Chairman Kevin J. Martin of the Federal Communications Commission or as we know it, the FCC, has put forth a plan in the past year to make big media even bigger or if you're a Republican, he's put forth a plan to make "liberal" media more "liberal."

::::::::

Chairman Kevin J. Martin of the Federal Communications Commission or as we know it, the FCC, has put forth a plan in the past year to make big media even bigger or if you’re a Republican, he’s put forth a plan to make “liberal” media more “liberal.”

Martin’s plan proposes that radio or television broadcasters be allowed to own a daily newspaper in the same community. It proposes that a single company be allowed to own two television stations in the same market, except in certain circumstances---certain circumstances that the FCC will keep as indefinite as possible. It proposes that radio or television broadcasters be allowed to own more than one television station in a single market. The plan sets America up for more Rupert Murdochs and more people like the man who stands to benefit the most from this deal, Sam Zell, as he owns both television stations and newspapers in five markets and has asked the FCC to temporarily waive cross-ownership restrictions until the issue is solved, which would allow him to make the deal he so desperately desires to make to right now.

His push to allow corporations or media conglomerates to exact more control and power over what are supposed to be our airwaves has not gone unnoticed or ignored. Yet, what Americans should know and understand is that just like any situation whether it be ending the Iraq war, restoring our civil liberties, or impeaching Cheney then Bush, the future of media depends on you. It depends on Americans in their local communities to speak out and fight this media power grab.

Thankfully, our leaders have been fighting for Americans.

On October 25, 2007, Maurice Hinchey and 41 others listed below sent this letter:

Representatives Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), George Miller (D-CA), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), David Price (D-NC), Tom Allen (D-ME), Betty Sutton (D-OH), Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Mike Honda (D-CA), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Gwen Moore (D-WI), Bob Filner (D-CA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Adam Smith (D-WA), Ed Pastor (D-AZ), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Louise Slaughter (D-NY), Jim Moran (D-VA), Nita Lowey (D-NY), Linda Sanchez (D-CA), Al Green (D-TX), Wm. Lacy Clay (D-MO), Susan Davis (D-CA), David Obey (D-WI), Diane Watson (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), John Olver (D-MA), David Wu (D-OR), Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Jay Inslee (D-WA), Brian Higgins (D-NY), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Jim Cooper (D-TN), Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL), José Serrano (D-NY), Darlene Hooley (D-OR), Sam Farr (D-CA), and Mark Udall (D-CO). (*Those in bold also are cosponsors of the Cheney impeachment resolution.)

Dear Chairman Martin:

We write to express our grave shock and dismay over reports that you are circulating draft media ownership rules among your colleagues at the Federal Communications Commission. We understand that you intend to try to finalize these rules by the end of this calendar year. We believe that such actions are reminiscent of the bad behavior that resulted in an intervention by the Third Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals in your agency's efforts on media ownership three years ago. Therefore, we hope that you will immediately take steps to resolve significant shortcomings in your plan regarding accountability, transparency, and scientific integrity.

Your effort to advance these rules is taking place before the FCC holds its promised sixth and final public hearing on the state of our current media ownership rules. Furthermore, the most recent hearing, in Chicago, IL, only took place on September 20, 2007. It is our understanding that each of the hearings held by the agency have been very heavily attended, with people staying into the late evening in order to make their opinions known. Therefore, we have great difficulty understanding the propriety of moving forward on new media ownership rules before the commission has held its final event. In addition, we cannot comprehend how your staff could possibly have fully analyzed the public comments submitted in Chicago before you began to circulate these new rules.

In addition, we are very troubled by the agency's handling of ten reports on media ownership that it had drafted to help inform its decisions on these media ownership policies. There are a significant number of problems with these reports, including: the FCC's failure to reveal how it recruited individuals to conduct these studies; the agency's subsequent hiring of one of the authors to be its new chief economist (raising troubling questions regarding conflicts of interest); confusion over how the FCC decided to focus the research on its ten chosen topics; and serious mismanagement of the peer review process that is normally used to guarantee the scientific validity of the generated work. Adding insult to injury, the FCC's public comment period on the media ownership reports remains open, making yet another instance where the agency is moving forward without sufficiently consulting the public.

Finally, we are highly alarmed by news that you plan to hold a commission vote on these proposed changes within the next two months. Such action would make public comment on the new rules inadequate. After all of the controversy that this proceeding has generated over the past four years, we believe that another full round of public commentary is essential before a final vote.

At its heart, the debate over the future of media ownership in America is a debate over the future of our democracy. Therefore, we hope you will agree that the Federal Communications Commission must do everything it can to be able to honestly say that it is ending this proceeding after having considered every factor on behalf of the public whose airwaves it purports to represent.

Since that letter, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce has arranged to hold a hearing on December 6th. Americans can expect the House to move on a bill after that hearing just days before Martin’s planned date to grant media conglomerates more power. (Martin plans to hold a vote that right now would come out to 3-2 on December 18th.)

The Senate whether it’s putting on a dog and pony show or not is touting a Media Ownership Act that has been sponsored by Sen. Byron Dorgan which they plan to pass to slow down this consolidation move by Martin and the FCC. Sen. Russ Feingold, in an excerpt from a letter to FCC Chairman Martin sent on November 19th, 2007, described the situation as this:

I am particularly concerned that the Commission has not sufficiently evaluated the impact of media consolidation on local programming, and may even be selectively collecting and releasing information to support its pre-conceived agenda. It is very troubling that just one year ago, the Commission admitted to deciding not to release two reports that raised questions about potential negative impacts from further media consolidation. The draft Local TV News Report concluded that increased local ownership of television stations is correlated with increases in the amount of "on-location" news and the total amount of news in broadcasts. According to the Inspector General's investigation into this matter, the then-Media Bureau Chief decided not to release the other report, the 2003 Radio Report, because he:

"[was] not inclined to release this one unless the story can be told in a much more positive way. This is not the time to be stirring the "radio consolidation" pot... [Given that the reports in the series had been issued at uneven intervals in the past] It would hardly seem odd if we did not release one this year... particularly given that we just did a big radio order as part of the biennial. .. All in all this is a really bad time to release something like this. Ifwe can change the focus and make it more positive... then perhaps we can do something like this again, but this will take more than just regurgitating last year's report with new numbers."

The then-Media Bureau Chiefs express desire to only release "positive" information and to "change the focus" to "make it more positive" throw the objectivity of FCC media ownership reports and proposals into doubt.

The FCC's website states that, "along with competition and diversity, promoting localism is a key goal of the Commission's media ownership rules." This vital goal should not be minimized or ignored in the rush to produce a ruling. Accordingly, I ask the FCC to, at a minimum, complete the separate localism proceeding prior to making decisions on the current media ownership rules. This proceeding should provide ample opportunity for the public to comment on any conclusions or proposed rule changes.

While the Commission has commissioned some reports and held some hearings on media ownership, there is no completed localism proceeding to inform the consideration of proposals in this area. In addition, the selective burying of reports raises questions about the objectivity of the FCC reports that were allowed to be published. Moreover, the limited hearings that have been held have confirmed that other issues of public importance, including the lack of women-owned and minority-owned broadcast stations, deserve more careful attention from the Commission. Keeping in mind the contentious media ownership proposal in 2003, I respectfully suggest the need for additional information gathering and opportunities for public comment before the Commission acts on this matter again. I look forward to your response.

The Senate, in fact, held a hearing on February 1, 2007, to scrutinize the FCC harshly for its practices on telephone, television, radio, Internet and other services that people use daily.

Indeed, it would seem if Americans can commend the Democrats for doing one thing since gaining control of Congress, it should be for their actions in defense of the public airwaves. While they have been largely inadequate, there is at least proof that actions have been taken when in most other areas of American policy domestic and foreign you can barely tell that Democrats have been in control of Congress for almost a year now or taken steps towards changing the path America is on. Had we a Republican Congress right now, you can bet Martin would have already changed the rules. You can bet Martin would not be pretending to be interested in the least bit in what people have to say as local proceedings have gone on in the past months all over the country.

So, at this juncture in history, we are faced with a choice.

As a writer for an alternative news website, I shudder at the fact that someday this successful site could be bought up by CNN, FOX News, NBC, or for that matter, any newspaper publication in circulation right now.

Think of what would happen. Think of all the advertisements. Think of the lack of news and the lack of openness and control of thought that would go on. Think of what would happen if the lack of news on television seeped into the Internet because Big Media controlled it. Think about what would happen if Tribune Co. said it controlled OpEdNews.

We must realize this plan for changes to rules by Kevin J. Martin is not just an end. It’s a means that will get Martin’s FCC baby to its end.

There will be more rule changes to come if we allow this one. And if that next one is allowed, more rule changes will come. And Martin and the FCC won’t stop until they’ve given power to all the corporations that desire it and until he has homogenized, saturated, and controlled all the outlets of media that reach the public---until he has set up media to serve the government forever.

Dorgan’s Media Ownership Act will not fix the problem that the FCC poses for America. In fact, the bill calls for Americans to have their voices heard and to speak up on how this move will affect them or why they do not want the rules to be changed. Specifically, if this act is passed, it pushes the FCC to take into account the local proceedings fully and in fact, maybe hold another round of local proceedings where the American people can give their testimony on the issue. Therefore, the members of Congress and the Senate are putting the future of media in our hands and in fact trying to convince the FCC to allow us to have the power to decide what happens with America’s airwaves.

We all should graciously accept this power and responsibly use it to spur reform. and should not expect the Senate or the House to be successful in challenging the FCC if we fail to back them up. If their argument against the FCC's plans is that we disagree with further media consolidation, than they need us to prove that what they are saying to the FCC is true. The Senate and House need us to keep them from backing down.

Having witnessed our senators and congressmen planting the seeds of change or laying a foundation for Americans to step up and demand media reform, let’s ask for more action from our senators and congressmen.

Let's ask them for more reform that goes beyond just getting the FCC to listen to us. Let’s ask for more reform from our presidential candidates on this issue, Republican and Democrat. Let’s ask for more reform from people who will be running for election in local, state, and federal elections in 2008.

Let’s go to local proceedings and make them go on into the wee hours of the night so that the FCC, our government, and our elected officials know the American people disagree with the FCC’s plans for media “reform.” Let’s dictate the reform that we want and detail what we want the media to be.

Authors Bio:
Kevin Gosztola is managing editor of Shadowproof Press. He also produces and co-hosts the weekly podcast, "Unauthorized Disclosure." He was an editor for OpEdNews.com