*Pages 1--4 from Microsoft Word - 58612.doc* 1 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS, CONCURRING IN PART, DISSENTING IN PART Re: 2006 Quadrennial Regulatory Review & 2002 Biennial Regulatory Review— Review of the Commission’s Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Cross- Ownership of Broadcast Stations and Newspapers, Rules and Policies Concerning Multiple Ownership of Radio Broadcast Stations in Local Markets Definition of Radio Markets (MB Docket Nos. 06- 121, 02- 277, MM Docket Nos. 01- 235, 01- 317, 00- 244) One thing we can probably all agree on is the need to start this proceeding. It has been two years since the Third Circuit sent back to us the misguided handiwork of the previous Commission. We owe the court a response to its instruction to revisit this proceeding and to do it right this time. Additionally, Congress instructed us to review all our media ownership rules in a quadrennial review, which by statute must commence this year— another reason why we should proceed. Meanwhile, the rush to consolidation continues. Since we last voted on this issue three years ago, there have been more than 3300 TV and radio stations that have had their assignment and transfer grants approved. So even under the old rules, consolidation grows, localism suffers and diversity dwindles. For these reasons, I agree that we need to start this proceeding now. But in Washington, things aren’t always what they seem. In fact, this innocuous- looking document initiates the single most important public policy debate that the FCC will tackle this year. Don’t let its slimness fool you. It means that this Commission has begun to decide on behalf of the American people the future of our media. It means deciding whether or not to accelerate media concentration, step up the loss of local news and change forever the critical role independent newspapers perform for our Country. It’s tempting to see this debate as important only to giant media moguls. Some companies want the government to make the decision to rush into more media concentration behind closed doors in sequestered Washington bureaucracies. But I believe that Americans need to know what the FCC is doing and that we have a solemn obligation to encourage public participation in the decision. It’s important because if we make the wrong decision our communities and our country will suffer. This debate will have far reaching implications for the credibility of information Americans get from the media— for the vitality of the civic dialogue that determines the direction of our democracy— and for whether TV and radio offer entertainment that is creative, uplifting and local or degrading, banal and homogenized. Let’s review some history. We all know that in 2003 the FCC tried to eliminate important safeguards that protected media diversity, localism and competition. A majority of Commissioners approved stunning— there is no other word for it— rules that would allow one corporation to own, in a single community, up to three TV stations, eight radio stations, the cable system, the only daily newspaper and the biggest Internet provider. How can it be good for our Country to invest such sweeping power in one media mogul or one giant corporation? Three years ago the FCC tried to inflict this massive wave of further consolidation onto an already highly concentrated media industry. The majority of the Commission voted to do so without seeking adequate input from the American people, without conducting adequate studies and without even revealing to the country what the new rules would be before forcing a vote. I 1 4 Commission has interpreted the Communications Act to require broadcasters to be responsive to local concerns and to represent a diversity of views and opinions. Localism and media ownership are inextricably linked. Ownership interests have a duty to air programming responsive to the needs and interests of their communities. But if we really want our local stations to be accountable to our local community, why should citizens who want to dial up local station owners have to call from one end of the Country to another? Is it really good for our Country for distant powers in New York or Los Angeles to dictate so much of what we see, hear and read in our hometown? These are important questions that go right to the heart of this proceeding. But you won’t find them asked here. Instead, the Commission goes to great lengths to isolate our stalled localism proceeding from today’s media ownership proceeding. The most this Notice does is commit our staff to compiling a summary of the dated record we have in our localism docket. Though there is bipartisan support for completing our localism proceeding before revving up media ownership, the Commission will apparently choose to leave localism stuck at the starting gate. I am also disappointed that this item fails to commit to specific efforts to advance ownership by minorities. The Third Circuit took the Commission’s earlier decision to the woodshed for sidelining proposals to advance minority ownership. Despite this, all we can muster up here are a few questions about this glaring challenge. Why won’t we commit to studying the state of minority media ownership in this country and the impact that consolidation has had? Are we afraid of what the facts might show? It is no excuse to argue that many of the nation’s broadcast licenses were given away decades ago when women and people of color were unlikely to obtain them. Those sins of omission need to be excised and new strategies to encourage diversity in ownership and jobs and programming need to be put in place. While people of color make up over 30 percent of our population, they own only 4.2 percent of the nation’s radio stations and 1.5 percent of the nation’s TV stations! More recent statistics suggest that even these numbers are in free fall. I believe the ownership of our media should look more like the diversity of our people. But if all the Commission does is ask a few pat questions and then sweep this issue under the rug one more time, we are not laying the groundwork for progress. Let me conclude with a challenge to our nation’s media to take up this issue, highlight it, give it the attention it merits, inform the debate and spark a national conversation on these issues all across this broad land of ours. With relatively few exceptions, the media— big media especially— failed the test last time, and failed it badly. I hope that was not because some very important media enterprises have financial interests riding on the outcome of the ownership proceeding. Major media companies are at pains to assure us their newsgathering operations are independent of their corporate interests. Here is an excellent opportunity to test that proposition. Because ignoring the issue of media concentration is not going to make it go away. Launching this proceeding is the easy part. Now comes the hard work. So much hangs in the balance. If we are serious about it and do not treat this proceeding as business- as- usual, if we approach these issues with receptivity on all sides to hard facts and compelling evidence and if we reach out— really reach out— to people all across this land, I believe the Commission can arrive at a decision that will withstand judicial and Congressional scrutiny and more importantly, the scrutiny of the American people. I for one am ready to roll up my sleeves and work with my colleagues to get the job done and done right this time. The American people have a right to expect more from this Commission than they got from the previous one. 4