FCC Ruling a Blow to Democracy
The Denver Post
June 8, 2003

Denver is unusual. Unlike most major cities, we still have two newspapers. We enjoy a media mix that gives us a variety of news and opinions. We have a number of television stations, including public and cable TV, and a rich assortment of radio stations. That could all change under a new ruling by the Federal Communications Commission.

Earlier this week, the FCC opened the floodgates to media consolidation. Previously, newspapers could not own television stations in the same market. One company could not own radio and TV stations that reached more than 35% of the market, unless the FCC granted a waiver. Now, Fox or CBS or Viacom or anyone else can capture 45% of a market, and more with a waiver, which has been easy to obtain.

FCC Chairman, Michael Powell, pushed this radical change through the Commission in a partisan, 3 to 2, vote. He is convinced that deregulation of the nation’s media is long overdue and fully justified by the availability of programming on cable TV and the Internet. His two Democratic colleagues disagreed vehemently, calling the change a challenge to our democracy.

What’s behind all this? The FCC exists principally because we receive much of our information over radio waves, a global resource that Congress deems a public asset to be used for the public good. That is why we’ve had restrictions on ownership of broadcasting stations and requirements for programming of public value. The airwaves over the United States belong to the American public, not to a particular radio or TV station and certainly not to a particular media tycoon.

Additionally, a core precept of a democracy is the availability of many different opinions and information in our news media. The greater this variety, the greater our ability to understand issues and to form our own opinions. In non-democratic societies, there is only one point of view presented. The fear surrounding the FCC’s deregulation decision is that consolidation of media outlets will also limit the range of opinion available to the American public.

Interestingly, opponents of the FCC’s decision span the political spectrum. The agency received nearly 800,000 letters, mostly opposing deregulation. In hearings last week, a bipartisan group of Senators castigated the FCC for both its decision and its process. There are several bipartisan bills in Congress to overturn or change the decision.

The FCC held only one public hearing on this massive deregulation, claiming it could not afford to hold more. The two Democratic commissioners, however, conducted 8 meetings across the country, garnering largely negative comments on the proposal. In Congress this week, Senators from both parties, including Colorado Senator Wayne Allard, criticized Chairman Powell for ignoring public opinion and plowing ahead with his agenda.

The deregulation controversy raises a couple of issues. One was brought up by Chairman Powell himself in the Senate hearing. When there is a major public policy choice to be made, he pointed out, it should be made by Congress, with full public debate, not by 5 unelected watchdogs of the public good. That, of course, raises the question of why he forced this decision without public debate.

Second is the importance to Americans of having a multitude, rather than a small selection, of opinions and news resources available to them. A democracy only exists when there are opportunities to express and hear many points of view. It is this public debate that guides the course of our country. If these opportunities are limited or provide only a narrow range of views, we will lose a critical component of our democracy and, perhaps, be ruled by the opinions of the few and the mighty.

Denver’s free-wheeling media environment, our wide open information machine, is in jeopardy. While we may think it’s great to see our own opinions dominate the news, there is probably no one among us who wants to see only views with which we vehemently disagree. The problem with media consolidation is that it limits public opinion and public debate. That is not good for Colorado and it is not good for America.