FCC Track Record on e-Comment Consideration Suspect:Has Public’s Media Ownership Input Fallen on Deaf Ears?

By Norris Dickard and Charles E. Meisch, Jr.

May 2003

Congress and the public have called on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to make public its proposals and postpone its decision on changes to the nation's media ownership rules. FCC Chairman Michael Powell chose instead to extend the public comment period until May 30, 2003, just before the Commission is scheduled to make its final ruling.

The nation’s media ownership rules are meant to protect localism, competition and diversity in the media. Among other things, they currently limit a single corporation from: dominating local TV markets; merging a community's TV stations, radio stations, and newspaper; merging two of the major TV networks; and controlling more than 35% of all TV households in the nation.

Judging from the demand for public forum events on the topic, such as those held in Arizona, New York, Chicago and Philadelphia, the extension is no doubt welcomed by those concerned about an open and deliberative process. The effect of this extension on the FCC's ultimate decision, however, is cause for concern. For example, several individuals in attendance at the Arizona Forum on Media Ownership, co-sponsored by the Benton Foundation, asked how the public could provide meaningful comments on a topic for which Chairman Powell has asked specifically for empirical evidence justifying the current rules. The average citizen, they argued, could hardly be expected to synthesize data on media concentration; they questioned whether the FCC would give any weight to their non-technical, anecdotal input. In short, citizens fear that their ability to influence the FCC, a non-elected regulatory body, is limited.

Chairman Powell declined to participate in the nationwide forums in part because he has noted the public record is "comprehensive," containing almost 20,000 submissions from individual citizens and other interested parties representing both sides of the issue. The FCC's electronic filing system has been highly touted as a tool to make it easy for the average citizens to provide input. But what weight do these comments carry? How are they considered?

Recent history suggests that they may not have any real impact. According to a 2001 study by JoAnne Holman and Michael A. McGregor, the FCC has shown on several occasions that it does not hold electronically submitted comments from citizens in high regard. The study examined the public comments from individuals for five different proceedings, dating back to 1995. The authors then compared the final Report and Order document for each proceeding to the trends identified in the public record. In each instance they found that, though the e-mailed comments were often referenced in the order (albeit briefly), the outcomes did not reflect public input. In one instance, every comment filed contradicted the final policy outcome.

Holman and McGregor also interviewed FCC staffers in an attempt to determine how they used electronically submitted comments. They sent e-mail queries to 17 staff members and the five Commissioners. Only seven responses were received, two of which went into detail on process. One FCC staff member appreciated the ease of access and participation inherent in electronic participation, while another noted the strong likelihood that comments from individuals could be copied from form letters and the like, confounding estimates of the true public interest. According to Holman and McGregor, the comments were "reasoned and thoughtful, but non-technical in nature," which they surmise might contribute to the practice of ignoring them.

While Holman and McGregor's research focuses on the activities of past Commissions, the Concerned Women for America Culture and Family Institute recently reported that roughly 7,000 individual complaints regarding a telecast found to be indecent were counted as one consolidated compliant by the FCC. As Institute director Robert Knight said, "This report makes it clear that the FCC seemingly will do anything to keep from enforcing broadcast decency laws."

The Future of Music Coalition (FMC) has just released a report summarizing the non-affiliated public record to this point on the media ownership rules debate. As of May 8, according to FMC, over 9,000 individuals had filed comments opposing a relaxation of the rules as opposed to eleven individuals writing in support of deregulation. Summarizing the comments, FMC's Director of Research Kristin Thomson said, "Many citizens have written thoughtful and articulate letters expressing a growing dissatisfaction with the trends in their local media, and insisting that the FCC show a genuine commitment to localism, competition and diversity. But it's also frustrating to know that, even with the vast majority of comments expressing decisive opposition to the rule changes, citizens' voices seem to be falling on deaf ears."

Reacting to Chairman Powell's decision not to extend the deadline for a decision on the media ownership rules, FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps said: "The Chairman's decision not to make these proposals public, nor even to grant a short delay in voting, runs roughshod over the requests of the American people and the precedents of this Commission. This rush to judgment means that we will not fully understand the impact of the specific proposals on our media landscape before we are forced to vote. We are rushing to passage of new rules without letting the American people know who is going to own and control the public airwaves for years to come and without gaining the benefit of their input on what is being proposed. This is no way to do business when critical issues affecting every American are at stake."

The FCC has highlighted the use of the electronic filing system as an excellent mechanism to build a strong public record on the topic of media ownership but, if history is any guide, the commitment to considering citizens' comments amounts to little more than lip service.