FRITTS SAYS NAB SUPPORTS 35% CAP, BUT BILLS WON'T EMERGE ‘CLEAN’
NAB Pres. Edward Fritts said Thurs. that his organization wasn’t changing positions by withdrawing support for legislation that would restore the 35% broadcast ownership cap (CD July 10 p8). He said that since the NAB’s June 10-11 board meeting, the assn. had maintained that it would support only a “clean” bill to codify the national TV ownership cap of 35%.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
“This is not a change in policy from our June board meeting,” Fritts told reporters at NAB hq. A Senate 35% bill (S-1046) was amended with cross-ownership and radio divestiture provisions June 19, and NAB immediately said it couldn’t support it as amended (CD June 20 p1). While there’s a “clean” bill in the House (HR-2052) by House Commerce Committee Vice Chmn. Burr (R-N.C.), Fritts said NAB wasn’t supporting that measure either because there was “real evidence” that no bill would come out of Congress cleanly. He also said the NAB board would meet July 28 to discuss possible court action to retain the 35% cap as an alternative to legislation.
Fritts didn’t deny he had met with TV network executives Wed. and said he hoped they would return to the NAB fold. However, he said the NAB’s position had nothing to do with any attempt to win back the networks, with ABC being the most recent to depart, saying there was no “quid pro quo.” Commented an NAB board member: “Why is he meeting with those turkeys [network officials]? They aren’t members.” All this comes as the Big 4 networks are planning to bring affiliate executives to Washington to lobby next week for their interests. The networks have been considering whether to form their own lobbying organization.
The NAB board didn’t conduct a formal vote on reversing its support of legislation, but Fritts said there was a consensus among its members that NAB couldn’t support it because of the likelihood that amendments would be added. Several NAB TV board members told us Thurs. they hadn’t voted to change the Assn.’s position and that press reports to that effect came as a complete surprise. NAB’s position always has been “total opposition to any legislation that doesn’t include a rollback” of the ownership cap to 35%, said a dir. who isn’t a leader in the Network Affiliated Stations Alliance’s efforts.
Fritts had come under fire from a variety of quarters -- from the networks, members of Congress and his own board -- after it appeared the NAB was reversing position. Said one TV dir.: “I'm shocked… There was never a vote… Members of Congress [who favor a rollback] are shocked and feel betrayed by Fritts.” Several Hill staffers said they were upset with the reversal. “You don’t do that to friends,” one said.
NAB officials met with several members of Congress Tues. and Wed. Sources said Burr, House Commerce Committee ranking Democrat Dingell (Mich.), Senate Commerce Committee ranking Democrat Hollings and Senate Appropriations Committee Chmn. Stevens (R-Alaska) were among those present. Dingell announced the NAB’s change in position in a news release (CD July 10 p8), a day before NAB had scheduled a media briefing.
A bill by Stevens (S-1046) would restore the 35% cap, but before it was passed by the Senate Commerce Committee on voice vote, amendments were added that would restore the cross-ownership caps and would force divestiture of radio ownership to comply with new radio ownership restrictions the FCC adopted in its June 2 media ownership ruling.
Several Hill staffers were irate about what they considered the NAB’s reversal. “They put us out on a limb, then cut the branch,” one staffer said: “It will be a long time before I listen to an NAB argument on a broadcasting matter.” Staffers said NAB had lobbied for the 35% cap and actively were seeking co-sponsors. Hill sources said they suspected the NAB faced pressure from larger members, with several citing Clear Channel, which owns about 1,200 stations, which is worried about the radio divestiture amendment in S-1046.
On the House side, Burr’s 35% cap bill continued to gain support, with 17 members adding their names as co-sponsors since returning this week. The bill now has 163 co-sponsors, with 218 needed to bypass House Commerce Committee Chmn. Tauzin (R-La.), who has said he won’t hold a markup on the bill. House Commerce Committee spokesman Ken Johnson said Tauzin was cautioning NAB to be wary of what could happen to a 35% cap bill. “Once a train leaves the station, its hard to slow down. As NAB found out in the Senate, if you stand too close to the tracks, you're liable to get hit,” Johnson said, referring to amendments in S-1046.
Members and staffers vowed to carry on with media ownership legislation. Sen. Dorgan (D-N.D.) is planning to introduce a “legislative veto” of the FCC’s rule changes. And Hollings said: “The NAB’s recent about-face is regrettable, but this battle is being fought for the American people and diversity of expression, not the NAB. Americans from widely differing perspectives have made it quite clear that they want the FCC’s ruling reversed. We will continue to move forward on our bill and work to ensure that the public airwaves serve the public interest and not the economic interest of a few big media conglomerates.”