|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : North
America
US court sanctions further media monopolization
By Patrick Martin
28 February 2002
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email the
author
A US court ruling issued February 19 means the effective end
to any limitation on the drive by a handful of giant corporations
to monopolize broadcasting and cable television.
A three-judge panel of the US Circuit Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbiathe most important federal court
below the Supreme Courtupheld a lawsuit brought by a group
of media corporations, including AOL Time Warner, Viacom, and
News Corporation, against two rules issued by the Federal Communications
Commission, the broadcast industry regulator.
The court struck down outright an FCC regulation that barred
cross-ownership of cable systems and local TV stations in the
same media market. It voided and sent back for reconsideration
by the FCC a regulation limiting television networks to the ownership
of local TV stations covering no more than 35 percent of the US
market.
Viacom and News Corporation filed suit because recent acquisitions
have brought both conglomerates above the 35 percent mark. When
Viacom acquired CBS two years ago, the combination of the network-owned
stations and its existing local stations came to 41 percent. News
Corporation, which owns Fox network, has access to 40 percent
of the US market after its merger with Chris-Craft Corporation.
Local stations are frequently monopolies, and highly profitable,
so that even a small group of stations constitutes a substantial
property. Large chains, such as those assembled by the biggest
media conglomerates, are among the most lucrative of businesses.
News Corporation, for instance, owns 33 local stations. They took
in $526 million in revenue in the last quarter of 2001, of which
$259 million was earnings before taxes and interest, a gross profit
margin of almost 50 percent.
It is a remarkable and revealing feature of the US legal landscape
that giant corporations routinely take business decisions that
flout existing laws and regulations, and then obtain retroactive
sanction for their illegal actions by going to court. One can
imagine the fate of a worker or a small businessman who tried
the same thing. But the major media outletswhich are owned
by these same corporationstake virtually no notice of corporate
lawlessness.
The media ownership rules were reaffirmed by the FCC only two
years ago, in a split vote in which the current FCC chairman,
Michael Powell, son of Secretary of State Colin Powell, voted
with the minority who favored loosening or eliminating the restrictions.
Powell will now be responsible for deciding whether to raise the
ownership limit, perhaps to 50 percent of the US market, or abolishing
it entirely.
The regulation, called the National Television Station Ownership
Rule, has been in place since the 1940s, when television broadcasting
began. Its avowed purpose was to prevent any undue concentration
of economic power in television broadcasting, in large measure
because monopoly control of the media was seen as inimical to
democracy. In the present world of American politics, such considerations
no longer apply.
Gene Kimmelman, co-director of the Washington office of the
Consumers Union, called the decision earth-shattering.
He explained, The end result could be the most massive consolidation
in media this nation has ever seen. Its a radical effort
by the Court of Appeals to ... expand corporate free-speech rights
at the expense of the publics First Amendment rights.
The monopolization of the television media is not a new phenomenon.
The restrictions on station ownership have steadily eroded. The
limit of three stations established in the 1940s had, by 1984,
been raised to twelve stations and 25 percent of the national
audience. The telecommunications deregulation bill sponsored by
the Clinton administrationwith Al Gore serving as the main
cheerleaderended the numerical limit of stations and raised
the permitted proportion of the national audience to 35 percent.
The latest court ruling completes the process.
In a basic sense, the FCC rules were never aimed at providing
genuine public access to the broadcast media. That would require
public ownership and making the media available to working class
organizations and other groups without large financial resources.
Rather, they sought to preserve a modicum of competition by restricting
the ability of the largest media monopolies to gobble up their
smaller rivals.
Hence the lineup in the case before the court, Fox Television
Stations v. Federal Communications Commission, in which the
National Association of Broadcasters, whose membership consists
mainly of the owners of local television stations, was pitted
against Viacom (CBS), AOL Time Warner, General Electric (NBC)
and News Corporation (Fox).
Joining the anti-monopoly side of the lawsuit were
corporations principally based in the newspaper industry, such
as the Washington Post Co. and the New York Times Co., which also
own considerable properties in local television. Both the Post
and the Times published editorials critical of the ruling,
with the Times in particular pointing to the danger to
democracy from the ever-narrower concentration of media power.
But neither publication pointed to the clear connection between
the anti-democratic policies of the Bush administration, and this
governments origins in the theft of the 2000 presidential
election and the suppression of vote counting in Florida by the
Supreme Court. This is not surprising, since both the Times
and the Post endorsed the political coup which placed Bush
in the White House, at least after the fact, and urged the acceptance
of his administration as legitimate.
The composition of the three-judge panel that issued the February
19 ruling is significant. Heading the panel was Judge Douglas
Ginsburg, an unsuccessful nominee to the Supreme Court during
the Reagan administration and a longtime advocate of right-wing
causes. Joining him was Judge David Sentelle, a former aide to
ultra-right Senator Jesse Helms, who gained notoriety as the chairman
of the three-judge panel that installed Kenneth Starr as the independent
counsel in the Whitewater investigation, and later approved the
extension of his jurisdiction to cover Clintons affair with
Monica Lewinsky.
The anti-regulatory zealotry of the ruling stopped short of
endorsing the argument of the networks and AOL Time Warner that
the FCC rules violated their First Amendment rights to freedom
of speech. Such a decision would have enshrined a right of monopolization
in the US Constitution, but the Appeals Court held that promotion
of diversity in ownership was a legitimate goal of government
policy.
Instead of issuing a more sweeping opinion, the judges held
that the FCC had not provided a reasonable basis for
the ownership rules, in violation of the Administrative Procedure
Act, by failing to show how ownership regulations would actually
promote diversity. In effect, the failure of the existing setup
to prevent monopolization was used as an argument for scrapping
any regulation whatsoever.
The court ruling is widely expected to be upheld if appealed
to the current Supreme Court. In any case, the decision means
that Viacom and News Corporation will not be required to sell
off a portion of their current television holdings, and it will
encourage a new round of mergers and consolidation in the industry.
According to reports in the business press, a prime candidate
for merger or takeover is Walt Disney Co., which owns ABC and
several cable television networks. This huge company is considered
somewhat undersized in comparison to such behemoths as News Corporation
and Viacom. There is also speculation about a sale of NBC to AOL
Time Warner.
See Also:
Media Issues
[WSWS Full Coverage]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |