War of Words

Now that Operation "Infinite Justice" is underway, am I the only one wondering who coined that phrase? (Apparently the name of the U.S. military buildup has been changed to "Operation Enduring Freedom" to avoid offending Muslims.)

It reminds me of the name change that a small radio company called Hemisphere Broadcasting underwent some years back when it renamed itself Infinity Broadcasting, a term emblematic of its ambition. Infinity was later bought by CBS, which was, in turn, acquired by Viacom.

On September 7, four days before the hell we are now coping with erupted, Infinity's Mel Karmazin and company were deep into what might be called "Operation Infinite Just-Us." Their lawyers and counterparts in other media companies were battling in a Washington, D.C. appeals court to overturn rules limiting how many TV stations they can own. For 10 years now, regulations on broadcasters have been relaxed to their benefit. Now, the Viacomese and their allies want to scuttle the rest, demanding an end to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules that limit any one company from reaching more than 35 percent of the country or from owning a TV station in an area where they own a cable company.

Competition Through Consolidation

In a cleverly worded brief, this preemptive strike for more media consolidation is wrapped in language defending diversity and free competition. According to experts cited by the Los Angeles Times, if the media moguls get what they want, only a dozen or so companies will own most U.S. stations, giving them even more control over the marketplace of ideas than they already have.

As judges wrestled with these issues in one part of the capital, the FCC across town was launching a second front in a stealth effort to transfer more media power to a relative few. Under the chairmanship of Michael Powell, son of Secretary of State Colin, the FCC scheduled a proceeding to weaken the rules if the courts did not choose to throw them out. Policy wonks know about this but most of the public does not, because big media rarely cover issues in which their own financial interests are at stake.

And then the day that changed the world forever arrived. When the Towers fell and the Pentagon was hit, Washington was paralyzed, with only the White House, State Department and "Defense" establishment in motion. Oh, and one other key development was not suspended: the FCC's determination to serve the industry it is supposed to oversee.

Like a Broadway producer, Michael Powell decided "the show must go on," and moved full speed ahead with a planned "comment period" to solicit reaction to proposed changes. Imagine, in the middle of a national emergency, at the outset of a war, when the country is totally shocked and distracted, he expects public comments on key regulatory proposals. His stated reasons were wrapped in patriotism: "Our reaction must be to defy these dastardly acts and not cower or be deterred from our duties: to our families, to our friends, and to our countrymen. The flame of the American ideal may flicker, but it will never be extinguished. So we are here today. We will do our small part and press on with our business -- solemnly, but resolutely." Sound the trumpets!

Jeff Chester of the Center for Digital Democracyexplains why this issue is so important: "The ownership rules on the FCC chopping block have been developed over the last fifty years. They have been an important safeguard ensuring the public's basic First Amendment rights. The rationale for these policies is that they help provide for a diverse media marketplace of ideas, essential for a democracy. They have not been perfect. But the rules have helped constrain the power of the corporate media giants."

What's The Connection?

Although the media usually like to speculate about government intent, this official comment period on cross-ownership has gone largely uncommented upon on television or in the press, perhaps because many newspapers also own TV stations.