|
Promote Diversity in Media Ownership
Victory in the Senate, Now on to the House!
Thanks to your messages, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to reverse the new Federal Communication Commission (FCC) rules that would allow even greater consolidation in media ownership. Next, we need the House of Representatives to pass its own resolution of disapproval.
Take action NOW!
A handful of big media conglomerates want to own even more TV stations, newspapers and radio stations than they already do. The FCC's new rules would let media companies own both a major TV or radio station and a major daily newspaper in the same city. If we let this happen, it will spell disaster for the representation of women and people of color in the media. Think the media environment is pretty bad now? Well, just wait!
Action Needed:
Now that the issue has moved to the House, encourage your representatives to follow the lead of their colleagues in the Senate and reverse the FCC's decision. We secured a veto-proof vote in the Senate, and we can do the same in the House.
Take Action NOW!
Background:
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted in December to allow greater consolidation in media ownership, despite vocal opposition from Congress, NOW and our allies, and the general public. The newly-relaxed rules will open the door for a single entity to own both a newspaper and a television or radio station in the same market.
FCC Chair and Bush appointee Kevin Martin, a conservative who is leading the agency's move toward deregulation, claimed that this is a "relatively minimal loosening of the ban," because it supposedly will affect only the top 20 U.S. cities, where competition is assumed to be thriving.
However, when the FCC finally issued the details of the new rules, the outcome was even worse than expected. In addition to granting special waivers to media giants Gannett and Media General, the FCC created gaping loopholes for other companies to glide through, meaning even the smallest of markets may be subject to increased consolidation.
The two progressive commissioners who voted against the rule change spoke of conflicting interests between big media and the community's need for diverse viewpoints and local news coverage. In his dissenting statement Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein wrote, "[T]he law does not say we are to serve those who seek to profit by using the public airwaves. The law says we are to serve the public interest."
Why should feminists care about media consolidation? Women own just five percent of commercial broadcast television stations and six percent of all full-power radio stations. Whenever the FCC allows big media conglomerates to gobble up more stations, it leaves fewer and fewer outlets for women and people of color to purchase. And often the big companies are buying stations from women and people of color.
If we are to create a media environment that covers issues important to women, that treats women with respect, promotes their voices and opinions and portrays them as three-dimensional human beings, we must have more women at the very top calling the shots. The same goes for people of color and other traditionally disenfranchised groups.
Thankfully, many in Congress are not happy about this new rule change. These legislators understand that a diversity of views and perspectives cannot exist and thrive without a diversity of media owners. That's why the Senate's "resolution of disapproval" passed by a near-unanimous vote. If enacted into law, this resolution will overturn the FCC's new rule. But first it must pass the House by a two-thirds (veto-proof) margin, because a Bush veto is expected.
Write to your representative in the House immediately and urge them to vote YES on the "resolution of disapproval" -- H.J. Res. 79. Help stop media consolidation NOW.
|
