Kevin Martin Resigns From FCC

Current Federal Communications Commission Chair Kevin Martin just announced his resignation from that agency, which wasn't entirely unexpected. Martin will step down on Inauguration Day (January 20), and then join DC-based nonpartisan think tank the Aspen Institute.

Martin's predecessors at the FCC — Democrats Reed Hundt and William Kennard and Republican Michael Powell — were each Aspen Institute Fellows following their tenure at the Commission.

Martin's leadership of the FCC was sometimes controversial, particularly in matters relating to media ownership and the regulation of the cable industry. Yet many found Martin's stint to be less troubling than that of his immediate predecessor Michael Powell, who unsuccessfully pushed for further deregulation of media, including radio. FMC worked alongside other groups in both the 2003 and 2007 media ownership proceedings to hold the line on radio station ownership, urging the Commission to uphold its stated commitments to localism, competition and diversity on the dial.

It was recently announced that Julius Genachowski has been chosen by President-Elect Obama to head the FCC. A tech-policy veteran, Genachowski will likely have different views than Martin on key issues like media ownership and net neutrality.

To learn more about how changes in the policy landscape could impact the music community, check out our third D.C. Policy Day — which takes place at the National Geographic Society in Washington on February 11, 2009. Musician scholarships are available — click here for more info!

A New Chair at the FCC?

There's a lot of talk in Washington (and elsewhere) about President-Elect Barack Obama's apparent choice of tech-policy veteran Julius Genachowski as the next Chair of the Federal Communications Commission.

Genachowski previously served as chief counsel for Clinton-era FCC chairman Reed Hundt, and is a former Harvard classmate of Obama's. He was instrumental in the campaign's digital strategy, which included the use of social networking and other online outreach tools to build and sustain momentum. Genachowski has also worked as a venture capitalist and internet executive, so he's clearly familiar with that "series of tubes" known as the worldwide web.

The Washington Post ran a brief item about the Genachowski pick today (January 13). Soon, the story was picked up by the Wall Street Journal, the L.A. Times, and Ars Technica, to name a few.

During the Obama campaign, Genachowski helped formulate the candidate's positions on media ownership and net neutrality, so it's safe to say these perspectives would inform his role as Chair. Still, it's far too early to speculate on what a Genachowski-led FCC will ultimately look like — especially with other Commissioner seats still being sorted out.

We'll definitely be watching to see how this comes together, and as always, we'll do our best to keep you informed about what it might mean to the music community. If you're looking for some up-close insights about how changes in the policy landscape could impact creators and fans, you'll definitely want to attend our third D.C. Policy Day on February 11. Musician scholarships are available — click here for more info!

Dear Mr. President-Elect

Today (December 18, 2008), more than 100 groups, unions, musicians, bloggers and media and technology leaders sent a letter to President-Elect Barack Obama calling on his administration to appoint leaders who will reform the media and protect the open Internet. FMC (and members of Pearl Jam and R.E.M.) were among them.

Below is the text of the letter. Click here (PDF) to see the full list of signatures.

President-Elect Obama:

We congratulate you for putting crucial media and technology issues in the public spotlight. Not only did your campaign embrace new technology and innovative media, you have embraced these values in your policy agenda. Your commitment and detailed plan represent a fundamental shift toward communications policy in the public interest. We happily offer our support and service in pursuit of our common goals.

We look forward to working with the leaders you will appoint to the White House, such as the Chief Technology Officer, the positions on the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, Corporation of Public Broadcasting and in the Commerce, Education, Justice and Agriculture departments. We urge you to select strong proponents of the public interest who will embrace and enact the policy proposals you made on the campaign trail to shape the future of the media, the Internet, the economy -- and our democracy.

Together, we have a unique opportunity to break with the past, lift the stranglehold industry lobbyists have had on communications policy, and put the public's priorities first. In your own words, you pledged:

• Protect an Open Internet: To "take a backseat to no one in my commitment to Net Neutrality" and "protect the Internet's traditional openness to innovation and creativity and ensure that it remains a platform for free speech and innovation that will benefit consumers and our democracy."
• Promote Universal, Affordable Broadband: To see that "in the country that invented the Internet, every child should have the chance to get online" by bringing "true broadband to every community in America."
• Diversify Media Ownership: To create "the diverse media environment that federal law requires and the country deserves."
• Renew Public Media: To foster "the next generation of public media," and "support the transition of existing public broadcasting entities and help renew their founding vision in the digital world."
• Economic Growth: To "strengthen America's competitiveness in the world" and leverage technology "to grow the economy, create jobs, and solve our country's most pressing problems."
• Open Government: To reverse "policies that favor the few against the public interest," close" the revolving door between government and industry," and achieve "a new level of transparency, accountability and participation for America's citizens."

The more than one hundred people who signed onto this letter -- and the millions more we represent in our organizations, workplaces and communities -- join your call to create a more vibrant and diverse media system and to deliver the benefits of the open Internet and new technology to all Americans.

The Effects of Media Consolidation on Urban Radio — Part I

Here's the first installment of an excellent article by hip-hop writer Eric K. Arnold that examines the effects of media consolidation on the urban radio format.

Arnold is an authority on this subject; his recent cover story for SF Weekly, “The Demise of Hyphy,” looked at the role of commercial stations in local communities and the impact they have on music and culture. The article has sparked a great deal of conversation in the Bay Area and beyond. (A full author bio can be found at the end of the post).

This piece gives an overview of how urban radio came to be, and shows that the hip-hop community has not been spared the negative effects of media consolidation — including a loss of localism and diversity on the dial. We're really excited to be able to publish it here in a handful of installments. So, without further ado:

The Effects of Media Consolidation on Urban Radio — Part I
By Eric K. Arnold

Urban Radio: What It Is and Who’s Down
Let’s cut to the chase: urban radio sucks. You know it, artists know it, and programmers know it too. It offers little room for creative programming, tends to favor established artists at the expense of new voices, and kills any halfway-decent song that does manage to land in rotation by playing it as much as three times an hour. Most of all, urban radio sucks because it rarely meets the needs of the local community from which its listeners are drawn. Commercial stations and their advertisers are more than happy to have passive listeners who don’t complain about programming decisions. But the truth of the matter is that people have a right to demand greater accountability from their neighborhood stations. Since all broadcasters use the public airwaves, they need to honor their responsibility to serve the public interest. Urban radio is no different, yet its lack of localism is even more appalling since stations often market themselves as being informed by street-derived culture.

Generally speaking, urban radio is defined as programming whose primary demographic targets people of color living in urban areas. This listenership is often broken down into three somewhat overlapping market segments based on age: Hot Urban” (12-24); “Rhythmic AC” (18-34); and “Urban AC” (25-49). Hot Urban stations tend to spin current rap and contemporary R&B, while Urban AC stations rarely play much rap, preferring a mix of vintage soul and R&B with more recent neo-soul and R&B. Rhythmic AC stations fall somewhere in the middle: typical stations in this category program for both younger and older listeners, so playlists include contemporary artists as well as older, “heritage” acts.

Urban Radio is a multibillion-dollar industry controlled by a handful of large media conglomerates which program the majority of the genre’s stations across the country. To a large extent, the industry’s current state is the result of media consolidation. Over the last twelve years, independently-owned commercial stations have become a rarity, while corporate radio has become the norm.

Where once innovative program directors broke new music by emerging artists and DJs sought out hot local talent, today’s urban radio has become standardized and formulaic. National playlists and a reliance on market research have made DJs little more than button-pushers with limited say in what records get aired. Pressure to attract and maintain the widest possible market share has resulted in Music and Program Directors choosing commercially-established, major label artists over idiosyncratic or developing acts. In this ratings-driven climate, radio that actively meets the needs of the community — whether it be public-affairs shows or programming featuring local artists — has fallen by the wayside. The net result is that the average listener has fewer choices, especially when it comes to hearing local music.

“There is a need and a desire on behalf of listeners for local music on local radio stations,” says Davey-D, an air personality on community station KPFA and Internet station Breakdown FM. Davey spent a decade at San Francisco Bay Area commercial radio at KMEL — the #1 urban station in the nation’s #4 market. Despite demand for diverse and local content, “radio stations around the country have no desire to play local artists unless local artists are connected to major labels or major independents,” Davey says.


Who Jacked the Playlist?
The passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 irrevocably altered the landscape of commercial radio. Supporters of this legislation claimed it would invigorate radio, but it actually had the opposite effect. The bill eased FCC-mandated restrictions on ownership, meaning that several stations in the same market could now be owned and operated by the same company. It also continued a trend away from community-oriented broadcasting, which began during Reagan administration. (In 1981, officials did away with the “ascertainment” process, jettisoning requirements that required commercial stations to determine and meet the needs of local communities.)

In the five years following the 1996 Telecom Act, a frenzy of consolidation essentially eliminated independent black radio. Locally-owned and African-American-operated stations were bought out by the dozens and reprogrammed as “urban” stations by national conglomerates. Previously, DJs, Program Directors and Music Directors were able to play music of their own choosing. Since ’96, market researchers and consultants have determined playlists, eradicating a once-proud tradition of supporting neighborhood talent. As Davey-D notes, “This was a rude awakening with respect to local music.”

In 1997, following KMEL’s purchase by Chancellor Media, Program Director Michelle Santosuosso wrote an open letter to PDs in other markets detailing how the station went from a “mom and pop” operation to being owned by a “massive media company” which also owned 100 other stations, including KMEL’s main competitor. In this industry climate, she noted, “balancing the commitment to musical integrity with the pressures of big business ratings demands is increasingly difficult.”

A decade later, her statement seems truer than ever. KMEL’s current parent company, Clear Channel Communications, owns not 100 stations, but well over 1,000. Yet Clear Channel is only one of a handful of companies which own the majority of radio stations in America and are thus in a position to dictate or restrict content as they see fit.

Urban radio programming has become stagnant, alienating many hip-hop heads who once listened religiously to mix shows. According to Bobbito Garcia — former co-host of “The Stretch Armstrong Show,” a New York college radio program known for featuring unsigned hip-hop artists — “It’s become national radio, not urban radio.” The effect of consolidation, he says, is that “artists started making music not for the audience, but for the radio.”

In today’s urban radio market, the sound has become increasingly formulaic. “Real hip-hop sounds weird,” says Julio G., who pioneered West Coast hip-hop radio at KDAY 20 years ago. Julio, who’s credited with breaking Eazy E., says that disc jockeys themselves no longer have the opportunity to champion new music. “I started with a passion to find the best record,” he says. “Why do I gotta be just another guy playing [chart-topping MC] Plies?”

Matt Sonzala, the author of the Houston So Real blog and the hip-hop booker for Austin’s annual SXSW conference, remembers the early days of Texas hip-hop radio well. He recalls hearing local artists like the Geto Boys and UGK on The Box 97.9, who “blew up because they had support in their own city.” Sonzala claims that, despite Houston’s storied history as a breeding ground for rap music, the only local artists getting any sort of commercial radio action these days are those already signed to major labels.

Like Houston, Atlanta’s urban radio stations were also once known for supporting homegrown artists, whether unsigned, indie or major. Recently, however, a PD who had heavily supported local rappers was let go, and “the scene changed,” says Wendy Day, the founder of artist advocacy group Rap Coalition. Day has firsthand experience building acts through neighborhood word-of-mouth. Before moving to the ATL, she lived in Chicago and New York, where, a decade ago, she worked records for Twista and Do or Die out of Chi-town. Back then, she says, radio was loathe to take on “hard” rap: “we could not get our records played on radio.” Instead, she notes, “we blew it up on the street.”

Street culture is by definition different than corporate culture. Radio, she points out, “is definitely a business. It doesn’t play music to reach people or move a culture. . . its job is to sell ads.”

From a corporate perspective, it’s easier to streamline playlists from media market to media market than to develop entirely separate charts for each station playing a particular format. Yet a playlist for a commercial urban station can contain as few as 300 songs – a tenth of what the average listener has on his or her iPod. This approach often leaves listeners and artists alike grumbling about the exclusion of local or independent talent.

The lack of concern for the needs of the community has not gone completely unnoticed, however. In March 2008, Kansas City alt-weekly newspaper The Pitch reported that despite a wealth of local talent, the region has yet to produce a nationally recognized hip-hop act. According to reporter Nadia Plaum, “Many local artists blame KC radio, complaining that the city doesn't have a station committed to pushing hometown music on regular rotation.”

Some in Government have commented on the negative impact of media consolidation on the public airwaves. In November 2007, during the sixth and final hearing on media ownership, FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps reportedly said, “Did you even notice the FCC is always ready to run the fast break for Big Media, but it’s the four-corner stall when it comes to serving the public interest?”

The Commissioner was specifically referring to the likely granting of expanded cross-ownership agreements for TV stations and newspapers, but media is an extremely trend-focused industry, so further consolidation in any sector of mass media would likely affect all segments of the industry.

Stay tuned for the next installment of this article.

About the Author:

Eric K. Arnold has been writing about urban music culture since the mid-1990s, when he was the Managing Editor of now-defunct 4080 Magazine. Since then, he’s been a columnist for such publications as The Source, XXL, Murder Dog, Africana.com, and the East Bay Express; his work has also appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle, Vibe, Wax Poetics, SF Weekly, XLR8R, the Village Voice and Jamrock, as well as the academic anthologies Total Chaos and The Vinyl Ain’t Final. Eric began his journalistic career while DJing on college radio station KZSC, and remembers well the early days of hip-hop radio, before consolidation, and commercialization set in. He currently lives in Oakland, California.

FCC & Cross-Ownership: The Votes Are In

Today, the Federal Communications Commission moved to lift the 32 year-old ban on common ownership of newspapers and broadcast outlets in the country's 20 largest cities. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin provoked the ire of more than a few citizens and public interest groups by arranging for what many (including some members of Congress) have deemed as a rush to a vote.

The changes aren't as sweeping as those proposed in 2003 by Martin's predecessor, Michael Powell. The new rules would allow a newspaper to merge with a TV or radio station only if the publication is not among a city's top four and there are at least eight independent media voices in the market.

But that doesn't mean there isn't opposition to the decision. Take a look at this statement from Free Press, which highlights many of the issues surrounding today's vote.

FMC understands the concerns of our allies about the rule changes. Many groups believe that they leave room for cross-ownership in smaller markets. And it's important to note that there was dissent on the Commission itself. Here's a quote from Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein:

“For many years, the underpinnings of the Commission’s public interest analysis with regard to media have been to promote localism, competition, and diversity. Yet it is clear from the record that this decision undermines all of these goals. . . as a result of newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership, there is less local news in the market as a whole and there is less competition for stories and ideas since two competing entities become one. There is also less diversity, as a voice in the market is lost, and broadcast outlets are taken even further out of reach of women and people of color.”

Commissioner Micheal Copps echoed his associate' sentiments:

“The situation isn’t going to repair itself. Big media is not going to repair it. This Commission is not going to repair it. But the people, their elected representatives, and attentive courts can repair it. Last time the Commission went down this road, the majority heard and felt the outrage of millions of citizens and Congress and then the court. Today’s decision is just as dismissive of good process as that earlier one, just as unconcerned with what the people have said, just as heedless of the advice of our oversight committees and many other Members of Congress, and just as stubborn—perhaps even more stubborn—because this time it knows, or should know, what’s coming. Last time a lot of insiders were surprised by the country’s reaction. This time they should be forewarned.”

It remains to be seen whether or not Congress will move to dismiss these new rules, but considering its 2003 remand of Michael Powell's changes, there is precedent.

But it's not all doom and gloom, particularly on the radio front. FMC is pleased that the line has been held on further radio station ownership consolidation. Currently, a single company can own up to eight stations in a single market, depending on how many other stations are operating in said market. Some were predicting that Martin would move to relax these rules to allow for further concentration of ownership. This would no doubt lead to even greater homogenization of playlists and prevent many artists from being heard on the airwaves. Although we'd love to see a rollback to pre-1996 Telecommunications Act levels, the door to increased consolidation seems, for the time being, to be closed. Check out our 2006 Radio Study to learn more.

The Commission also seems increasingly committed to Low Power FM. On November 27, the FCC moved to prevent groups from owning more than one such station, and clarified rules regarding license transfer. They also placed limits on so-called "translators," which repeat the signals of full power stations and extend the reach of commercial radio. These decisions on LPFM will hopefully lead to more locally-oriented music and news options in our nation's cities. Check out our LPFM factsheet for more info.

Perhaps as important, there have been significant steps towards expanding non-commercial radio. In October, the FCC opened up a licensing window for full-power, non-commercial bandwidth — the opportunity of a generation.

Let's hope these latter developments bring greater access and opportunity for musicians. It’s certainly a step in the right direction.

FCC Gets Heat From Senate

Today's Senate Commerce Commitee hearings on media ownership, localism and diversity found several Senators stepping up the anti-consolidation rhetoric. Can a showdown with FCC Chairman Kevin Martin be far off?

The hearing's biggest announcement was that of legislation to impede the Martin's mad dash to alter current media ownership rules. This bi-partisan effort, which has been given the catchy title "Media Ownership Act of 2007,” is co-sponsored by Senators Snowe, Obama, Kerry, Feinstein, Nelson and Cantwell. The proposed bill compels the FCC to hold separate proceedings on localism, as well implement a task force to look into issues of minority and female ownership before attempting to alter existing structures. In addition, the legislation introduces a 90-day public comment period on any proposed rule changes.

We at FMC think this is excellent news. However, given the FCC's poor track record of actually completing assigned research, there may be need of further Congressional (and perhaps Court) intervention. According to research by Free Press, the FCC has never produced accurate documentation of existing minority broadcast licenses. Can we actually expect them to take the proposed ownership task force seriously?

Back to the hearing. Several Senators spoke in no uncertain terms about the consequences of further consolidation, with Dorgan referring to the "galloping concentration" of media outlets as being "quite unhealthy." The general consensus was that they’d been here before with the FCC -- specifically in 2003, when then-Chairman Michael Powell made a similar rule-change attempt. Senator Kerry made reference to the deja-vu nature of the current proceedings, calling them "a little like Groundhog Day." Legislators seemed in agreement that Martin is rushing things. Said Dorgan, "The Chair is not in a position to credibly suggest that we need a vote by December."

Of the panel of witnesses, Seattle Times publisher Frank A. Blethen made the most compelling argument in favor of localism and diversity. He claimed that localism has all but been abandoned by Congress and the FCC, saying that the big media conglomerates no longer "invest in journalism," to the detriment of civic comprehension. He also countered conventional wisdom about the newspaper industry, stating that traditional press is still profitable. Yet Blethen also told Congress that "the only way to save local papers is to stop the FCC from relaxing ownership rules." In addition to maintaining the current cross-ownership caps, he urged lawmakers to create incentives for greater minority ownership.

All in all, it was a smashing day for supporters of localism and diversity in media. Let's hope the FCC gets the message.

Watch the an archived webcast of the hearing here.

Consolidation Indignation

Late last Friday afternoon, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin announced the sixth and final hearing on media ownership, to take place in Seattle on November 9. As was the case with the October 31 hearing on localism in D.C., Martin has given the public precious little time to prepare. This once again calls into question his commitment towards considering public opinion. Of course, citizen sentiment regarding consolidation is almost entirely negative. But that's no excuse for ignoring concerns.

Is it all just a charade? Check out what FCC Commissioners Copps and Adelstein have to say:

A hearing with only five days notice is no nirvana for Seattle and the Pacific Northwest. This smells like mean spirit. Clearly, the rush is on to push media consolidation to a quick and ill-considered vote. It shows there is a preordained outcome. Pressure from the public and their elected representatives is ignored. With such short notice, many people will be shut out. We received notice of the hearing just moments before it was announced. This is outrageous and not how important media policy should be made.

And they're not the only government figures peeved by Martin’s rush to change existing rules. Following Senators Lott and Dorgan's joint press conference, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Inouye decided to hold a hearing on November 8 -- the day before the Seattle affair. The topic du jour? Localism, which Martin no doubt thought he'd put behind him with the Halloween hearings. Guess the topic just won’t stay, ahem, buried.

Word on the Hill has it that Martin is planing a vote for sometime in December. It remains to be seen whether Congressional pressure will have any effect on his push for rule changes. One thing is certain, at least according to the general public: further consolidation will have an incredibly negative effect on the FCC's stated goals of competition, localism and diversity.

Need more proof? Check out FMC's 2006 Radio Study and its corresponding Executive Summary. Watch an interesting video report on consolidation from PBS' Bill Moyers.

Visit the Senate Commerce Committee website for the the live webcast of Thursday's hearing on localism.

Details on Friday's public hearing on media ownership in Seattle:

Date: Friday, Nov. 9, 2007
Time: 4:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.
Location: Town Hall Seattle, Great Hall
1119 Eighth Avenue (at Seneca Street) Seattle, WA 98101

Swing by StopBigMedia.com for more info.

Trick or Treat at the FCC

Today's FCC hearings on localism in media featured stellar testimony from a panel of witnesses nearly united in their belief that diversity in media ownership and community-centric broadcasting are of enormous public value. The hearings took place on Halloween, and, judging from the response of concerned citizens to the possibility of further consolidation, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin should be spooked.

Despite short notice and a very small venue, more than 150 citizens showed up at the FCC's doorstep. (Some as early as 5 and 6 in the morning!) Those who made it inside, including a panel of powerful witnesses, made it clear that media consolidation is not in the best interest of any community — be it rural or urban.

"A business model that shuts out local news and entertainment options in favor of homogenized content is detrimental to the public interest," said Bob Edwards, National First Vice President of the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, and former host of NPR's "Morning Edition." Directly addressing the FCC Commissioners, he stated, "the health and robustness of American media depends on your actions."

The Rev. Jesse Jackson of the Rainbow Push Coalition also had strong words for the Commission. "For far too long, media policy has been made behind closed doors," he said. It's time to democratize the public airwaves. The FCC should serve the public, not profits."

Several panelists, including Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, spoke candidly about the importance of localism. "The programming needs of local communities are best served by local owners," she said. "It's hard to argue with the obvious." She also pointed out the appalling lack of diversity in the current media sphere, claiming, "the more consolidated the market, the less likely it is that there will be female or minority ownership."

FMC has extensively examined the effects of consolidation on the public airwaves, and has conducted original research which changed the debate about radio. Economic data from our 2003 and 2006 studies showed a massive and negative restructuring of radio and proved that the FCC's own studies following the 1996 Telecommunications Act did not accurately measure diversity or localism. Our 2006 Radio Study can be found here. You can also check out an Executive Summary of this report.

In 2006, FMC Executive Director Jenny Toomey was a witness at the FCC's hearing on media ownership in Nashville. She spoke about the radical transformation of the airwaves following the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and the resulting lack of diversity and localism on the dial. Of course, Jenny looked beyond terrestrial broadcasting and to the future, tying the negative affects of radio consolidation to the importance of net neutrality:

"If there is a silver lining to this cloud of failed radio policy, it will be the lessons that we apply to the debate over net neutrality and to structural decisions about the internet marketplace. Radio’s story has played a major role in spawning the movement against media consolidation. And concerns about access to the data used in the FCC's decision-making process have shown that the public needs more substantial and transparent information to monitor media industries. Never again should these decisions be made in the dark."

And they won't be, if today's cadre of concerned citizens, broadcasters, advocates and activists have anything to do with it.

Read the rest of Jenny's testimony here.

Learn more about today's FCC hearing at StopBigMedia.com.

Oh, and Happy Halloween!

Circling the Wagons

It’s been reported that FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is aggressively attempting to push through changes to media ownership laws which could result in further consolidation of not just radio, but also television and print media. Although the FCC claims to recognize the importance of localism, competition and diversity, Martin’s own actions indicate otherwise.

In 2003, FCC Chairman Michael Powell also tried to ram through rule changes, but was strongly rebuked by the general public, not to mention the House, Senate and Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The congressional and court reprimand included a stern admonishment to hold public hearings on localism, competition and diversity before voting on any rule changes.

The FCC took Congress' advice and the commissioners have, indeed, attended formal and informal hearings over the past 18 months in Chicago, Tampa, Portland, Harrisburg, Nashville, and Los Angeles, where thousands of concerned citizens overwhelmingly expressed their opposition to any rule changes that would let Big Media companies swallow up more local outlets.

But these hearings aren’t worth much if the public isn’t a): given adequate time to prepare arguments, or b): provided date and location info until the absolute last minute, as is the case with the next event. Hmm, could this be a strategy?

Yesterday, the FCC finally released information pertaining to a rumored Washington D.C. hearing on localism. It takes place on Wednesday, October 31 — a mere week away. That leaves little time for anyone to organize concerns about the proposed rule changes — the specific details of which still remain a mystery.

The hearing will be held in FCC Room TW-C305 — which can only accommodate a hundred or so people. Makes you wonder if this, too, is a deliberate attempt to ignore public opinion.

In the past, FMC has helped to bring artists' voices to the debate, with Tift Merritt, Jenny Toomey, Chuck D., Tom Morello, Ted Leo, Boots Riley, the Indigo Girls and Mike Mills appearing as invited witnesses. Each musician talked frankly about how issues including media ownership, low power radio, payola and net neutrality affect their careers as musicians, and their access to information as citizens.

Key legislators are also on the side of diversity, competition and localism in media. A couple of days ago, Senators Dorgan and Lott held a joint press conference in which they called the FCC’s rush to relax ownership rules “a big mistake.” Check out the press conference here.

Here are some things you can do regarding the FCC and media ownership:

Official FCC Localism Hearing
Oct. 31, 2007, 9 a.m. to 2 p.m.
Room TW-C305 following open commission meeting
FCC, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20554 (map)

1. Attend the hearing and sign up to deliver a short statement on your thoughts on media and localism. We cannot guarantee that you will be allowed to testify -- or even that you'll be let in the building -- as we expect hundreds of people to show up, but the more people who show up just demonstrates the public's determination to make the FCC take these hearings seriously.

2. Watch the hearing. Audio/Video coverage of the meeting will be broadcast live with open captioning over the Internet from the FCC's Audio/Video Events web page at www.fcc.gov/realaudio. Spanish language translation service will be provided. In addition, the hearing will be recorded, and the recording will be made available to the public.

3. File a short comment on your thoughts on localism on the FCC website. The proceeding docket number is MB 04-233.

Learn more at StopBigMedia dot com.

Senate to Explore "The Future of Radio" During Hearing

On Wednesday, October 24 -- that's tomorrow, people -- the Senate Commerce Committee is holding a hearing on "The Future of Radio" during which "Committee Members will assess the state of innovation and competition in the radio market."

Mac McCaughan, musician and co-owner of indie label Merge Records has been invited to testify, along with Tim Westergren from Pandora and folks from National Public Radio, Withers Broadcasting, Free Press and the National Federation of Community Broadcasters.

The hearing starts at 10 AM ET and is being held in Russell Building 253. The committee also offers a live webcast, which you can access as the hearing starts at: http://commerce.senate.gov/

FMC will provide gavel-to-blog coverage...

Media Ownership Rules — A Narrow Window?

Back in 2003, the FCC tried to change regulations concerning corporate ownership of media outlets. Then-chairman Michael Powell wanted to alter the rules without taking into account public opinion. Suffice it to say, there was unprecedented resistance in the form of citizen feedback, the bulk of which was decidedly negative. FMC collected and analyzed data on the public comments; the report can be found here.

Well, it’s happening again. The FCC just doesn’t seem to get it. When they previously attempted to change the rules, it resulted in serious blowback from the House, Senate and Third Circuit Court. Sure, there are more public hearings scheduled this time around, including one in Washington next week, for which the venue has still yet to be determined (!) But these hearings may be entirely superfluous in the eyes of current Chairman Kevin J. Martin.

A recent article in Condé Nast’s Portfolio magazine confirmed what many have come to suspect: Chairman Martin is aiming to limit the timeframe in which dissent can be registered.

“FCC commissioner Kevin Martin learned a lot from his predecessor's ill-fated attempt at media ownership deregulation. Above all, he learned that the public hates the idea of further consolidation -- so if you want to push through rules allowing it, you have to do it while no one's looking.”

And the New York Times even deemed the story worthy of front page treatment. In their reporting, FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein calls Martin’s timetable “awfully aggressive.” Possibly provocative, definitely true.

According to Dow Jones, Martin hopes to schedule the rule changes vote for December 18. This ensures not only a narrow window for dissent, but also a particularly distracting season in which to discuss the issues.

Check out this must-see clip of Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) engaging in his own brand of protest:



Other Senators, including Barack Obama, have also registered their displeasure with the FCC’s tactics.

FMC has long opposed radio consolidation, because it severely limits musicians' odds of getting airplay.

Instead of focusing on further deregulation, shouldn’t the FCC be working towards enhancing localism, competition and diversity in all media?

Report from Chicago

On September 19, FMC's Jenny Toomey and Jean Cook headed to Chicago to host the Rock the Media party at Delilah’s in Chicago. The culmination of a week’s worth of trainings in advance of the final FCC Media Ownership hearing in Chicago, the party brought media activists and music lovers together to enjoy local hip hop from DJ Sean Doe, and a rousing performance by Jon Langford and Co. Sitting in with the band was FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein on harmonica, who played Johnny Cash covers late into the night.

The next day, over 800 people turned out at the hearing the next day at the Rainbow PUSH Coalition HQ on the south side of Chicago. From that evening, here's one of the most eloquent voices for hip hop, KRS-1, voicing his concerns about media ownership to the FCC.



Listen to his entire statement here.

For more amazing and inspirational testimony from some of the over 200 local community radio advocates visit Stop Big Media. For Chicagoans, you can view coverage of the entire hearing on CAN TV (Channel 21) on Sunday, October 14th from 9am-5pm.

FCC Hearing on Media Ownership today

Today's the day to begin making the nation's media more equitable. The FCC will host a hearing in Chicago to take public testimony as it reviews its media ownership rules. This is hugely important: removing the radio ownership caps lead to the rise of Clear Channel's radio empire and a lack of diverse media voices in many cities. If you want to testify at the hearing, you must sign up. Here's the e-mail: fcc504@fcc.gov. The hearing will be held at the PUSH Rainbow Coalition headquarters in on the South Side at 4 p.m.

Here's a great Pitchfork piece on the hearing.

Hey Chicago!!!! Let's party like it's 1995!

1995?!?

Sure, you know back before the 1996 Telecommunications Act allowed extreme ownership consolidation to further ruin commercial radio and back before the Brand X case that put the future of the open internet at risk for indie musicians.

That's right... in honor of the September 20th FCC Media Ownership Hearing in Chicago, FMC is hosting a "ROCK THE MEDIA PARTY" at Delilah's (2771 North Lincoln Ave).

The Party begins on Wednesday September 19th, 8-11 p.m. With music legend Jon Langford and DJ Sean Doe spinning local hip hop.

Here's a delicious taste of the future media once we take it back from the corporate ogre.

Delilah's - Phone: (773) 472-2771 http://www.delilahschicago.com

*A five dollar donation at the door gets you a free drink. All money raised will go to support volunteer efforts at the FCC Hearing on September 20th.

Photo courtesy or Clearly Ambiguous.

Speak up for media diversity in Chicago!

On Sept. 20 in Chicago, the FCC will be holding a crucial public hearing on media ownership. If you care about getting more indie music on the air, the diversity of voices on the airwaves, localism, and breaking the grip of big media conglomerates, it's important that you attend.

The public hearing is the fifth of six the FCC is holding around the country as it prepares to revise rules on broadcast ownership. Public hearings can be sleep inducing, but as they go this one couldn't be more important. The FCC is reviewing limits on local television and radio ownership, limits on the cross-ownership of TV or radio stations and a newspaper in a particular market, and limits on television/radio cross radio ownership among other rules.

Anyone that's watched the homogenizing effect of Clear Channel on the nation's radio landscape knows how relaxing ownership limits can have a negative impact on the media. Clear Channel became a behemoth following deregulation of the radio industry in the mid-1990s. It's not just radio we need to worry about either. Many major cities are seeing an unprecedented waive of media consolidation. For instance, nearly every daily newspaper in the Bay Area is now owned by a single media company.

Chicago is no exception as our friends over at Free Press have observed in a recent study of media diversity:

Chicago has one of the lowest levels of minority ownership among markets of its size and diversity. Research conducted by Free Press, the national media reform group, found that racial and ethnic minorities make up nearly two-thirds of Chicago’s population but own only 5 percent of the city’s full-power commercial radio and TV stations. Despite comprising half of the population, women own just 6 percent of the city’s radio and TV stations.

The hearing will be held at the Operation PUSH headquarters on the south side of Chicago. It will run from 4 p.m. to 11 p.m. and those interested in commenting during the public comment section of the hearing need to sign up before hand by e-mailing fcc504@fcc.gov or
by calling 202-418-0530. For the address of the hearing and further details, see the FCC press release.

Women, minorities shut out of radio ownership

Women and minorities have largely been shut out of radio ownership in this country, in part, because of media consolidation, a new study by media reformers Free Press has found. The study concluded women and minorities own 6 and 7.7 percent respectively of the nation's full power radio stations.

The study is the first ever complete ownership assessment of the nation's airwaves. Significantly, the study found stations owned by women and minorities tended to feature more local and diverse programming than those stations owned by white men.


The study found equally dismal representation of women and minorities at the top levels of radio station management, and that minority ownership levels are low even in areas where there are high concentrations of minorities.

Of course, media consolidation has not only affected women and minority ownership. The study makes a great companion piece to a study put out by the Future of Music Coalition last year that found radio listener's options have decreased as the market became more consolidated. The study found just 15 formats make up 3/4 of commercial radio formats. Niche formats like jazz and bluegrass are almost entirely absent from commercial radio.

Both studies are cautionary tales on media consolidation. Hopefully, the FCC does a little reading as it once again discusses whether to eliminate limits on media ownership.