…FCC Commissioner Michael Copps recently told the Columbia Journalism Review that "We need to be looking much more intently at how consolidation issues affect minorities and contributes to the objective of diversity – diversity of programming, diversity of ownership, diversity of opportunities." It doesn’t take a national research project to determine that commercial radio suffers from a lack of diversity, though the Cornell study summed it up pretty nicely: "The detrimental impact of [Clear Channel’s] business practices on localism, diversity of programming, and, possibly, public safety cannot be ignored." And since radio employs a frequency spectrum that is technically owned by the public, the public has every right to be upset with what’s going on…

Many suspicions have arisen over how close the relationship is between Clear Channel and the current administration. The Cornell University report states, "For most of Clear Channel’s history, political activity has not been a significant part of its operating strategy. But in the last three years the company has created a formidable lobbying operation that involves political connections, primarily with the Republicans, throughout government from the municipal level up to the White House." Michael Powell, chairman of the FCC and son of Secretary of State Colin Powell, is a Republican. The Cornell study reports that between 2000 and 2002, Clear Channel’s campaign contributions totaled more than $700,000, with 75 percent going to Republican candidates. An AFL-CIO study estimates that during that same period, Clear Channel’s political contributions totaled $1 million, with 75 percent going to Republican candidates. According to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics (www.crp.org), Clear Channel’s political action committee gave 77 percent of their $334,501 in federal contributions – a larger share than any other entertainment company – to Republicans. In addition, Clear Channel executive had given (at press time) $42,400 to Bush and on $1,750 to expected Democratic nominee John Kerry for the 2004 election.

By way of syndicated talk show host Glenn Beck, Clear Channel supported the organization of pro-war rallies in Atlanta, Philadelphia, Houston, Memphis and Washington, D.C., among other cities. The AFL-CIO study also cites that a radio personality was fired after speaking out against the war in Iraq. Clear Channel was accused of engaging in partisan political activity in Jackson, Miss. [Mississippi Clarion Ledger, June 3, 2001], after discontinuing airing radio ads that were paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Not that Clear Channel is the only player in the politics game – between 1996 and 2000, the 50 biggest media trade organizations spent roughly $111 million lobbying Congress [Charles Lewis, "Media Money," Columbia Journalism Review, Sept./Oct. 2000]. And many of the giant media conglomerates benefit from their relationship with the current ruling party. According to the Columbia Journalism Review, former FCC chairman Reed Hundt told Salon that "the [FCC’s June 2, 1993] vote was less about principles of diversity, competition, and localism than an effort to strengthen a powerful alliance between the political right and the Big Media." The Columbia Journalism Review ["Media Monopoly: Behind the Mergers: Q&A" by Neil Hickey, May/June 2002] also reports that "Democrats usually favor retaining regulations and Republicans don’t," though Hickey points out that sometimes the issue crosses party lines, citing as an example Mississippi Republican Senator Trent Lott (who, in 2002, support that the 35 percent cap should remain enforced).

Critics have also charged that the Bush administration has altered antitrust procedures, allowing the Justice Department – which is part of the executive branch, run by presidential appointees – to have oversight of the media mergers. The Federal Trade Commission, which is a bipartisan, independent agency, does not have jurisdiction in these mergers. If you want to find out more about partisan donations, go to the Federal Elections Commission website, www.fec.gov, which tracks all campaign contributions.

…According to Advertising Age, if the FCC further tightens restrictions on the public airwaves, listeners – especially the younger demographic – will be driven to seek out alternatives such as satellite radio or cable TV, an option that many consumers have already adopted. This will effectively fragment the media audience, causing a major shift in American media, and broadcast radio and TV will grow increasing homogeneous and bland. Radio and television networks will have to compete against these growing businesses, and some experts theorize that, at worst, free radio and television broadcasts will eventually be completely obliterated in favor of the unregulated outlets. A fatalist view shows a multinational company controlling the local newspapers, television and radio stations, Internet service provider, cable system, magazines, etc. This company will be able to cross-promote according to their own agenda, catering to the needs of advertisers and stockholders rather than the community.

It may sound extreme, but we’ve already witnessed events that show that this outcome isn’t out of the question. Earlier this year, Air America launched a liberal talk radio network, featuring hosts such as Chuck D. and Al Franken. John Sinton, co-founder and president of Air America, told Rolling Stone [June 10, 2004] that the network had encountered financial roadblocks after having to lease high-priced time, because companies such as Clear Channel and Infinity refused to broadcast Air American programming. While Air America is broadcast on satellite radio and its Internet streams are among the most popular online, Sinton comments that in "the post-consolidated radio world, a handful of people own all the beachfront property." The Cornell study notes that "Many labor leaders believe that [Clear Channel’s] record of supporting conservative viewpoints is part of a deliberate corporate strategy to curry favor with conservative decision-makers in Washington, D.C." Clear Channel and Infinity’s refusal to broadcast Air America silences the left side of the political spectrum, while conservative on-air personalities such as Dr. Laura Schlessinger and Rush Limbaugh are syndicated through Clear Channel on multiple stations in multiple markets.

REGULATORY CHANGES FOR RADIO (Info compiled from Cornell study)

Rules before the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Radio companies could own only two stations per market and no more than 40 nationwide.

Rules enacted by the Telecommunications Act: Radio companies could own eight stations in local markets and an unlimited amount nationwide. The local ownership cap used a sliding scale in which companies could own eight in markets with at least 45 stations and five in markets with 14 or less stations. Companies were barred from owning more than half the stations in a given market.

Rules enacted on June 2, 2003: The FCC employed a new method in which to define a "radio market" by dropping overlapping signal contours and relying upon Arbitron’s geographic boundary measurements. These regulations would allow a maximum of seven stations in markets that previously would have allowed eight, reducing ownership limits in several markets nationwide. This may require that Clear Channel, among other companies, has to relinquish control of stations in certain markets.

Clear Channel defends their consolidation on the basis that they can effectively identify their specific listening audiences for each station and, through market segmentation, better reach the intended audience through advertising. As the Washington Post reported [Feb. 28, 2003[, Mark Mays, president of Clear Channel Communications and son of founder Lowry Mays, stated that Americans "like" the results of media consolidation and that Clear Channel plays "music our listeners want to hear." The Future of Music Coalition study showed that radio consolidation has made it difficult for listeners to hear anything off the beaten path, and the numbers prove that they don’t "like" it – while radio still reaches a large number of adult listeners, time spent listening is at a 27-year low. This study also revealed that 78 percent of survey respondents want longer playlists with more variety and 80 percent were in favor of action to prevent further consolidation…

This isn’t a problem that we can slap a Band-Aid on. With the continued media consolidation, the FCC – Chairman Powell, specifically – has been criticized for hiding the issue from the public by not hold more public hearings on media ownership. According to the American Journalism Review [Dec./Jan. 2004, "News Blackout," Chris Layton], "In the first five months of 2003, when the FCC was debating the media cross-ownership rules that were overturned in June of that year, the commercial TV and cable networks showed ‘virtually no coverage’ of the issue, with the big networks typically airing nothing until a week before the FCC decision." Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, told the Washington Post [June 2, 2003], "Powell refused to conduct [adequate] public hearings, he refused to have 30- or 60-day debates on the rules, he has been unwilling to reach out to the public." FCC Commissioner Copps has stated that more intensive investigation is needed, and that the FCC needs to "get out into some of these markets, get the feel of them, and draw on new expert out there." After Chairman Powell refused a request from Commissioner Copps and Jonathan Adelstein for a public airing of pending media concentration rules in May of 2003, Copps released a statement, "We are rushing to passage new rules without letting the American people know who is going to own and control the public airwaves for years to come and without gaining the benefit of their input on what is being proposed. This is no way to do business when critical issues affecting every American are at stake."

In fact, had there been more public hearings in the first place, events might have taken a different course. According to writer Eric Boehlert ["One Big Happy Channel?" Salon, July 10, 2001], when the Telecommunications Act was being assembled in 1995, the roughly 200 pages of legislation focused on phone companies, the V-chip, promoting competition, monitoring Internet porn, and deregulating cable rates, among other issues. A provision lifting ownership limits for radio station broadcasters nationwide received little public attention – President Clinton didn’t even mention it during the bill signing – and ended up being the source of all this controversy. According to Salon, "Without the FCC’s input or any public hearings, the kind of sweeping deregulation that most broadcasters hadn’t even fantasized about two years earlier was ushered in overnight"… Clinton later admitted in 2001 that the Telecommunications Act caused "more consolidation than we wanted" in radio.

What was essentially an afterthought in the Telecommunications Act caused the most impact in the media industry, and it also caused a riff within the radio industry. In 1995, the National Association of Broadcasters lobbied in favor of deregulation; nowadays, smaller broadcast companies are resisting any further consolidation, while the big companies are obviously still supporting it.

There are some signs that Americans are starting to realize the severity of the situation. According to a poll conducted by the Boston Globe [April 14, 2004], ’70 percent of respondents said that news outlets were often influenced by powerful people and organizations." The Pew Study also reported that "70 percent [of people who have heard a lot about the FCC’s cross-ownership rule change] say the impact on the country will be negative, while only 6 percent say it will be positive." Copps continues, "There seems to be a rising ride of concern in the country about consolidation. I think it’s got a long, long way to go. We’ve got to get the media doing their part to cover the issues and let the American people know these issues are up for decision."

According to the Columbia Journalism Review’s Neil Hickey, the general public doesn’t know much about the updates regarding the whole situation because "broadcast and cable news people practically never cover it" and "the greatest majority [of newspapers] bury it in the business pages if they treat it at all."

You can educate yourself on the FCC’s actions through websites such as www.freepress.net, www.fcc.gov and www.aftra.org, where you can find dates and times of the FCC’s public hearings (at the Free Press site, you can send an e-mail to demand a hearing in your state), along with links to past reports. Websites for the Media Access Project (www.mediaaccess.org) and Moveon.org (www.moveon.org) provide information on how citizens can stay informed and take action by contacting senators and representatives or organizing with people within their community. This can have an impact on proceedings on Capitol Hill – Andrew Jay Schwartzman, executive director of the Media Access Project, told the Washington Post [June 2, 2003], "hundreds of thousands of postcards" that protested the proposed changes to media ownership regulation last year "have taken Powell and his two fellow Republicans on the commission by surprise." Schwartzman points out that while Moveon.org received 3,000 responses regarding the Bush tax cut, they got roughly 180,000 regarding media ownership. Commissioner Adelstein reported that by the end of last summer, over 2.3 million people had contacted Congress or the FCC to oppose further media concentration. New rulings imposed in June 2003 prevented Clear Channel from buying more stations in specific markets, and will prevent other radio companies from growing at the pace Clear Channel did. In addition, the Telecommunications Act requires the RCC to review the regulations and modify or create ownership policies and rules that are consistent with the current media marketplace at the biennial review. Mark 2005 on your calendars.

RESOURCES

Remember Benjamin Harris, editor of Publick Occurrences? He reportedly fled England after printing "seditious" matter, hoping to find a more free and open society across the Atlantic. Our ancestors designed the Bill of Rights with the intention that We, the People – including the press – would retain the right to comment freely on the power that be. In order to ensure diversity and accountability in this public forum, there must be room for all voices to be heard. We need to demand that the FCC returns to their original purpose of managing and regulating the media on our behalf.

Mr. Harris, we’ll keep working on it.

(The above article was excerpted from Performing Songwriter, July/August 2004. For the article’s entirety, visit www.performingsongwriter.com/pages/79/.)