Hammer Museum Forum on Media Ownership

Check out this video of Reed's speech at the UCLA/Hammer Forum on June 5th. Here, he takes a stand against the FCC's Newspaper Broadcast Cross-Ownership Rule which dictates that no entity can own both a newspaper and a TV/radio outlet in the same local market. He claims that the rule was very important to maintaining diversity and avoiding monopoly in the media when it was established in the 1970s, but with the growth of internet and new media, there are an infinite number of unique voices, rendering the rule obsolete.

The speech generated some controversy among contenders to purchase Tribune Company newspapers such as the LA Times and the Chicago Tribune. Reed claims that Rupert Murdoch of Fox News or the Koch brothers of Koch Industries should both have the right to purchase additional media outlets, despite their already widespread reach of populations in the same local markets. While Reed doesn't necessarily align with these parties ideologically, he does not believe it should be in the hands of the FCC to decide who does and does not have the right to purchase a newspaper or television network. Still, many liberal opponents of these conservative powerhouses would like to prevent the purchases.

Where do you fall on the issue?

Link to UCLA Hammer Museum Event Video: http://hammer.ucla.edu/watchlisten/watchlisten/show_id/1769150/show_type/video?browse=none&category=0&search=

Reed Hundt Featured in Radio World for UCLA Speech

Hundt Says Drop Cross-Ownership Ban

on 06.07.2013

Former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt says the commission should repeal its rule that prevents one entity from owning both a newspaper and a broadcast station in the same market.

The ban has been in place since 1975 and under current market conditions it’s perverse, given the news available over the Internet now, Hundt said in a speech given at UCLA this week.

Rumor had it that President Bill Clinton didn’t want the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban repealed as part of the 1996 Telecom Act because Clinton didn’t want the owner of the Little Rock newspaper to be the same person who owned the dominant television station in that market, according to Hundt. He said Sen. Fritz Hollings, (D-S.C.), then chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, felt the same way about how dropping the ban would affect the media in his state.

“But if I lacked the gumption and votes at the FCC to get rid of the rule then, the proliferation of Internet access and content over the past 17 years should give today’s commissioners the conviction to do the right thing,” said Hundt this week.

“It is important that minority views — whether a minority is defined by race, religion, wealth, income, politics, education, disability, gender, sexual orientation or any other distinction — have the chance to be heard. But there’s no way for the FCC to accomplish this laudable goal by controlling who can own a newspaper,” Hundt said, according to an op-ed in The Washington Post.

See the article on Radio World. 

Reed Hundt Featured in Washington Post

The FCC should repeal its newspaper-broadcast ownership rule

by Reed Hundt

Reed Hundt was chairman of the Federal Communications Commission from 1993 to 1997. This is adapted from a speech he gave Wednesday at UCLA.

A widespread though unverified rumor had it that President Bill Clinton did not want the newspaper-broadcast ownership rule repealed as part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act because he did not want the owner of the Little Rock newspaper to be the same person who owned the dominant Little Rock television station. Fritz Hollings, then chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, did not want the Federal Communications Commission to repeal the rule for the same reason, transposed to the media of South Carolina. But if I lacked the gumption and votes at the FCC to get rid of the rule then, the proliferation of Internet access and content over the past 17 years should give today’s commissioners the conviction to do the right thing.

In celebration of our commitment to freedom, the FCC should eliminate the rule that constrains the owner of a broadcast TV station from also owning a newspaper in the same city, and vice versa — forthwith.

I think Fox News has exceeded the Koch brothers — because Fox has been at it longer — in degrading, dumbing down and distorting political discourse in America. Yet I cannot see any reason why Fox, its parent company or News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch should not be allowed to buy the Los Angeles Times or the Chicago Tribune or any other newspaper — provided that antitrust laws are followed.

The FCC rule was issued in 1975. Under current conditions, the rule is perverse.

First, the Internet makes plenty of information available to all. Internet access has reached 78 percent of the nation’s adults and 95 percent of teens. Total time spent in media still favors television — which draws 42 percent of total attention time. But time spent with print media is down to 6 percent, whereas the Internet draws 26 percent of Americans’ media time. Today, for the owner of any single broadcast TV station to buy one newspaper simply does not consolidate much attention for that owner’s point of view.

Second, social networks give us more critical information, and are almost certainly more trustworthy, than any media outlet that is run to please an owner or a group guided by a profit-maximizing motive. Sixty percent of Americans used social media to engage in political activities in the election of 2012. None of us can know what is going on without access to media, but we are all right to trust our friends, more than corporate media, to tell us what’s up.

Third, newspapers remain the most important concentration of truth-seekers and truth-tellers in the United States. Although the Internet has put newspapers at risk, most broadcasters continue to run profitable businesses. If a profitable broadcaster wants to buy a newspaper in its city — to expand the attention it can obtain from an audience or to have more impact on the way people think — the FCC should welcome this extra support for the troubled newspaper industry.

It is important that minority views — whether a minority is defined by race, religion, wealth, income, politics, education, disability, gender, sexual orientation or any other distinction — have the chance to be heard. But there’s no way for the FCC to accomplish this laudable goal by controlling who can own a newspaper. The way to put the “free” in “free speech” lies in two efforts: The FCC should pass a rule forcing immediate disclosure in paid political advertisements of who paid for them, and it should guarantee that the Internet is always open to all points of view.

If the FCC quickly repealed the rule on newspaper-broadcast ownership, there’s a good chance that many business combinations would attempt to acquire the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune. I imagine that someone as progressive in politics as I am — but vastly richer — might want to assemble a broadcast-TV combination that would increase audiences for both, to expand news coverage on television and to build a better Web presence than either a newspaper or a TV station could do it on its own. That might be the deal that beats out the Koch family for the L.A. Times.

Besides, if it were to come to that choice, I’d rather have Murdoch own the Times than the Kochs.

Of course the largest point is this: The former FCC chairman can have a preference about who owns a newspaper or a TV station. But the current FCC chairman should let the market decide. One of the glories of the United States is that we truly believe in free speech. When applied to media, that means we should honor the freedom to own the means of speech.

Original Article Available from The Washington Post. 

Los Angeles Times Article on UCLA Speech

By Joe Flint

A former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission said rules limiting common ownership of newspapers and television stations in the same market should be gutted -- even if it clears the way for media mogul Rupert Murdoch to control more news outlets including the Los Angeles Times.

Reed Hundt, Democratic chairman of the FCC during much of the Clinton administration and a self-confessed progressive, said in a speech Wednesday at UCLA that the long-standing rule is "perverse" and needs to be thrown out.

Noting the growth of new platforms for news and other content since the rule was created in the 1970s and the difficult economics of the newspaper industry, Hundt said "if a TV station wants to help a newspaper survive, the FCC should welcome that initiative."

Although Hundt is now advocating doing away with the rule, his own FCC did not make a serious attempt to remove it because the White House wanted to keep it intact. "It was an open secret that President Clinton did not want the newspaper-broadcast ownership rule repealed as part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act," Hundt said.

In his remarks, Hundt talked extensively about the Los Angeles Times and its parent Tribune Co., which has retained investment bankers to field offers for The Times and its other papers, including the Chicago Tribune and Baltimore Sun.

Addressing speculation that billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch, who head Koch Industries, are contemplating a bid for Tribune's papers, Hundt said, "I can't imagine anything good from the Koch family owning the Los Angeles Times."

The Koch brothers, with holdings in consumer products, oil refining and fertilizer, are prominent conservative activists. 

"When I think of the ways they use money and media to misinform, misdirect and make miserable all of us, I conclude: Only in America," Hundt said.

A spokeswoman for Koch Industries did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Hundt's remarks.

The publicity-shy Koch brothers have confirmed an interest in acquiring newspapers. In a rare interview with the Wall Street Journal, Charles Koch said, "There is a need for focus on real news, not news with an agenda or news that is really editorializing." He declined to comment on the future of Tribune Co.

Hundt is no fan of Murdoch or his media company, News Corp., and he criticized Fox News in the UCLA speech.

But he said he would prefer to see the Los Angeles Times and Tribune's other papers in the mogul's hands than with the Koch brothers.

"I'd rather have Murdoch than the Kochs own The Times, if it came down to that choice," he said.

The FCC's current cross-ownership rules would prohibit Murdoch from acquiring the Los Angeles Times or the Chicago Tribune because his company also owns TV stations in those markets. But News Corp. is aggressively lobbying to have the rules relaxed or removed and recently hired Toni Cook Bush, a veteran D.C. insider, to help its efforts.

While Hundt made his opinion on the Kochs and Murdoch quite clear, he also noted that the FCC should not let its own political views determine who may wind up owning the Tribune papers.

"The former FCC chair can have a preference about who owns a newspaper or a TV station. But the current FCC chair should let the market decide that," Hundt concluded. "One of the glories of the United States -- one of the many things that make our system better than the system in China or Russia -- is that we truly do believe in free speech. When applied to media, that means we should honor the freedom to own the means of speech."

Full article available from the Los Angeles Times. 

Communications Daily Media Update on UCLA Speech

Former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt was expected to urge the FCC to eliminate the newspaper broadcast cross-ownership rule in a speech he was scheduled to give at UCLA Wednesday night, according to a Hundt spokeswoman, who provided a copy of the speech to us. In it, Hundt says the FCC's enforcement of cross-ownership rules has become "an exercise in intellectual contortions that persuade on-lookers that the Commission is acting in an arbitrary fashion." Hundt says the numerous other ways that consumers get access to media have made the rules outdated, and also said they don't serve the goal of promoting minority media ownership. "Anyone who believes that a ban on print and broadcast combinations promotes minority ownership need only look to the bidding wars that arise among non-minority companies when a media property becomes available," he said. Hundt says the rule has become "perverse" in denying struggling newspapers access to broadcaster capital. "If a profitable broadcaster wants to buy a newspaper in its city - to expand the amount of attention it can obtain from an audience or just to have more impact on the way people think - the FCC should welcome this extra support for the trouble-plagued newspaper industry." In the speech, Hundt denounces the Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch, but says he can't imagine "any government in a truly free country" doing anything to stop them from buying "the Los Angeles Times, or any newspaper, or any media outlet of any kind." Hundt says "the cure for awful speech is an awful lot of money," and he advocates eliminating cross-ownership rules as a way of increasing participation in the sale of newspapers like the Times. "I can imagine that some person as progressive in politics as I am, but of course vastly richer, might want to assemble a broadcast-TV combination that increased audiences for both, expanded news coverage on television, and built a better Web presence than either a newspaper or a TV station can do on its own," says Hundt. "One of the glories of the United States - one of the many things that make our system better than the system in China or Russia - is that we truly do believe in free speech," he says in the speech. "When applied to media, that means we should honor the freedom to own the means of speech.

Press Release: "Repeal the FCC's Newspaper Broadcast Cross-Ownership Rule"

On Wednesday, June 5, 2013, former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt gave a speech at the UCLA Hammer Museum on the subject of media consolidation, particularly as it concerns the purchase of the Los Angeles Times. In his speech, Mr. Hundt called on the FCC to repeal the newspaper broadcast cross-ownership rule that gives The Commission jurisdiction to allow or disallow one entity to own a newspaper and a TV/radio outlet on a case-by-case basis.  Mr. Hundt stated that “under current conditions in the media business the FCC’s rule is perverse.” He is the first FCC Chairman to take this stance on the issue and uses his ample experience and knowledge to explain why.

Mr. Hundt acknowledged that the revocation of this rule means Rupert Murdoch would be able to purchase the LA Times. Although it would not be his personal preference for Murdoch to own the paper, he “cannot see any reason why Fox, or its parent News Corp, or Rupert Murdoch himself should not be allowed to buy the Los Angeles Times, or the Chicago Tribune, or any newspaper, provided that the antitrust laws are followed.”

Mr. Hundt provided five reasons that describe why the rule is defunct and show why the FCC should eliminate it. Ultimately, Mr. Hundt’s primary opposition to the rule stems from the United States First Amendment. If the United States truly believes in free speech, that right should be applied to media and the government should honor the freedom to own the means of speech.  

For a full speech transcript or further press inquiries, please contact Julia Casciotti by calling

(202) 777-7725 or emailing jcasciotti@gmail.com.

For more information about the forum: http://hammer.ucla.edu/programs/detail/program_id/1738