News Release

June 2, 2003

Media Contact: (202) 789-5200

FCC Makes Meager Changes to Media Ownership Rules
Predictions of media monopolies will not become a reality; information cannot be monopolized

WASHINGTON -- Adam Thierer, Cato Institute director of telecommunications studies, made the following comments after reviewing the decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to ease some media ownership rules:

"Contrary to the claims of critics, today's announced media ownership rule changes by the FCC represent a modest tweaking of existing regulations and standards.

"The FCC has outlined some incremental changes to the existing rules, such as raising the national television ownership cap, which limits the combined audience share a television broadcaster can reach with its stations, from 35 percent to 45 percent. Likewise, the radio-television cross-ownership ban, which restricts the numbers of stations a company can own in a single market, and the local television rule that restricts ownership of more than one of the top four stations in an existing market, have been moderately revised.

"The real question now is whether the courts will accept these changes or strike down these archaic media ownership rules as regulatory relics. In revising such rules before, the courts have recognized that the changes in the media marketplace have given citizens a diversity of news, information, and entertainment options that undercuts the rationale behind many of the current regulations. Considering the dismal state of media competition and diversity just 20 to 30 years ago, today's world is characterized by information abundance, not scarcity.

"Moreover, as courts have found, the First Amendment remains of paramount importance when considering such restrictions of media. Limiting the size of the soapbox that media owners hope to build to speak to the American people is offensive to the free speech rights we hold sacred in this country.

"Because today's FCC ruling only tinkers with some existing restrictions and largely retains others, it remains to be seen whether the agency's actions will pass muster in the courts when they are challenged again.

"Regardless, what is not warranted in this discussion is the sort of `Chicken Little-ism' that has pervaded the debate so far. Talk of mythical media monopolies and an end to `diversity' and `localism' in broadcasting represent scare tactics with no basis in reality. Information and entertainment cannot be monopolized, especially in an age of breakneck technological change."