Public Interest Groups, Trade Associations Clash in MMTC Cross-Ownership Comments
Public interest groups clashed with trade associations and media owners over cross-ownership rules in comments filed in docket 09-182 on the Minority Media & Telecommunications Council’s cross-ownership impact study. Monday was the filing deadline for comments on Impact of Cross Media Ownership on Minority/Women Owned Broadcast Stations, which was released in May (CD May 31 p1). “The MMTC Study is not adequate to support the conclusion that any cross-ownership rules should be changed in this proceeding,” said the National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters in its comments. Groups such as NABOB and Free Press attacked the study for not being sufficiently quantitative and having a small sample size, while trade associations and others pointed to what they said is a lack of evidence supporting cross-ownership rules and urged the FCC to change them. “The record in fact supports broader reform of the broadcast ownership rules, including the local television and local radio rules, to allow broadcasters to achieve economies of scale and scope and enhance their service to the public,” said NAB.
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.
The MMTC and study author BIA/Kelsey made “an amazing leap” to conclude that cross-media ownership doesn’t have enough impact on minority ownership to justify cross-ownership rules, said a joint filing by several groups, including the National Hispanic Media Coalition, the Communications Workers of America and the United Church of Christ. “Although one-fifth of the Study respondents did see an impact from consolidation and cross-ownership, the Study authors make the remarkable claim that the failure of a mere 11 non-randomly-selected interviewees to mention this problem on a telephone interview means that no problems exist,” said the groups, echoing arguments about the sample size previously made by Free Press (CD June 28 p15).
MMTC has responded to the complaints about sample size before (CD July 1 p19) and didn’t address them in comments filed Monday, though it did concede that its study results do say “a cross-media combination, with strong newspaper, television and radio outlets in a medium (or small) market, can have sufficient market power to operate as a material detriment to minority and women ownership” -- a point not included in the original study. MMTC President David Honig didn’t comment.
Along with sample size, Free Press said the lack of information about the study’s subjects calls its validity into question. The study doesn’t clarify which answers came from radio or TV broadcasters, making it possible “that in 100 percent of the cases where MMTC asked a minority television owner about cross ownership in a market with a newspaper-TV combination, that owner reported the combination as harmful,” said Free Press. “Indeed, the study’s questionnaire specifies and emphasizes radio stations in a way that suggests TV station owners were either not interviewed, or were an afterthought."
Free Press also attacked the study’s claim to being peer-reviewed, which MMTC had pointed to as evidence of the study’s rigor. “Given the impeccable research credentials of the peer reviewers, it is highly unlikely that they did not identify the same flaws described in these comments,” said Free Press in its filing, calling on MMTC to release the reviews. “The absence of any written peer review raises the possibility that the reviewers were highly critical of the study’s methodology and/or its conclusions, but MMTC decided to plod ahead in the service of a political agenda."
Many of the comments supported the study -- the Newspaper Association of America leapt to the MMTC’s defense. “Cross-ownership opponents state that the MMTC Report is no substitute for quantitative empirical research, yet they provide no suggestions as to how a researcher could conduct such a study,” said NAA. “MMTC never claimed that this study was definitive … because very few markets allow cross-ownership of newspapers and broadcast stations, the sample size is relatively low.” NAA said the small sample led BIA/Kelsey to determine “that a qualitative study would provide the most useful information about the subject.”
NAB said relaxing cross-ownership rules “would allow broadcast owners to structure their operations to take advantage of economies of scale and scope, thereby promoting their ability to compete more effectively with other outlets and allowing them to offer better local service.” That would help minority media owners more easily get access to capital, NAB said, and help minority broadcasters and others deal with “the dynamic competitive landscape in which broadcasters operate.” Several media owners also chimed in with support for the study. “Indeed, the MMTC Study shows that newspaper/radio combinations are not even mentioned as a matter of concern to minority broadcasters,” said a joint filing by a group of newspaper/broadcast cross-owners, including LaSalle County Broadcasting and West Virginia Radio. “Thus, it appears that allowing such combinations would have no adverse impact at all on the diversity of broadcast ownership.”