As the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) embarks on a review of media ownership rules, its Chairman Michael Powell is taking a position that is antithetical to the views held by the public and to the values articulated by Congress and embraced by the Supreme Court. Chairman Powell affords no special protection against cross-ownership of media types within markets, expresses little concern about increased concentration of ownership at the national or local levels and has belittled the public interest standard of the Communications Act.
As this paper demonstrates, the Supreme Court has long held that information is not just another product. While protection of consumer interests requires vigorous antitrust enforcement for any commodity, media markets require more. Because of media’s role in promoting civic discourse, the public interest standard for ownership of media has always been much higher.
Above all, public policy has endeavored to promote diversity of ownership within media based on a compelling public interest standard for preservation of multiple, competing and independent media sources. The bold aspiration set out by the Supreme Court for the First Amendment is to achieve “the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources.” This modern interpretation captures the strong belief of the framers of the Constitution that active and involved citizens are critical to the preservation of democracy.