Meet the New FCC Boss

When FCC Chairman Michael Powell announced his resignation this past January, the response was near-deafening silence. Powell, previously best known as the general/secretary of state's son, was marked by a scattershot, frequently irresponsible series of engagements with issues that somehow managed to upset players on every side of the ideological divide. Difficult as it may sound, Powell pushed through scheme after scheme that agonized, simultaneously, both media and opponents of media consolidation on all sides of the ideological divide.

Powell's reign can hardly be called successful, even by his supporters. His concerted effort to relax regulations in order to invite media conglomerates to expand their reach to monopolistic proportions inspired a populist reaction in the public and was summarily shot down in federal court. His arbitrary fining policies for incidents of alleged indecency on radio and broadcast television have also met with widespread derision, particularly when it was learned that just one organization, L. Brent Bozell's Parents Television Council, provided more than 99 percent of the complaints inspiring Powell's campaign; a campaign, incidentally, that netted more than $8 million in fines last year, up from a mere $48,000 in the year before Powell's chairmanship commenced.

But as the Quiet Beatle sang, all things must pass, and on so too, Powell's chairmanship. On March 18th, President Bush nominated 38-year-old Kevin J. Martin to replace Powell as head of the FCC. Martin, who has occupied a Republican seat on the commission since July 2001, brings a mixed bag of votes and public comments to the table, some of which are likely to be a marked improvement from his predecessor, while others remain a cause for considerable concern.

Mediaweek observed that Martin "arrives on the job with a reputation as a brilliant regulator, an attentive listener and an advocate of even tougher stands against broadcast indecency than his predecessor Michael Powell." A TV Week report added that Martin "has strong conservative credentials and can be expected to advance the Bush administration's objective to deregulate the market as much as is practicable."

While Martin is certainly close to the Bush administration and generally favors deregulation, the truth is actually quite a bit more complicated than these quotes might imply. While Martin did support Powell's 2003 attempt to allow media conglomerates to buy up larger chunks of the media landscape, he nevertheless evinced some appreciation for both sides of the issue. As he said at the time of Powell's failed deregulation push:

"The record contained strong evidence on both sides of this issue. I believe the affiliates made a compelling case as to why a national limit needs to be retained. I agree that a balance between the affiliates and the networks is important to maintaining localism, and thus I did not support proposals in the record to eliminate the cap altogether. Yet, the networks also made persuasive arguments that a 35 percent cap is not necessary – in particular, that we do not have sufficient evidence to conclude that the two networks currently reaching over 40 percent of the country have caused actual and significant harm today."

Certainly, the proof was in the pudding of Martin's unfortunate "affirmative" vote, but his concern for local control over media behemoths remains a potentially encouraging sign. As a commissioner, Martin repeatedly defended local broadcasters' demands for more say over their contracts with the major networks and therefore directly contradicted the big-media friendly stance of his boss. According to Broadcasting & Cable, "It appears that Martin favors letting owners control two or three stations in more markets, eliminating the ban on crossownership of stations and newspapers in the same town. That deregulation is most sought by network affiliates and independent station owners."