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

["Virginia Ingram" <virginia AT virginiaingram.com>]

For those of you that missed the hearing, you would have been proud of Greg
and all of the WXDUers that spoke up and said something.  It was a very
interesting meeting.  Pictures of Ann and Greg should be in the paper
tomorrow (hopefully a few other people's pics will make it in the paper as
well)!!

Virginia


> 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/
>
> ---
> Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!
> http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/ You are currently subscribed to
> InterNetWorkers mailing list
> To unsubscribe visit
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers


Virginia Ingram
http://www.virginiaingram.com
virginia AT virginiaingram.com
h:  919.683.8521 or 919.489.0041
c:  917.670.2103