Resurrecting the marketplace of ideas

In 1969, the Supreme Court declared, ‘‘it is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by Government itself or a private licensee.”

Unfortunately, in the last couple of decades this principle seems to have been abandoned in Washington. As a result, five companies own 90 percent of the top 50 cable networks and all the broadcast networks. These same companies produce three-quarters of all prime time programming and control 70 percent of the prime time television market share. Some argue that the internet provides alternate sources of information that offset the increasing concentration in the traditional media. But 85 percent of the top 20 internet news sites are owned by the same companies that own the major TV news outlets and newspapers.

It is to address this situation that Congressman Maurice Hinchey introduced HR 3302, the Media Ownership Reform Act of 2005 on July 14. One of the most important provisions of the bill rolls back the percentage of the total national-aggregate audience accruing to any one company to 25 percent. This percentage was raised to 35 percent in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, essentially allowing for media domination of the country by only three companies.

In 2003 the FCC tried to raise this percentage even further, to 45 percent. After receiving almost half a million comments from the public, almost all of them against the proposed rule changes—a response that FCC Chairman Michael Powell himself admitted was unprecedented in his experience—the FCC went right ahead and made the changes anyway.

In 2004, the rule changes were overturned in court, and just recently, in June of 2005, the Supreme Court declined to review that decision. But apparently the FCC is so deeply entrenched in its knee-jerk doctrine that deregulation is good even when it squelches competition that it does not want the public to know about the judicial overthrow of its actions. Go to www.fcc.gov and click on “media ownership” and the latest news you will see is that the 2003 rules changes have been passed.

The courts sent the FCC back to the drawing board to rewrite its rules. But the state of denial on its website gives reason to suspect that the commission, despite the retirement of Michael Powell, is still in the hands of people who think that letting large corporations do as they please is more important than preserving American citizens’ access to a diverse and balanced source of information.

That’s why legislation like Hinchey’s is so important: we need to get our elected representatives to give some legal guidance to the politically appointed commission as to what kind of rules will truly give us access to the information we need to support a democracy.

The need for legislative action is also crucial with regard to another provision in the bill: the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, this time with legal standing.

The Fairness Doctrine was an FCC policy that persisted for decades, holding that media outlets are responsible for addressing controversial issues of public importance, and that stations must allow opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on such issues.

In 1987, a court found that the doctrine was unenforceable because it was not a law. Legislation was then passed which would have made it law, but it was vetoed by President Reagan. Since the death of the doctrine, broadcast media have seen a proliferation of bitterly partisan, one-sided programming that may well have helped to create the unprecedented polarization of our current political climate. Hinchey’s bill, by enshrining the Fairness Doctrine in law, might bring back a little more civility and balance in television news.

It is impossible in an editorial to cover all of the many provisions of Hinchey’s bill. And there are a few items that one might wish the bill covered that it does not, such as prohibiting government distribution of propaganda promoting administration policies to private stations that then show them as straight newscasts.

But to say that the bill doesn’t include everything on the wish list is quibbling. This is an important piece of legislation that deserves our attention and support. In the current atmosphere in Washington, where deregulation is called good even in cases where it destroys competition, it’s probably going to need all the help it can get.

To see a copy of the bill, visit riverreporter.com/issues/05-07-28/hincheybill.pdf.

Dr. Punnybone

Herr Hitler