,
including minority and women-owned businesses. Moreover, in previous FCC proceedings and
the current ownership review, the Commission has affirmed the importance of diversity in
national communications policy because the "widest possible dissemination of information from
diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public." Unfortunately, the
Commission's lax media ownership rules and deregulatory policies have resulted in just the
opposite: a heavily-consolidated industry with scarce ownership opportunities for women and
minorities.
Today, only five companies own the major broadcast networks; 90 percent of the top
50 cable networks produce three-quarters of all prime time programming, and control 70 percent
of the prime time television market share. As these conglomerates have consumed large portions
of the market, the opportunities for minority ownership have decreased. Since 1999, minority
television ownership has decreased by 50 percent. In 2007, despite comprising 34 percent of the
population, minorities owned just 3.2 percent of the U.S. television stations and 7 percent of the
nation's full power radio stations. Minority radio ownership has declined by 9% just within the
1
last three years. Minority wireless and cable system ownership levels are near zero. Finally,
minority radio journalism employment has plummeted to less than 1%, a level not seen since
1950.
In Prometheus, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals excoriated the FCC's failure to
enhance media diversity, concluding that the "FCC's own failure to collect or analyze data, and
lay other necessary groundwork, may help to explain, but does not excuse, its failure to consider
the proposals presented over many years. If the Commission requires more and better data to
complete the necessary Adarand studies, it must get the data and conduct up-to-date studies as it
began to do in 2000 before largely abandoning the endeavor." In the end, the Third Circuit noted
its expectation that the Commission would finalize this work "in time for the completion of the
2010 Quadrennial Review."
The court also noted Supreme Court statements recognizing that "the conclusion that
there is a nexus between minority ownership and broadcasting diversity ... is corroborated by a
host of empirical evidence" and that "both Congress and the Commission have concluded that
the minority ownership programs are critical means of promoting broadcast diversity."
The Commission's own recently-released ownership report provides some long-absent
data, but the data falls short of satisfying the detailed analysis the Third Circuit ordered the
Commission to conduct. According to troubling reports about the draft order on circulation at
present, the Commission has not adequately addressed the likely impact of any proposed rule
changes on diversity, as the Third Circuit has repeatedly required. I am concerned that the
already low levels of ownership will be diminished even further by the proposed rule changes.
Lastly, claims that the Internet has lessened the need for polices that promote media
diversity have been grossly exaggerated and disproven by the Commission's own studies. The
FCC's report, Less ofthe Same: The Lack ofLocal News on the Internet (FCC Media Ownership
Study #6) (June 2011), found: "almost no evidence that the Internet has expanded the number of
local news outlets. Most television markets have fewer than a dozen local news Websites. Those
sites that do receive an audience are overwhelmingly newspaper and local television station
Websites, rather than new and independent sources of local news.... Online local news markets
resemble downsized versions of traditional media news markets, with the same news stories
produced by the same newspapers and television stations."
For all of these reasons, I respectfully request that the Commission not proceed with its
proposed rule changes at this time, and that it conducts the court-ordered analysis on its recently
released data before it acts on its media ownership rules.
Sincerely
2