Taming Media Monopolies

Corporate domination of the media is an alarming and growing trend. Now the Bush administration has ratified it, paving the way for more.

By Jon Melegrito

Does it really matter if Clear Channel Communications — the media giant that dominates the airwaves — owns most of the radio stations in town? Or if a handful of companies like Disney and AOL Time Warner control nearly every show on TV? Does this matter to working families?

You bet it does.

In June, the Federal Communications Commission enacted what is widely viewed as the most radical consolidation of media ownership in America's history. Many consumer activists, academicians, union leaders and some members of Congress are convinced that the changes will badly damage the public interest and free speech.

"This further deregulation of the country's communication outlets will be dangerous to workers, consumers and citizens across the board," says President McEntee. "We can't have a media monopoly. Media corporations increasingly promote a largely conservative and anti-worker agenda. Meanwhile, those who speak for the interests of working families have zero ownership influence over any major media." Alarmed by "a serious threat to America's democracy," the AFL-CIO Executive Council vowed at its winter meeting to "fight to safeguard the freedom of Americans to receive independent, uncensored information."

Established in 1945, and modified by the 1996 Telecom-munications Act, federal rules prohibit large companies from buying up all the sources of news — such as newspapers or radio/TV stations in any one geographic area; ban big media conglomerates from owning TV stations that reach a combined audience of more than 35 percent of U.S. households; forbid major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox) from buying each other; and prevent a company from owning more than one TV station in a market.

That was a policy that made good sense. "To emphasize the need for diverse views and ensure a healthy democracy, the public is better served by multiple voices," wrote media critic Robert McChesney in The Nation last year. But with a green light from the Bush administration, the FCC has now scrapped six long-standing rules that limit media monopolies. McChesney maintains that it will effectively allow wealthy media executives to exercise "greater control over what most Americans are able to see, read and hear."

Citing the competitive environment in which they operate, media giants — with a $125-million annual lobbying budget — sued in federal court to overturn the remaining limits. According to press reports following the June decision, some of the companies will sue again to remove additional barriers to their further growth.

DEARTH OF DIVERSITY. Way back in 1945, the Supreme Court declared: "the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public, that a free press is a condition of a free society." As the federal agency charged with regulating the mass media, the FCC crafted a number of ownership rules. But they have been weakened over the decades.

In the newspaper field, according to The Nation, one-fourth of the country's circulation is controlled by just three media chains: Gannett, Knight Ridder and the Tribune Corp. All three have a history of hiring scabs and intimidating striking workers. A single firm, Clear Channel, owns over 1,200 radio stations. Four corporate giants control television: General Electric, which owns NBC; Viacom, owner of CBS; Disney, parent company of ABC, and News Corporation which owns the Fox TV network. Fox has more viewers than any of its competitors. It is ruled by the ultra-conservative Rupert Murdoch and run by former Republican operative Roger Ailes. Comcast and AOL Time Warner control cable access to 40 percent of U.S. households, while Echostar Communications and DirectTV dominate the satellite market.

"It's no wonder that most Americans admit to being uninformed about many of the key issues that affect them," writes Jeffrey Chester, director of the Center for Digital Democracy. "The media problem is at the heart of all the issues that we face. And it is getting worse, not better." He cites TV coverage of the Iraq war — notably by Fox News, which he describes as "a deliberately conservative mouthpiece" — to illustrate his point that some U.S. media companies aren't interested in providing a serious range of analysis and debate.

Clear Channel determines which talk-show hosts are syndicated on its stations. That means only one point of view gets aired in every market. (Among Clear Channel's syndicated luminaries is arch-conservative Rush Limbaugh.) That's important because, according to a Gallup Poll released in January, 22 percent of Americans get their daily news from talk radio.

Moreover, Clear Channel — through its promotional clout — can punish music groups that don't toe its political line. When country music's Dixie Chicks spoke out against the war, for instance, their songs were banned from the airwaves for several weeks, causing sales of their recordings to drop.

LABOR FIGHTS BACK. The FCC's changes in broadcast ownership rules have unleashed a strong response. The groups fighting back include the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) and the Screen Actors Guild, as well as the Communications Workers of America, which includes The Newspaper Guild.

"Our journalist members [of AFTRA] know that their general managers often receive mandates regarding the types of stories to be investigated and reported," AFTRA Pres. John Connolly says. "There are several examples of local stories being 'killed' because they dealt with topics that corporate management did not want to see reported."

A 2001 study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism shows the negative impact of corporate dominance: reduced coverage of consumer, environmental, minority and labor issues; plus a lower quality of news coverage, as media owners try to reduce costs and boost profits.

IMPACT ON WORKERS. NBC's recent purchase of Telemundo, a Spanish-language network, has focused attention on the anti-union and anti-ethnics attitudes of media corporations. To date, NBC has continued to ignore AFTRA's call to negotiate on behalf of recently hired Spanish-speaking Telemundo employees who — compared to their English-speaking counterparts — are receiving substandard wages and benefits.

"No question, monopolization is damaging to unions," says American University Communications Professor Christopher Simpson. "But even without consolidation, there is already a built-in media bias against workers in the way their stories are told. As it is, coverage of unions comes out of the box distorted, putting them at a disadvantage."

In his classic study How the Other Half Lives (published in 1890), Jacob Riis noted that in the early 20th century, "the media served as an instrumental force in encouraging social reform" and "aided unions in their efforts to inform the public of the harsh conditions of the American workplace." That is clearly no longer the case.

A 1993 study by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), showed that 50 percent of the sources interviewed for public TV's business shows were corporate representatives, compared with only 2 percent who spoke for public interest groups, including labor. An earlier FAIR study found that nightly news programs were devoting only 2 percent of their coverage to workers' issues, and a mere 1.2 percent of network time was being devoted to U.S. unions.

COUNTER-ATTACK. Although media reform remains an uphill battle, a growing number of policy makers are starting to pay attention. The two Democratic FCC members who voted against the recent decision warned that media ownership in the hands of a few will stifle different views from being heard.

Some in Congress are also worried, with close to 150 senators and representatives critical of the FCC's rushed decision. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) introduced a bill aimed at increasing competition in radio and entertainment.

As the battle is joined, one thing is clear: Without media reform that stems the tide of corporate domination, it will be difficult — if not impossible — to win the working-family battles that must be won.