Dasha Bukovskaya
Journalism 110
Professor Jon Rochmis
The FCC: What They Say and What We See
The Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, is the independent agency by the United States government that upholds the responsibility of regulating mass media, including: radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable communications that are both interstate and international. The FCC was established by the Federal Communications Act of 1934, and has been influenced by both the government and the public. The FCC aims for prevention of large media entities taking over America’s media landscape as a whole, and ensuring that radio and television broadcasters serve the needs of their individual communities. However, the FCC relaxed ownership rules from since it came to be, thus allowing media giants to play a much stronger role in the schema of communications in the United States.
Examination of the FCC in history reveals that over time, their actions led to the consolidation of the media industry which actually decreased the amount of diverse and localized opinions available to the public. The idea of synthesizing government regulation and using licensing for airwaves goes back as far as the Radio Act of 1927, under which every radio channel was not subject to ownership and was rather intended to be used as a platform to serve the public interest. From there, the Federal Radio Commission (FRC) was created to regulate licensing and to take care of potential issues in radio, for instance, preventing discrepancies between stations and frequencies. Not long after the Radio Act of 1927, the FRC grew to become the FCC and was able to handle much more than just radio. As previously mentioned, their new ability to control the telephone—and also television and internet later on—was a result of the Federal Communications Act of 1934.
Fifteen years later, TV and radio stations that held broadcast licenses with the FCC had to cover prevalent controversial issues as well as allow for opposing viewpoints to be aired under The Fairness Doctrine. This doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule as it is not geared towards politicians and applies to a broader range of topics. As the name implies in Equal Time, each legally qualified candidate is entitled to the same amount of air-time as their opponent. The FCC was challenged in terms of constitutionality, for their fairness policy during a Supreme Court case decided in 1969: Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission. According to legislative attorney Kathleen Ann Ruane, “broadcasters could avoid enforcement actions for violations of the Fairness Doctrine by simply not covering the issue of public importance at all.” So, introducing regulation already creates an impact on coverage and the Fairness Doctrine was ultimately revoked in 1987.
The FCC strengthened its grasp on media ownership rules in 1975 by applying the idea of cross-ownership. Linking broadcasting to news printing in the same market for a single company was something undesirable in the eyes of the FCC. They intended to prevent a corporation from overpowering and becoming the only voice in a community in the interest of diversity. According to The FCC’s Newspaper-Broadcast Cross-Ownership Rule, “behind today’s seeming plethora of television choices are five conglomerates: Disney (which owns ABC), Viacom (CBS and the United Paramount Network), AOL Time Warner (The WB), News Corporation (Fox), and General Electric (NBC)”. It is not surprising that since 1975, the times have changed and most cable networks are owned by these conglomerates. FCC guidelines should enforce that United States policies on communications are not centered around maximizing profit, and need to reflect that, “newspapers and broadcasters are not simple firms reducible to profit-generating equations but rather are large, complex social, cultural, and political institutions, and they need to be analyzed through an institutional economic model that takes into account externalities, both positive and negative, that have an impact on the public welfare” (Gomery). In this sense, the cross-ownership rule works to serve the public’s interest because it ensures that more channels become available, but the catch is that there are fewer owners.
Edging towards the turn of the century, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is another pivotal event that occurred. It led to media consolidation by taking away ownership restrictions in the world of radio and television. A perfect example of the impact that the Telecommunications Act had upon different companies is the case of Clear Channel Communications which is referred to as iHeartMedia as of 2014. In Media Essentials: A Brief Introduction, numbers show the large-scale effect of the 1996 act, “it owns 840 radio stations and has branched out into other areas, owning about 600,000 billboard and outdoor displays in over thirty countries across five continents.” The FCC received negative feedback on the Telecomm Act from the public, reflecting distaste in allowing for media consolidation to the point where it could diminish local broadcasting and did not “serve the public interest” as intended.
The role of the internet and television in cross-ownership regulation by the FCC arguably provided the most diversity compared to other media outlets. Controversy surrounds the idea of net neutrality, meaning equal internet speed and access to all. Big corporations like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon criticize net neutrality because they want to create profit by charging their customers. Supporters think that small businesses would struggle because of not being able to afford decent connections. “In late 2014, the Obama administration started advocating stronger net neutrality rules, asking the FCC to follow suit” (Campbell). Nobody owns the internet, yet some continue to try and control it.
Community-oriented content is necessary to produce, and it should be an obligation of the people because media owners could not possibly cover local content with the same accuracy. In America, one result of the Telecommunications Act, where large corporations controlled radio channels, was an influx of what are known to be “pirate” stations. New low-power FM (LPFM) stations were used by activists that wanted representation for the community and could not access public airwaves. In March of 2000, pressure from the public caused the FCC chairman William E. Kennard to begin the LPFM initiative which allowed the FCC to maximize public use of airwaves. In his statement he said, “this is about the haves—the broadcast industry—trying to prevent many have-nots—small community and educational organizations—from having just a little piece of the pie. Just a little piece of the airwaves which belong to all of the people.” His actions have shown that the FCC is actually concerned with giving a voice to communities.
The new FCC commissioner, Ajit Pai, has “lifted a cap on how many stations a single company can own, the Sinclair Broadcast Group announced its intention to buy Tribune Media for $3.9 billion. The merger, which the F.C.C. and the Department of Justice are reviewing, would give Sinclair access to more than 70 percent of all television viewers in the United States” according to a recent article on the New York Times. Ajit Pai says that relaxing the rules will create a level playing field yet in response to that, corporations like the Sinclair Broadcast Group would take over in the eyes of consumer Americans.
In conclusion, media ownership rules have been in a state of flux ever since the introduction of the Federal Communications Commission. There has been a trend of media conglomerates gaining power at the hands of the FCC. This is a direct result of easing regulations by those in power, like Ajit Pai. Analyzing the FCC’s up-to-date history brings to light the dissonance between what the FCC says will happen, versus what happens.
Works Cited
Campbell, Richard, Christopher R. Martin, Bettina Fabos, and Shawn Harmsen. Media Essentials: A Brief Introduction. N.p.: Bedford/St. Martins, a Macmillan Education imprint, 2016. Print.
Gomery, Douglas. The FCCs newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule: an analysis. N.p.: Economic Policy Institute, 2002. Economic Policy Institute. Web.
Kang, Cecilia. "F.C.C. to Loosen Rules on Local Media Ownership." The New York Times. The New York Times, 25 Oct. 2017. Web.
Ruane, Kathleen Ann. "CRS Report on History of Fairness Doctrine." Technology Liberation Front. N.p., 12 Feb. 2009. Web.
Sadler, Roger L. Electronic Media Law. N.p.: Sage Publications, 2005. PDF. https://us.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/5332_Sadler_Chapter_5.pdf ; Pages 101-123.
"Statement of FCC Chairman William E. Kennard on Low Power FM Radio Initiative." FCC NEWS. N.p., 27 Mar. 2000. Web.