Michael Copps remains one of the most interesting public-service minded officials ever to serve the Federal Communications Commission. He has put concerns about the public before the interests of the media conglomerates, helping give meaning behind the public interest clause of the Communications Act.
Yesterday, Commissioner Copps correctly called into question Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. acquisition of the Wall Street Journal, noting that there is a key role for the FCC. After all, Fox already owns both the New York Post and TV station “Fox 5” and TV Station WWOR in the New York market. The notion that the Journal is strictly a national paper, and hence outside the broadcast-newspaper cross-ownership rules needs to be seriously examined. Indeed, Mr. Murdoch’s own desire to better compete with the New York Times suggests that the Journal needs to be seen as part of the New York DMA. Hence, the cross-ownership safeguards should apply. At the very least, the FCC should be deluged with letters and emails demanding a serious inquiry into the nature of the Journal in relationship to the rest of Murdoch’s New York area holdings and FCC rules. FCC approval of the deal, as Mr. Copps noted, should not be considered a “slam-dunk.”
We hope that leaders in the Congress–especially Reps. Ed Markey, Dingell, Conyers & Sens. Inouye and Dorgan–will issue public calls to Chairman Martin to conduct an in-depth inquiry. Republicans only recently concerned about cross-ownership should also be pressed to speak up–that should include Senators such as Snowe, Lott and Hutchison.
Here’s what Advertising Age’s Nat Ives reported, including a quote from Commissioner Copps: “This deal means more media consolidation and fewer independent voices, and it specifically impacts the local market in New York City,” Mr. Copps continued. “What’s good for shareholders of huge media conglomerates isn’t always what’s good for the public interest or our civic dialogue. We should immediately conduct a careful factual and legal analysis of the transaction to determine how it implicates specific FCC rules and our overarching statutory obligation to protect the public interest. I hope nobody views this as a slam-dunk.”
