DISSENTING STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS
In the Matter of Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc., et al. and Newport Television LLC
No one should be under any illusion that Clear Channel’s sale of its 35 full-power television 
stations strikes a blow for de-consolidation. After this transaction closes and all divestitures have 
occurred, Providence Equity Partners will have attributable interests in a whopping 86 television stations 
and 99 radio stations in the United States, as well as interests in media companies around the world such 
as MGM studios (largest shareholder), Yes Network, Hallmark Channel, and Warner Music Group. You 
will search this Order in vain, however, for any mention of the scope of Providence’s holdings or how 
they potentially affect our public interest analysis.
What makes this case particularly different than other license transfers from one media giant to 
another is the fact that this one involves private equity. In the Univision Order last March, I urged the 
Commission to examine the impact of private equity on our ability to ensure that licensees protect, serve 
and sustain the public interest. Unfortunately, that has not happened. Instead, we close our eyes and 
pretend that nothing has changed. We proceed without knowing how segments of the conglomerate are 
controlled and managed. How, amid such murky shadows, does a regulator protect the public interest?
Why doesn’t the Commission have enough curiosity to even ask? 
I don’t claim to have all the answers here, but I have plenty of questions. What are the financial 
and public interest implications of private equity investment? Can our attribution rules can keep up with 
these complex and opaque ownership structures? Why haven’t we studied what happens to long-term 
investment in communications when a private equity firm takes control? Do such entities usually take the 
longer view because they are not subject to the pressures of Wall Street, or are we beginning to see more 
of a “strip it and flip it” pattern? How will a purchaser’s assumption of massive amounts of debt affect its 
stewardship of the airwaves?  For broadcast stations, what happens to newsgathering and other 
programming of local interest? There are many other questions. Our lack of answers to them, coupled 
with Commission willingness to plunge ahead in spite of its appalling unawareness, is chilling. When we 
proceed without adequate information to approve this new kind of media consolidation, we are heading 
into dangerous waters.  
Doing our job depends on our ability to assess who actually influences licensees’ editorial 
decisions and financial strategy. As Chairmen Dingell and Markey noted in a July 12, 2007 letter to 
Chairman Martin:
History also suggests that private equity ownership is marked by a management structure that is 
not overly transparent and by fluid asset management where actual holdings and control may vary 
significantly, as properties are bought and sold. These historical styles may not be consistent 
with many of the core public interest and localism values that Congress has assigned to local 
media and may implicitly undermine the Commission’s media ownership rules. 
 We need to heed such counsel. Many industries, not just communications, have gotten themselves 
into serious difficulties by heading off on seemingly promising and fashionable tangents without asking 
the questions they should have asked. The outcomes have often been disastrous to the businesses 
themselves, to customers, and to the country’s well-being. It’s time to get serious about this.
Because we proceed down such a blind alley, I must dissent from today’s decision.