Court Rejects FCC Rules

[TheBigA]

The Third Court of Appeals has rejected the most recent FCC changes to the ownership rules, the ones that repealed the newspaper cross-ownership rule.

https://radioink.com/2019/09/23/pai-disagrees-with-court-ruling/

I normally don't agree with Republicans, but in this decision, I do. Why? Because the Newspaper Cross-ownership Rule was stupid. It was Nixon's way to attack the media. For many years, newspapers were allowed to own broadcasting. Then in the 70s, they weren't any more. Ever since that decision, newspapers around the country have had trouble staying in business. The few that received waivers to own broadcasting, such as Belo in Texas or Cox in Georgia, were models of ownership, great places to work, and did great news reporting in both print and broadcast.

In the court's decision, the judges specifically talked about newsrooms shutting down. How do they expect newsrooms to stay open when there's no advertising money? The only chance for journalism to exist is by pooling resources between broadcast and print. In the markets where it's been allowed, it's flourished. In the markets where it was broken up, the newspapers have shuttered.

This is an example of judges legislating from the bench. The Communications Act is clear, and it gives the FCC the right to review and change ownership rules as it sees fit. It sounds like Pai will challenge the court's decision. It's the job of Congress, not the courts, to stop the FCC from going to far. It's done it before. It is the only branch of government that can do it now.

 

[Kelly A]

My guess would be when a judge reviews the original intent of separating newsprint and radio/TV for editorial reasons, it makes sense. Especially true if the judge is left-leaning and concerned about organizations like Murdoch's: The Wall Street Journal and FOX News. In reality it wouldn't apply for local TV groups. The largest TV group owner in the country; Sinclair, is already driving a politically-driven editorial agenda via their TV stations right now. Wouldn't really matter if they owned local newspapers too.

The world has changed since now children of Millennial's won't even know what radio or TV is. It's all on their small screen, and 'news' only comes from some form of social media.

 

[FreddyE1977]

The Third Court of Appeals has rejected the most recent FCC changes to the ownership rules, the ones that repealed the newspaper cross-ownership rule.

https://radioink.com/2019/09/23/pai-disagrees-with-court-ruling/

I normally don't agree with Republicans, but in this decision, I do. Why? Because the Newspaper Cross-ownership Rule was stupid.

This is an example of judges legislating from the bench. The Communications Act is clear, and it gives the FCC the right to review and change ownership rules as it sees fit. It sounds like Pai will challenge the court's decision. It's the job of Congress, not the courts, to stop the FCC from going to far.

Welcome to The Dark Side, Big A!

 

[TheBigA]

My guess would be when a judge reviews the original intent of separating newsprint and radio/TV for editorial reasons, it makes sense.

Editorial reasons were not part of the decision. That would be similar to having the FCC regulate program formats. The reason was to promote diversity of ownership. What it fails to take into account is that media companies are public companies with stockholders, and in that way, they have diverse ownership. It also fails to take into account that virtually anyone today can start a media company. Alex Jones is his own media company. He does video, radio, and print. There are millions of bloggers who run their own media companies.

 

[TheBigA]

Here is more analysis of the appeals court decision. It's likely to delay any further deregulation in broadcasting:

https://radioink.com/2019/09/24/prometheus-iv-in-3rd-circuit/

 

[Delete My Account]

I'm broadly sympathetic to some of the anti consolidation groups on principle, but I'm also realistic enough to know the horse has left the barn. Simply reverting to the old rules isn't going to bring back what may have been lost. And given the frequent cutbacks in local news on radio, I'm all for an economy of scale that would allow more newsroom collaboration and growth. If combining print and broadcast accomplishes that, it's a net positive. That being said, I do think some companies were allowed to own too many broadcast stations in the first place and it did harm to the industry.

As to how you repair it now, I'll leave that to greater minds.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

I tend to agree with BigA. If it is legal for one administration to create a rule, it is in a future administration's power to repeal that same rule, in the absence of any legislation from Congress either demanding the rule in the first place, or codifying the rule in law in the interim.

As far as the letter of this rule, I think it is too little too late for this form of deregulation to matter. I don't foresee Gannett/Gate House having the funds to buy into radio or TV, and I don't see TEGNA or Nexstar or Sinclair buying into the newspaper industry.

That leaves primarily one-off purchases in smaller cities. Could I see a radio owner in some small city like Rolla Missouri or Battle Creek Michigan take advantage to buy their local newspaper? Possibly.

 

[TheBigA]

Could I see a radio owner in some small city like Rolla Missouri or Battle Creek Michigan take advantage to buy their local newspaper? Possibly.

Keep in mind that as broadcasting has evolved to embrace the internet, so has publishing. There are newspapers that have a very advanced online presence, and that could be beneficial for some radio companies that have been late to the digital party. So we're talking about two types of content companies. Viewed that way, it might be different than two traditional old style media companies.