Q&A With FCC Commissioner Michael Copps

We're Heading Into The Unknown

FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps, sixty-two, has been a sort of Cassandra of media regulation for some time, warning of the dire consequences of unleashed concentration. He has been a commissioner since May 2001, one of two Democratic appointees, along with Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, and three Republicans, Kevin Martin, Kathleen Abernathy, and the chairman, Michael Powell. Copps spoke with Alicia Mundy. Here are excerpts.

What do you think will happen to America's main news outlets if the ban on broadcast TV station and newspaper cross-ownership is removed or significantly weakened by the FCC?

I don't think we know. And that's the reason why I am so disappointed to see us rushing toward voting on these issues, when we don't know what the results of our actions are going to be in either the intended consequences or the unintended consequences that always seem to accompany large policy decisions.

You've called for more public hearings on media ownership — yet Chairman Powell is opposed to more hearings.

I think we really need to do more intensive investigation. We need to get out into some of these markets, get the feel of them, and draw on new experts out there — call on stakeholders who don't normally participate in rulemakings here at the Federal Communications Commission.

Let's go where some of these combinations [of newspaper and broadcast station ownership by the same company] have been grandfathered and see how they're working. Let's find out if they work similarly in large-size markets, medium-size markets, smaller-size markets. Let's get a grip on the situation.

We're talking about two types of media here that are really the lifeblood of our democracy, newspapers and broadcast. Let's set up some scenarios and play them out and see what they look like. Go out and find out what's actually happened.

Then let's vote.

What other effects of deregulation should the FCC look at?

I think we need to be looking much more intently at how consolidation issues affect minorities and contribute to the objective of diversity — diversity of programming, diversity of ownership, diversity of opportunities.

I think we need to be looking much more closely at the implications for advertisers in a consolidated environment. Are we freezing out small mom and pop stores from being able to advertise if cable rates are going up?

But there are other people in the population and other groups in the population and I think advertisers are increasingly concerned that maybe they're not reaching them.

We haven't looked at consolidation in the context of digital television and the new technologies. The fact that a local station will be able to multicast five or six different channels—how does that affect the competitive environment in a local market?

So not only do I not think that we have answered all the questions, I don't think we have asked all the questions.

The appeals court has smacked the FCC several times in the last two years, demanding that the agency show why there's a need for any ownership caps at all, and asking for quantitative evidence to support ownership limits. How can public hearings, with average consumers testifying, help the FCC develop serious evidence for the court? Won't it all just be anecdotal complaints from common viewers?

I don't buy into that argument. I think when the FCC says we're here for a hearing, that you'll get new, quantifiable information — maybe even more from what I call nontraditional stakeholders — rather than the usual folks who have lawyers and know their way around the FCC.

The FCC is, in fact, asking for quantifiable evidence, pro or con, about media consolidation. For years courts have ruled that there is such a thing as a "community standard" for decency. But you can't quantify indecency. Is there some analogy the FCC should try to make to the courts regarding a "community standard" for media consolidation?

The courts keep saying, "You've got to be granular, you can't pick numbers out of the air." I'm not sure how a community standard for consolidation would work. But I think that anecdotal information does have a value when you go into court.

And it certainly does have a value when you go into the court of public opinion, or the court of Congress. It's not just courts we need to satisfy here when we're talking about the future of media institutions and the media landscape. Every American is affected, so there's a court of public opinion, too. I think we need to be entertaining all kinds of innovative ideas. This is an issue area that needs that.

One of the things you are pushing for is protection of localism in news coverage by Big Media.

Absolutely. That's fundamental. I want to understand the effects in our everyday life, day in, day out, of what's happened to localism, what's happened to local organizations, local schools, local sports team and athletics. But it goes beyond that to the coverage of small-d democratic issues, and political issues and to the kind of programming that people in their locality might be interested in. Which is not necessarily what the 18-34-year-old-oriented advertisers on Madison Avenue may be thinking that people need.

You mentioned advertisers' concerns with monopoly owners and ad rates.

There are studies pro and con on that, but what I've seen presents a fairly strong argument that ad rates have gone up in consolidated environments. But there's also the relation of advertising to programming. If the programming is all directed at one segment of the population, what about the advertiser who has a product for another, perhaps smaller, but still important customer base or constituency, but can't buy time for them?

You've talked about fighting an uphill battle against too much media consolidation. How much support is there for your side?

\There seems to be a rising tide of concern in the country about consolidation. It's just starting, I think it's got a long, long way to go. We've got to get the media doing their part to cover the issues and let the American people know these issues are up for decision. Certainly the hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee in January showed a great awareness of media consolidation, and should have sent a powerful message to anyone who was interested and listening.

Some experts have suggested that the Internet is a viable substitute as a news outlet for TV and newspapers.

Most Americans don't get their news from the Internet as they do from television or newspapers. Furthermore, look at the ownership of the top twenty news sites on the Internet, and who owns them. It's pretty much the people who own the networks and the cable companies. We're beginning to lose some of that openness, vitality, and diversity on the Internet. When you're looking at the ownership rules, you're looking at not only owning the newspaper and the radio and the television and maybe the cable, but throw in control of the Internet. Also keep in mind that there are large segments of our population who are not connected to the Internet. Those are all things we need to take into consideration before we say "Oh, well, we've got the Internet and ergo we have all the diversity we need." That's not reflective of reality.

Enjoy this piece? Consider a CJR trial subscription.