Penn State Study Reveals Public Input Seemingly Meaningless to FCC’s Media Ownership Review Process

By: Jonathan Obar & Amit Schejter

A new study released by Penn State’s Institute for Information Policy criticizes the methods used by the FCC to organize their six public hearings on media ownership held throughout 2006-2007. Though the stated purpose of the hearings was to “fully involve” the public in a re-evaluation of the media ownership rules, Obar & Schejter argue that the FCC’s actions suggest that they had little interest in what the public had to say. This indifference towards the public’s input was made evident not only in the way the events were run, but also by the fact that references to public opinion were almost non-existent in the documentation of the final decision. After reviewing Obar & Schejter’s findings, the hearings (which cost more than $200,000 to run by the way) seem like nothing more than an elaborate public relations campaign – a dog and pony show put on to create the illusion that the FCC was interested in the public’s opinion.

A Few Quick Points for Context

In 2004 the FCC attempted to change the rules governing media ownership in the United States (Michael Powell was FCC Chairman at the time). After a Federal Court reviewed the proposed changes and threw them out, the FCC was criticized for their closed-door deliberations which seemed too close to industry influence and too distant from the public interest.

In 2006-2007 the FCC was at it again, but this time, they decided that before they proposed their rule-changes, they would (among a number of other deliberative procedures) hold six public hearings across the country in an attempt to “fully involve” the public in the re-evaluation process. Current FCC Chairman Kevin Martin himself described the reasons for greater public involvement,

In 2003, when we last conducted a review of the media ownership rules, many expressed concern about the process. Specifically, people complained that there were not enough hearings, not enough studies, and not enough opportunity for comments and public input. When we began eighteen months ago, the Commission committed to conducting this proceeding in a manner that was more open and allowed for more public participation. I believe that is what the Commission has done. (FCC Report & Order, 2008, p. 99)

The Study

After reviewing every minute of the six hearings (44 plus hours of media), as well as the FCC’s Report & Order, Obar & Schejter argue that while the FCC said that public participation would be a major factor in the review process, their actions suggested otherwise. The findings of the study describe the following sequence of events:

1) The methods used by the FCC to organize and conduct the hearings consistently hindered public participation.

Notice & Access

• For 3 of the 6 hearings, complete details were released only a week prior. Not the best strategy for mobilizing the public.

• All hearings started during prime working hours (Friday at 9am in Harrisburg, PA), and required individuals to arrive hours beforehand to sign up in order to testify. Arriving early was essential as some hearings ended before all public comments were heard.

Hearing Structure

• Preferential treatment was afforded to public officials, media owners/operators, etc. (they were often placed on panels who spoke first), while public comments were relegated to the end of the hearings. With some hearings lasting 8 and 9 hours, some people had to wait all day to be heard.

• 2 of the hearings actually devoted more time to non-public comment than to public comment, with two other hearings devoting more than 40% to non-public comment.

• Members of the public could speak for only 2 minutes each (some in Tampa and Chicago had only 90 seconds each). Everyone else was allowed 5 plus minutes each.

• The FCC often interrupted the public for comments by more “important” people (dignitaries, etc.) who dropped-in at their convenience, cutting in-front of individuals who had been waiting for hours.

The Result

• A quarter of the individuals that signed up to testify went home before their names were called, likely due to the structure and length of the hearings.

• Two hearings (Los Angeles and Harrisburg) were ended before all individuals signed up to testify could be heard.

2) Once the public finally had their chance to speak, 52.6 percent spoke out against media consolidation/deregulation, while only 1.4 percent spoke in support.

3) In the end, when the Report and Order was released to the public on February 4, 2008, it made almost no mention of public comments from the hearings, referring primarily to panelists (i.e. experts and stakeholders).

These findings certainly make it sound like the FCC couldn’t care less about public opinion. While the introduction of public hearings into the media ownership debate has
been applauded as a demonstration of openness to the involvement of the public in the
policymaking process, the FCC's methods highlighted by Obar & Schejter cannot but leave us with the feeling that the FCC put on something akin to a public relations
campaign; a fig leaf offered to those who would believe that the media ownership review process is dominated by corporate interests and an indifference to the public’s will.

Author Contact Info:

Jonathan A. Obar
Doctoral Fellow, Mass Communications
College of Communications
The Pennsylvania State University
115 Carnegie Building
University Park, PA 16802
814.689.3671
jaobar@gmail.com

Amit M. Schejter, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Telecommunications
College of Communications
106 Carnegie
Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802
schejter@psu.edu
http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/a/m/ams37/

Your vote:

Average: 5 (3 votes)