Page 147 - Freedom in the world_Neat

large companies with access to vast resources support variety in news and entertainment,
since they are able to finance stations that might not otherwise stay afloat. Gattuso also
argues that it is in the best interest of these companies to diversify their programming to
appeal to as wide an audience as possible.66
However, the FCC’s decision also met with considerable opposition from defenders of
regulation like the Media Access Project, trade associations like the National Writer’s
Union, and even a number of socially conservative organizations including the U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Parents’ Television Council, and, at one point, the
National Rifle Association. These diverse groups found common ground in the belief that
the concentration of media outlets under a few owners would limit the range of voices and
lead to programming that was out of touch with local communities.67 Many organizations,
including the International Federation of Journalists, argue that even without the proposed
FCC changes, the current trend of multiplying outlets owned by a shrinking number of
corporations is already limiting the diversity of opinions that can be accessed by the
American public.68
Critics of deregulation are particularly concerned that large conglomerates could influence
news content under their control to suit their interests in other industries. For example, in
2001 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) required GE to pay half a billion dollars
to clean up a 40-mile stretch of the Hudson River after it was revealed that the company
had dumped more than a million pounds of toxins into the river by the end of the
1970s.69 While the issue was before the New York City Council, GE engaged in a
statewide campaign against the EPA decision that was estimated to have cost tens of
millions of dollars, including television, radio, billboard, and internet advertisements.70 At
the same time, Robert Wright—the vice chairman of the GE corporate board and president
of NBC—actively advocated against the decision, meeting city council members and
defending GE’s position.71 Once the EPA announced its decision, most of the NBC news
programs touched only lightly on the issue, and the primary NBC in-depth news magazine
program, Dateline, has yet to cover it.72
In a victory for regulation advocates, a series of legislative decisions and court rulings
prevented the new FCC ownership rules from taking effect. A few months after the rules
were originally proposed, the Senate passed a resolution voicing its disapproval and
calling for them to be withdrawn. Although that demand never became law, the fiscal
2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act instructed the FCC to modify one of the rules and
drop the cap on media ownership to 39 percent, from the proposed 45 percent.73 In
2004, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, ruling in Prometheus Radio
Project v. Federal Communications Commission, suspended all of the 2003 FCC changes
and sent most of the ownership rules back for reevaluation.74 By 2005, the FCC had
consulted with the Justice Department and decided against appealing the decision to the
Supreme Court. The commission admitted defeat in 2006 and commenced a new review of
ownership rules, this time promising more public hearings and attention to the effect its
decisions would have on media diversity.
In part as a response to these developments, Michael Powell resigned from the FCC in
January 2005. He was succeeded as chairman by Kevin Martin, a Republican commissioner
who promised to take a more active interest in public opinion before any further
regulations could be passed.

Page 147 of 168