NAB Goes After Public Interest Groups, in Replies on 2014 Q.R.
Public interest groups opposing relaxation of FCC ownership rules “rely on the myth of the media mogul boogeyman,” said NAB in replies (http://bit.ly/1opj4l5) to a 2014 quadrennial review Further NPRM in docket 14-50 (CD Aug 8 p7). Broadcasters don’t have “a dominant hold on the attention of audiences” that warrants heavy regulation, NAB said. Public interest groups such as Common Cause chastised the FCC for not doing enough to increase ownership diversity. Other commenters said no evidence has been presented to justify the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule, and several groups urged the FCC to regulate and require disclosure of shared service agreements (SSA).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The Internet has transformed the video and advertising business and changed the competitive nature of broadcasting, NAB said. Public interest groups like Free Press highlight the Internet’s importance as a source of information and news when advocating net neutrality rules, but take the opposite tack with broadcast ownership rules, NAB said. “This effusive description of the transformative effects of the Internet is nowhere to be seen in comments in this proceeding.” The economics of local broadcasting have “changed dramatically” for stations, NAB said.
Broadcasters haven’t refuted that most online local news originates from traditional media sources, said the United Church of Christ (http://bit.ly/1wcrPqw), opposing relaxation of TV duopoly rules and newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership. “Internet and cable news sources simply do not respond to local needs in the same or similar ways as broadcasters,” it said. The FCC has to consider the public’s reliance on broadcasters and newspapers, Free Press said (http://bit.ly/1qefuQc).
Common Cause, Free Press, UCC and other public interest commenters again argued that the FCC can’t relax ownership rules, because it hasn’t satisfied the requirements of the Prometheus II decision that it study the effects of cross-ownership on minorities. If the FCC “fails to study the impact of its rules on diverse ownership or relaxes any rules before doing so, it will again run afoul the court’s explicit mandate,” Free Press said. There’s one diversity step the commission could take without such studies, said the Native Public Media and National Congress of American Indians (http://bit.ly/1lQRukP). The FCC should expand eligible entity status to tribes and tribal applicants, they said. Extending special benefits to tribal applicants has already been determined to not trigger the same strict scrutiny that race- or gender-based provisions do, the native American groups said. “No further studies are needed to implement this definition."
The FCC’s proposed definition of what agreements between stations must be disclosed under proposed SSA rules is overly broad, a “regulatory fishing expedition” that would make it difficult for broadcasters to cooperate, NAB said. It cited a recent GAO study as showing that the FCC has no basis to regulate such agreements. It would be “the height of arbitrary and capricious rulemaking” for the FCC to tell the GAO it doesn’t know the effect of SSAs on media ownership and then make SSAs attributable, NAB said. Requiring disclosure of SSAs is insufficient, said public interest commenters. “The FCC has ample public interest and record-keeping authority to require disclosure of SSAs and should not hesitate to use that authority,” said Free Press.
The “overwhelming majority” of commenters have supported eliminating newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rules, said Morris Communications (http://bit.ly/1tIm6HS). “There is not a shred of credible evidence in the record that supports the retention of the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban,” said the Newspaper Association of America (http://bit.ly/1uj1uVn). Instead, the record “contains extensive real-world evidence that cross-owned combinations promote the public interest without adversely impacting diversity,” Morris said. Free Press said such ownership combinations should be granted on a case-by-case basis.