Headlong into the murk of media

The Federal Communications Commission must slow down. Nothing good can come from squeezing major changes to the laws that govern media ownership by year's end.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin wants a vote on media-ownership rules by Dec. 18. Never mind that the FCC has not held its required sixth and final hearing on media ownership. That hearing is now scheduled for Seattle on Nov. 9.

Expect the hearing to be a rushed affair. An FCC hearing to explore how broadcasters are serving communities was announced at the same time as the Seattle media-ownership hearing. The broadcaster — or localism — hearing was finalized the night of Oct. 24, giving the public only five business days to prepare. The localism hearing was not only degraded by its timing, but also by its venue. The hearing was tagged onto the end of a regularly scheduled FCC meeting on Halloween.

There is no logical reason for Martin to be in such a hurry other than to work something out for the sale of media conglomerate Tribune to Chicago developer Sam Zell. Zell wants the deal to go through by the end of the year. He also wants the deal to include Tribune's television stations, many of which operate in the same cities as its newspapers.

The current FCC cross-ownership ban bars a company from owning a television station and newspaper in the same city. Tribune has been able to operate in a number of cities under the ban with a waiver that does not transfer with the sale.

It is reasonable to believe Martin will be pushing the commission to drop the cross-ownership ban. In 2003, he voted with the former Chairman Michael Powell to allow a company to own in one market a newspaper, a television station, eight radio stations and an Internet service provider.

These rule changes prompted the public to act through a court challenge. The FCC was flooded with nearly 3 million letters in opposition to the changes. Then, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia sent the rule changes back to the FCC.

The FCC should be more concerned about structuring rules that ensure an independent and diverse press and media, and not so worried about appeasing the conglomerates that believe a cross-ownership ban is standing in the way of more revenue.

This is too important an issue to be rushed. The FCC needs to facilitate a national discussion about how the American press and media can best serve democracy. That cannot be achieved by Dec. 18.