Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Greg Newby <gbnewby AT ils.unc.edu>]

The FCC held a hearing on media consolidation on
Monday March 31 at the Duke University Law School.
The agenda for the meeting is online at:
    http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-232533A1.pdf

also, there is a public comment facility soliciting
input from the public on this and a variety of other
issues:
        http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/ecfs/Upload/


These are my notes from the hearing.  They're fairly detailed, but
not at all complete.  Errors, bias, omission, etc. are
my fault.  It was a very interesting afternoon!

This is long (600 lines), but it was a full afternoon's
presentations.  If you're in a rush, read Copps' comments
and skip down to Tift Merritt.
  -- Greg Newby (contact data at the bottom)

--------

* Opening remarks (from 1235 until 1320)

- Michael J. Copps, FCC commissioner

Copps thanked everyone for showing up, and expressed optimism
that people outside the DC beltway could have an impact
during the hearing process.  He expressed regret that the
other FCC commissioners and other people in DC did not
attend, but hope they would pay attention to the hearing's
transcript.


- Johnathan S. Adelstein, FCC commissioner

Overview of the FCC's role in media.  He said the mandate
from the supreme court is to provide:
     . diversity
     . localism and
     . competition
in the media.  He also mentioned that the important
questions about media and media ownership are difficult
to answer.  Meanwhile, the FCC is trying to make
historic decisions - that will impact the whole future
of media - by June 2.  A very quick timeline.

Adelstein said that changing rules can have a very rapid
impact on the face of media, citing the telecom act
of 1996.  He gave a review of consolidation in radio, citing
it as the rapid change that can result from changes in rules,
and said that radio, in particular, is an early indicator
of trends in other media.

So far, about 8000 comments were received.  While this
is a lot, it is also a very small proportion of the population.
Adelstein pointed out that allowing companies to merge
and consolidate is a one-way process, so we need to prevent
it - if appropriate - before letting it happen.


- David Price, U.S. House of Representatives

Price mentioned that Copps was the organizing force behind
today's hearing, and that the hearing was important.  He
expressed regret that Commissioner Michael Powell was
not present (though he was invited).  

Price offered his opinion that the sense of "community"
is what is at stake in broadcast media ownership.  He
doesn't think that 200 channels of cable is enough.  He's
critical of consolidation in radio, and concerned the same
thing might happen to TV.  He's clearly critical of 
ClearChannel's political use of their airwaves for organizing
pro-war rallies (applause).  He pointed out the fear of
local affiliate owners of TV stations to buck policies
and programming of the higher-level corporate owners.


- Richard Burr, U.S. House of Representatives

He restated the value of hearing from experts and
opinions outside of the Washington beltway.  He said
he is here to urge the FCC to protect the voice of local
broadcasters.  He wants local stations to control
local programming.

Burr talked about the 35% rule that prevents too much
ownership.  He said that contrary to the expressed
will of congress, consolidated ownership was impairing
the power of local citizens to influence the affairs
and values of their community due to lack of access
to local media (aka lack of presence of local media).

He wants the 35% rule to stay, and is critical of
network-owned local stations.  He likes independent
stations for their ability to pursue localism, bucking
the corporate-dominated centrally-managed stations.

Burr pointed out that congress explicitly authorized
thousands of local stations, and that this vast set
of broadcasters is the envy of the world for the freedom
from government restraint.  He portrayed all these local stations
as bring critical to providing a local voice, and characterized
that as essential to democracy.

He gave the example of "who wants to marry a millionaire."
He said such programming demeans community values and
fundamental decency.  Such lowest-common-denominator
programming has questionable values, demeans marriage, and
may be indecent.  He congratulated the ability of local
affiliates to reject network programming they find
objectionable.  Burr said that government censorship is 
a non-issue if the 35% rule is in play, because local
broadcasters will make decisions about programming in
accord with local values.

Burr also had some things to say about public broadcasting
(seeming to focus on PBS/NPR affiliates in particular).  He
was very critical of centralization in such public broadcasting,
and said that Congress would start to scrutinize their
broadcast licenses more carefully for whether they are
meeting their constituents needs.

He urged expansion and enhancement of localism.  He said
that as an author of the 1996 Telecom Act, he knew that
protection of local control of media, particularly the 35%
rule, is unambiguously valued by congress.  He said that
for the FCC to bypass localism would put them at peril
of congressional intervention.

- Mark Prack (?), from a regional law firm and with
an affiliation to Duke Law.  He gave welcoming remarks, and
handed out Duke caps to the other participants.  He was
our host (sorry for not getting his name right).


* Panel on Localism and Community Standards (1320pm - 1420pm)

Copps introduced the panel.  Each would get some time to
present their views, then there would be some Q&A.

- Bill Brooks, President of the NC Family Policy Council 

He talked about the presence of government regulations and
deregulation.  He said that deregulation, resulting in
consolidation, results in fewer choices for consumers.  More
choices and less consolidation of media ownership increases
consumer choices.  

He also pointed out that prices for advertisers are more
favorable without more consolidation.  Brooks said that
1/3 of a given market is enough control, and that the
biases inherent in media meant that more consolidation
would mean fewer views.

Brooks is concerned that the "moral agenda" (including
homosexuality, adultery and violence) of the big media
are being pushed into community homes against dominant
community standards.

- Jim Goodmon, President & CEO, Capitol Broadcasting Company

His company operates various media in NC.  His message
was for the FCC to maintain current rules against
further consolidation of ownership.

Goodmon pointed out that lots and lots of cable channels
are not a substitute for localism.  He suggested that
today there is less diversity, in spite of more channels,
because there are fewer sources of programming.

Goodmon stressed the value of local airwaves broadcasters.
They're the primary source of local emergency programming,
and required by law to operate stations in the public
interest. 

He pointed out that the local channels have the largest
audience on cable and the Internet, locally.  (That is,
communities/regions are better served by their local
media.)

Goodmon's Fox affiliated rejected temptation island,
who wants to marry a millionaire, and some other
syndicated programming.  He defended this decisions as
being based simply on their desire to make a good
decision for their communities.  He said the easy/default
path was simply to allow national programming (that you
just push a button, and hope the programming is good).
He is working to instead make informed decisions about
whether & when to push the button.

Goodmon said that their stations do not have the 
opportunity to purchase syndicated programming, and
that this was a problem the FCC should look into.  He
portrayed a group of pre-determined stations that got
the opportunity to purchase syndicated programming.

He also pointed out that because of the "UHF
discount," stations with UHF broadcasts only had it
counted 50% -- enabling 70%, rather than 35%, ownership
in a particular market if UHF rather than VHF is used 
for broadcast.  He said this rule isn't consistent with
current broadcast technologies.

- Hank Price, President & General Manager, WXII-TV

Said that he did not want the FCC to raise the 35%
ownership cap.  

Price shared the story of a decision his station and some
of the other independent affiliates had made to not
air a national program.  But after interaction with the
program's producer, the program was changed and then
picked up with WXII.  He presented this out as evidence
for the role and benefit of local independent broadcasters.

Price shared another story from when he worked at
a CBS-owned affiliate.  He was trying to fight carrying
the Howard Stern show Saturday night at 10:00, based on 
feeling it was inappropriate for the community in that
timeslot.  He lost this fight, because the network made
the decision from NYC and he was stuck with it.  Again, this
was evidence that the national owners' agendas superseded
the local affiliates.

He thinks the ability of local broadcasters to make
local decisions is critical, and it was a non-negotiable
point when he took his current position.  

He asked again to not raise the 35% cap.  He asked
what the justification for raising the cap would be, and
said it would not serve localism.

- Michael Ward, President & General Manager, WNCN NBC-17 

Ward has been the key decision maker for NBC in the Raleigh market.
He stressed the value of local involvement, relevance and acceptance
for success of TV.  He said that the current rules for ownership miss
the point - the true value of locally owned and airwave broadcast TV
stations.

Ward described the extensive locally produced programming
at WNCN, presenting it as a key value to the station.  He
described how this transition took place over the last 6
years since NBC bought WNCN.  He portrayed WNCN's commitment
to local concerns as being the key to their success -- and
also mentioned that Goodmon's stations' examples are key
to motivating NBC's efforts.

He said that the restrictions on ownership don't make
sense, because in fact NBC-17 is more interested in local
relevance than has been portrayed.  He said that the fact
is that nationally owned affiliate stations DO broadcast
locally pertinent programming, and pay attention to the
needs of the community.

He said that the current broadcast cap favors locally
owned stations unfairly.  He pointed out that stations with
completely different communities served could not be 
owned by the same company due to ownership caps.  He
was critical of informercial programming by locally owned
stations, which benefit the bottom line but don't offer much 
to the community.

He said that a weakened local broadcast market would result
from restricting national companies from owning more in 
local markets.


- Copps gave a few summary words, and then asked for whether
the economic benefits of consolidation was necessary to
encourage investment by broadcaster.

Goodmon said that broadcasting is perhaps the most profitable
industry in the world, achieving 50% profits in many markets.
He said that economics were not an impediment to quality
programming, though poor programming decisions were.  The
main economic problem has been where people paid too much
for a local station, then didn't invest in local programming.

- David Price asked Ward what's happened to radio ownership
lately.  He's clearly concerned about this.  Is there a
decline of localism in radio, and if so why wouldn't 
TV go the same way?

Ward hemmed and hawed a bit, saying he doesn't know much
about radio.  Then he said that in TV they depend on 
local managers serving the local interest.  His answer
wasn't very satisfying, though he knew by now he was
in an audience generally opposed to his views.

- Burr talked about the context of the 1996 act.  He said
that congress is not sure whether the consolidation in
radio was a surprise, but maybe had some unexpected consequences.
He asked Goodmon what would happen if the 35% cap were
raised.

Goodmon said it would make it more difficult to compete.
He said he was concerned that a national owner would 
come and buy an affiliate, taking it away from Goodmon.
Goodmon pointed out that moving to digital would instantly
allow stations to allow twice as much because they'll
be in UHF rather than VHF.

- Audience question read by Copps: would a lowered cap
enhance localism?

Hank Price answered, saying that the real test was the station's
ability to serve the local community, and that there should
be local choices. 

- Copps asked Ward whether, should caps be removed, it
would be possible to de-consolidate if it turned out to 
be a mistake.  

Ward said he didn't have an answer, but he trusted the FCC
to examine all the ramifications before deciding to relax. 
He said he didn't see a way to de-consolidate, even in the
example of radio today.  Ward has faith that the decision
process would be sound.

- Copps stated that, in fact, he was not so confident that
the FCC was engaging in a well-informed decision process.
He wanted there to be more study of things like children,
violence, small advertisers and many other themes.

He expressed thanks to the panelists, then started to introduce
the next panel.


* Panel on News (1420 - 1515)

- Barry Faber, VP/General council of Sinclair Broadcast Group

Faber pointed out that Sinclair doesn't get associated with a lot of
news programming, instead getting it from Fox or UPN network
affiliations.  But in fact they have 30 stations with significant news
programming.

He said that economies of scale are the only way that Sinclair
can do effective news programming in their markets.  They have
a service called "news central," in which stuff of interest
generally is produced just once then made available to other
affiliates.

He defended the view that news central is creating undue
non-local news.  He said, to the contrary, it frees up
time for the local journalists to cover local news more than
they would if they were replicating national news.  He said
that such a model is consistent with wanting to develop
more local content, not less.

Faber said that lots of national affiliates of WB, UPN
and Fox had little or no ability to produce significant
quantities of local news.  News central was the only
real hope they had to being able to do so.

- Jim Heaver, President & Principal Owner, VilCom

Heaver said that radio consolidation has robbed communities
of localism.  He said he feared the same would happen
with TV, if rules are relaxed.  At local stations, there
are often no personnel to report on local news and events.

He owned a local station, sold is for business reasons,
and now is buying it back again.

Heaver expressed regret that he had cashed in on relaxed
ownership rules.  He said he had personally profited from
consolidation, but at the public's expense (wow!).  He wanted
to encourage more independent ownership, not greater concentration
of ownership.

He pointed out that further consolidation was anti-democratic,
in that it prevented minorities and others without big
bucks to afford to buy or run their own media.  He had
strong words about how localism is not served by current
rules, and urged the FCC to make localism a focus.

- Tom Howe, Director & General Manager, UNC-TV

UNC-TV is 11 TV stations and 23 translators in NC.  He pointed
out that his comments were his own, not representing
UNC.  He talked about the choices that were allowed by
modern broadcast methods, letting people choose between
local materials and national/centralized materials.  He
said that UNC-TV is an example of the ideal consolidation
model.  

UNC-TV has a lot of centralization, delivering TV to every
community in the state.  Their efficiency results in more
ability to invest in local programming, including a nightly
NC program, a weekly hour on the NC legislature, a weekly
diversity program, a weekly culture program, and others - 
all in prime time.  He called these local programs, broadcast
instead of national programs.  (To me, state-wide programming
is not really local.)

40% of the UNC-TV schedule is children's programming, and they
also offer education programming.  Howe said that he didn't
want to see more control go to PBS, versus allowing local
decisions by UNC-TV.  He said that currently, UNC-TV was
free to choose to carry local programming versus the national
PBS feed.  

Howe said that increased consolidation might result in
more pressure from PBS to force affiliates to carry
national programming in order to attract sponsors.
He said that the national forces, in the aggregate, would
always be stronger than local.  

- William W. Sutton, Jr.  Manager of Raleigh News & Observer (?)
(added to the panel at the last minute, evidently), representing
the National Association of Black Journalists.

Sutton said that consolidation is threatening to black journalists.
25 (or did he say 15?) years ago, a far greater percentage of
the NABJ membership was black radio journalists.  Since then, these
journalists have lost their jobs, due to the reduced number of news
programmers a radio stations.  Since these stations are no longer
locally owned and operated, the jobs have left.

He saw danger in continuing along the path to consolidation.
He said that we were heading towards a less informed
populace, rather than more informed.  We have been losing diversity,
from 90+% of radio stations with local news to less than 67%
(not sure I got the #s right).  

Will broadcasters commit to more diversity, to more viewpoints,
and to more localism, if further consolidation is enabled?  He
didn't think so, though was willing to listen if such a pledge
were made.

Sutton read from a letter from the NABJ president.  The letter
said that relaxing rules would negatively impact diversity.

- Questions included clarification by Copps on Heavner's
statement that centralization had hurt local programming.  Indeed,
Heavner said, they cut local programming to increase profits
and the public suffered.

- David Price recounted his experiences with local stations,
reminiscing about the benefits of very local focus.  He then
probed Heavner on what it would take to return some of the
community focus.  Heavner said that radio was so much cheaper
to program that it was hard to compare to TV.  Radio, he said,
has been very resilient to vast market changes (FM, AM, digital..).

(Interestingly, the WUNC-TV guy packed up his camera and left.
Evidently, they had a 3:00pm cutoff, even though the station
head was still on the stage  at the front of the room.)

Heavner said that just giving radio a little extra protection
would have helped it to survive consolidation better.  

- Copps read an audience question: does more efficiency,
meaning fewer people doing news jobs, mean jobs lost?
Faber said, "yes."  Jobs will be lost, though some stations
that did not otherwise have news programming would gain jobs.
He said the net would be an increase in news jobs.

- Copps read an audience question about how college
radio would be effected by changes to rules.  Nobody
said anything, initially - evidently, college radio
isn't too high on their radar.

Sutton said that as a former college WHOB-FM Virginia, he
valued the ability of college stations to (sometimes) deliver
alternative programming.  He portrayed college radio's listeners
as college students (not addressing the larger community).  He
said he values college radio and would not want to see it 
go away.  

Heavner chimed in saying that local radio (including college,
I think) played an important role in simply talking about
local events, even when it's not news.


* Panel on Diversity (1520-1610)

- Gregory Davis, President & CEO, Davis Broadcasting

Davis shared his background in broadcasting.  He said that diversity
has been hurt by consolidation.  He said that it's difficult
for a small broadcaster to exist in today's environment.  
He said that local owners were reduced from 8 to 1 since 1996.

- Don Curtis, President/CEO, Curtis Media Group

Curtis said he thought the new (1996) rules were a mistake,
and favored more restrictions.  However, he saw some bright
sides.  One is that his company was able to serve hispanic
audiences with programming that would not exist if his
company did not already own a non-hispanic station (to
help get the hispanic station running).

He described how hard it is now for young media owners
to get started as an entrepreneur, as both he and Davis
got started.  It's made much more difficult by the big
publicly-traded companies, which offer insurmountable
competition.  Curtis described how there are actually
more broadcasters now than in years past, but that
the increased competition doesn't necessarily mean 
more programming diversity.  

Curtis talked about how owning multiple stations has
made it possible for his stations to run lots of their
locally pertinent programming.  However, he expressed
doubt that this was really good overall for localism.  (I
didn't quite get his logic here - something about it
having been good for his company, but not necessarily
good overall).

- Bill Willis, NC bluesgrass musician who also works
at a Fortune-500 company in the region.

Willis talked a little about bluegrass in the area, and
about Pinecone, the Piedmont Council on Traditional
Music.  He said that WQDR FM 94.7's local bluegrass show
was a major benefit for Pinecone, and for exposure to
bluegrass music.  

Willis pointed out that ALL of the 40 traditional music
programs in NC are broadcast on locally owned or public
stations.  Without such local programming, there would
be no venue for such music.

- Tift Merritt, Universal Media Group recording artist

(Tift Merritt's "Bramble Rose" was #40 in the top 88.7 recordings
played at WXDU-Durham 88.7 FM in 2002)

Tift explained how her record was the #6 top record of
2002 according to Time Magazine.  She was on Letterman,
in Vanity Fair, yet does not get radio airplay.  She said
she's not here to whine about not getting enough radio
airplay, but to express her distress about the FCC placing
responsibility of the public airwaves in the hands of
advertisers, markerters, and people who just don't care about
content.

Merritt told how she was selling lots of albums locally, as many as
national bands.  Country Music Television was playing her songs.  Yet,
the locally-owned Curtis Media stations did not play her --
"management would have to change the programming."  She even said that
her father gave her CD to Mr. Curtis.

Merritt portrayed herself as a small businesswomen, who works hard
to play music in venues.  She seemed bitter that management
playlists were silencing artists such as her.  John Coltrane,
Thelonious Monk, Roberta Flack, Earl Scruggs, Doc Watson and other
NC-borne musicians indicate our heritage.  Today, the modern
heritage is at risk because there's no airplay.

- Curtis responded, saying that he also was unable to get
the music he loved on his radio stations.  He claimed ignorance
about how music was chosen, and said that in fact DJs have more
discretion in what they play than Merritt portrayed.

He said that radio is a bunch of followers - they do what
the others are doing, and don't take a lot of risks.

- Adelstein asked whether payola is truly rife in the 
radio industry.  Tift said that it's actually a budget line
item - to pay promoters to get her on the radio.  "To pay
to get on the radio" is the key phrase there.  Adelstein
said that payola is against the law, and the FCC would
value evidence that payola is happening.  (Huh?  Is
he next going to claim that maybe some people cheat
on their taxes, but there's not a lot of evidence.)

Curtis said that they work hard to make sure their people
are not receiving compensation for playing music.  However,
he said that calls from record companies pressured station
personnel into playing music.

- Copps said he was interested in getting testimony from music and
radio industry personnel anonymously, because otherwise they would
fear becoming blacklisted, but FCC rules do not permit this currently.
Merritt responded saying that she thought such fear was realistic.

- Copps asked whether there should be a block of programming
time (on TV, anyway) allocated to local producers.  Is
this a good idea?  Willis responded, saying that there is 
so much common sound across radio that diversity was
practically unseen.

- David Price probed on playlists, saying he really 
didn't understand how playlists worked.  Merritt responded
saying that the largest conglomerates were mostly interested
in selling commercials, not the quality of the music.  She
described music as "filler" between commercials, with no
desire for programmers to take chances (!).


* Public Question and Comment Period (1610-1700)

Lots of different opinions, of about 2-3 minutes each.  17 people
spoke.  For the most part, people had their own take on why there
should be no relaxation of rules against media ownership.

Here, for the first time today, we heard from and
about print media.  People complained about current media,
told stories of viewpoints or stories unheard, and
expressed feelings of distance from big media.

- Copps summed up to mention that people ask what assurance
they have their voices will be heard.  He said there is
no assurance.  But he urged participants to raise awareness among
our friends, associates and colleagues about the issues
of media consolidation.

Copps was clearly dissappointed that there are not enough
community hearings, and not enough media coverage.  He
wants the networks to cover this issue, and thinks it will
be necessary to have the sort of participatory democracy
on this issue that we need.

Copps encouraged us to go forward and get involved.

- Adelstein summed up to thank the public for their
opinions and wisdom.  


// Dr. Gregory B. Newby, Assistant Professor in the School of Information
// and Library Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
// CB# 3360 Manning Hall, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-3360  E: gbnewby AT ils.unc.edu
// V: 919-962-8064 F: 919-962-8071  W: http://www.ils.unc.edu/gbnewby/