Daily Democracy

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton missed an opportunity this weekend to speak out against media consolidation. According to The New York Times political blog, The Caucus, Clinton was asked at an event in Iowa if it was bad that Rupert Murdoch was allowed to own so much of America's media.

A real softball that Clinton could have smashed. Instead she gave a lame response about the consumer being hurt when choice is limited.

The questioner singled Murdoch out. Clinton did not in her response.

I'm not saying anything against any company in particular. I just want to see more competition, especially in the same markets.

Sounds as if Clinton does not want to single out somebody who has done fundraising for her and somebody who owns so much of the press in the state she represents. Murdoch owns the New York Post, two television stations in the city, and will soon have the Wall Street Journal.

Ownership matters, and needs to be major component of the presidential debate. Barack Obama and Joseph Biden has done a good job of addressing media consolidation, and other issues such as network neutrality. I wrote last month about both senators positions.

Clinton should take note. Media consolidation is no longer an obscure debate. She should come out against the FCC's plan to get rid of the cross-ownership ban. Better yet, the senator should champion rules that would not create a media environment that backs her into consolidation's corner.

Free Press released an analysis today of FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's proposal to do away with the cross-ownership ban. A quick reading of the analysis, which can be found here, confirms many of the positions The Seattle Times editorial page has taken on the proposal. Those positions can be found here, here, and here.

The Free Press analysis brings to light how Martin's plan will be exploited by media conglomerates to extend their reach by junking the cross-ownership ban. Martin is clearly hoping that by only focusing on cross-ownership the other commissioners and Congress will let his changes stand. This study strengthens the argument that Martin's proposal needs to be rejected.

My blogging will slow, but not hault starting Friday. Work assingments and Thanksgiving will keep me from posting regulalry at Daily Democracy for the next couple of weeks.

Tracy Warner, the Wenatchee World's editorial page editor, had an excellent column Tuesday. He does a great job framing Kevin Martin's proposed media ownership rule changes around a very local example.

Also worth reading is Harold Feld at Wetmachine. Feld, who when not moonlighting at Wetmachine is senior vice president of the Media Access Project, has a interesting and honest take on Martin and his proposal.

Nobody is pleased with FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's plan for cross ownership. No surprise that the public and consumer groups recognize the proposal as bad policy. I was somewhat surprised by the response from the media Biggies. John Sturm, President of the Newspaper Association of America, believes the proposal does not go far enough according to a quote in the Washington Post.

The fundamental issues he raises concerning the vitality of newspapers and assuring that local news remains available to the public in print and in broadcast are not confined to the top 20 markets. The radical and irreversible market changes that have occurred in every community since this rule was adopted more than 30 years ago have extinguished any basis for this across-the-board ban.

One of the strongest statements against the proposal came from Sen. Maria Cantwell, who as a member of the Commerce Committee is in a position to do something about the FCC. She said as much in a press release.

Again and again, Chairman Martin has attempted to ram through rules that will encourage media concentration despite the public's loud and clear opposition. I'm disappointed but unsurprised that after claiming the hearings were going to be a critical part of the FCC's process, and giving the public merely a week's notice on the hearing, he has released a proposal that ignores the over nine hours of testimony from Washingtonians barely 72 hours later. The chairman says he invites public comment on his proposals, so I hope that everyone will contact the FCC to let them know exactly what they think of this proposal. If Congress has to act to stop media consolidation, we will.

The two Democrats on the FCC also blasted Martin and his plan.

JOINT STATEMENT BY COMMISSIONERS COPPS AND ADELSTEIN ON CHAIRMAN MARTIN'S CROSS-OWNERSHIP PROPOSAL

This is portrayed as a moderate proposal, but it is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Don't let the wool be pulled over your eyes. The proposal could repeal the ban in every market in America, not just the top twenty. Any city, no matter how small, could be subjected to newspaper broadcast ownership combinations under a very loose standard.

Under Chairman Martin's plan, all markets will be open to one company combining broadcast properties with cable, the newspaper (already a monopoly in most places), even the Internet Service Provider. His proposal could propel a frenzy of competition-stifling mergers across the land. He can try to characterize his plan as affecting only the "largest markets," but consider:

• The top 20 markets account for over 43% of U.S. households. Even on its face, this proposal directly affects over 120 million Americans.

• The Chairman then creates a loophole that Big Media will drive a truck through, permitting a newspaper-broadcast combination in any market in the country. We have seen how loosely the Commission has granted waivers in the past. If this proposal goes through, the FCC could grant cross-ownership applications in such small towns as Meridian, Mississippi and Bend, Oregon. When big conglomerates can't get their way in a general rule, they press for loopholes that swallow the rule, and they would succeed with this approach.

• The non-top four stations that major newspapers will now be competing for are precisely the stations more likely to be owned by small, independent broadcasters. If we ever got serious about women and minority ownership, these are also the stations most available to them. Chairman Martin's rule pretty much reserves these outlets for the big guys. So this proposal actually perpetuates the shamefully low levels of minority and female media ownership.

The Martin rules are clearly not ready for prime time. Under the Chairman's timetable, we count 19 working days for public comment. That is grossly insufficient. The American people should have a minimum of 90 days to comment, just as many Members of Congress have requested. More importantly, the Commission has yet to finish its Localism proceeding, teed up four years ago, or to forward comprehensive ideas to increase women and minority ownership of broadcast outlets.

There is still time to do this the right way. Congress and the thousands of American citizens we have talked to want a thoughtful and deliberate rulemaking, not an alarming rush to judgment characterized by insultingly short notices for public hearings, inadequate time for public comment, flawed studies and a tainted peer review process - all designed to make sure that the Chairman can deliver a generous gift to Big Media before the holidays. For the rest of us: a lump of coal.

We realize there is some urgency with respect to the Tribune transaction. The Chairman, however, has refused to act on Tribune's waiver requests that would permit the transaction to close. Let us be clear: it is improper to hold the Tribune hostage in order to force a vote on media ownership before the end of the year. We are prepared to vote on the Tribune waiver requests within three working days after the Chairman circulates a draft decision. There is simply no excuse for using Tribune as a human shield.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is trying to look like the great compromiser. His proposal to allow a company to own a newspaper, television station, and radio station in the same market is much more narrow than what the FCC approved in 2003. The narrow approach does not mean Martin's proposal is any better than former Chairman Michael Powell's of 2003.

Martin's plan would allow for cross-ownership in the top 20 media markets, and would not allow for a merger if a television station is ranked in the top four in a market. The proposal does seem to leave wiggle room for cross ownership outside the country's largest media markets. The proposal allows the commission to make exceptions for companies that do not meet the seemingly limiting criteria.

Martin appears to be using his tough stance on cable to soften Congress on his wanting to lift the cross ownership ban. The New York Times had a page 1 story Saturday about Martin taking it to the cable companies, and pushing issues such as a la carte, and limiting cable companies access to no more than 30 percent of a market.

His offer of cable for cross ownership is flawed. The two are not related. It does not matter what shows are available, or what percentage of the market a cable company can reach for a newspaper to stay viable.

Congress should not swallow Martin's bait, neither should the other four FCC commissioners.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin has released his proposal to increase media consolidation. I have not seen the details, but a FCC press release said the cross-ownership ban could be lifted in the nation's top 20 markets.

Will be back with more after I do some reporting.

The Pacific Northwest showed up in large numbers for Friday night's FCC media ownership hearing. People made the drive from Idaho and Oregon to join the crowd of about 800 in Town Hall. A good showing considering the short notice given for the hearing.

What I found the most impressive was the bipartisan message against media consolidation. Gov. Christine Gregoire's fiery speech was echoed by Republican state Attorney General Rob McKenna, and Republican King County Councilmember Reagan Dunn. The state's delegation weighed in via video. Maria Cantwell, Jay Inslee, and Dave Reichert all opposed changes to media ownership rules.

As expected, the crowd was overwhelmingly against media consolidation. The only people I heard encourage the FCC commissioners to loosen media ownership rules were the broadcasters on the first panel. I left shortly after the second panel, but would guess that the second round of public testimony was identical to the first round. Aggressively opposed to any plans to allow conglomerates to own more.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is expected to release his changes to media ownership rules this week. I cannot imagine he was swayed by the Seattle hearing. Hopefully the bipartisan showing, and the audience's passion can persuade one of the other two Republicans on the commission.

I could not blog from Town Hall last night during the FCC media ownership hearing. There was WiFi, but I lacked a password for what was available, and did not have enough technical skill to work around the problem. I will write about the hearing here a bit this weekend, and Monday. The hearing was impressive. The panelists were fantastic, and the crowd's energy grew as the hearing dragged on.

In case anybody missed the coverage this week, the Federal Communications Commission is holding its last media ownership hearing from 4 to 11 p.m. tonight at Town Hall, 1119 Eighth Ave, Seattle, WA 98101. This is the last chance to tell the commissioners your thoughts on media ownership.

I will be blogging from the hearing, that is if I can. Somebody at Town Hall said there is WiFi, but that the service is spotty.

Now is a good time to become familiar with Jonathan Adelstein and Michael Copps. They are in Seattle today for the Federal Communication Commission hearing at Town Hall tonight.

Copps was the focus of The Seattle Times Close-Up page on Thursday and will be answering questions from readers on seattletimes.com today from 11 a.m. to noon. Copps wrote an excellent op/ed for the Democracy Papers in September.

Adelstein had a strong op/ed about tonight's media ownership hearing in Thursday's Times. I had a wide ranging interview with him in September that was turned into a podcast for the Democracy Papers. The interview can be found on the Democracy Papers site. It is the next to last item under the podcast heading on the right side of the page.

The Federal Communications Commission released the panel for Friday's media ownership hearing at 4 p.m. in Town Hall. Full disclosure: I am related to Frank Blethen. He is my father.

Mark Allen, President & CEO, Washington State Association of Broadcasters

Frank Blethen, Publisher/CEO, Seattle Times

John Carlson, Radio Talk Show Host, KVI-AM

Erubiel Valladares-Carranzo II, Technical Engineer, KPCN-LP 96.3 FM Radio Movimiento "La Voz del Pueblo"

Bernie Foster, Publisher, The Portland Skanner, The Seattle Skanner

Ray Heacox, General Manager, King Broadcasting Seattle

Elizabeth Blanks Hindman, Associate Professor, Edward R. Murrow School of Communication at Washington State University

Diana Kramer, Vice President and General Manager, Puget Sound Publishing Company

Pamela S. Pearson, Vice President/General Manager, KCPQ/KMYQ-TV, Tribune Broadcasting Company

Jon Rand, General Manager, KAYU TV, Spokane, KCYU TV, Yakima, KFFX TV, Tri-Cities

Cheryl A. Salomone, Vice President and Market Manager, New Northwest Broadcasters - Tri Cities, WA

Abby Dylan, National Board Member, Screen Actors Guild Seattle

Bruce Fife, President, American Federation of Musicians, Local 99

Christina Romano Glaubke, Director, Children and the Media Program, Children Now

Joseph Orozco, Station Manager, KIDE 91.3 FM

Michelle Santosuosso, Former Vice President of Artist and Label Relations, Napster, Inc.

Do not be fooled by Kevin Martin's boyish looks. Behind those little round bookish glasses is an intelligent political operator. That is the impression I got from a 2002 profile of the current chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. The article appeared in Cable World and was written by Alicia Mundy, who is now The Seattle Times Washington, D.C. correspondent.

Mundy shows how Martin operated on the commission before he was elevated to chairman. Martin increased his visibility and power by positioning himself as a swing vote that never really swung. A lobbyist who used to work at the FCC said as much.

Martin's being very strategic right now. He's not dissenting in ways the right wing can complain about. He is acting independently, but being careful not to be seen as an ideological threat to the GOP agenda.

The piece also veers into Martin's relationship with the White House. I wrote yesterday that media consolidation is not a partisan issue, but that this was something the administration was pushing. Former FCC commissioner, and Martin's one time boss, Harold Furchtgott-Roth said Martin is there for Bush.

There are few people in Washington with a greater claim to being a loyal soldier for President Bush than Kevin. He's always been there for President Bush at the commission.

Mundy's profile is well worth reading before Friday's FCC media ownership hearing at Town Hall.

Daily Democracy has received some comments about partisanship and the Federal Communications Commission. The writers claim that FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is pushing to change media ownership laws because he is a Republican. Take for example what Leon Schmidt wrote:

I object to the short notification period given for the Public Hearing in Media Ownership rules to be held in Seattle Washington scheduled for Nov. 9th 2007. This meeting schedule does not even give even the faintest appearance of soliciting comment from a concerned public and only appears to cater to companies and organizations that stand to benefit from expanded relaxed media ownership rules. FCC Chairman Martin is a guardian of our airwaves and it is a shame that a big business agenda tries to govern fair use of the public spectrum and the public's ability to weigh in on these issues.

Simply stated, I do not believe that expanded relaxed media ownership rules are in the best interest of this country. Partisan manipulation of the public input comment periods ought to be enough proof of the dangers of giving too few control of Radio/TV air content.

This note has the feel of turf, but raises some good points, except for the claim that Martin is engaging in partisan manipulation.

Then there was this from Elliott Swenson:

There was a full half hour dedicated to this very topic last night on PBS' Bill Moyers Journal. FCC Chairman Martin may try to sneak this Seattle hearing in at the last minute, but it doesn't take long for people who have been waiting for a chance to confront this goof. More stations and newspapers owned by huge corporations? What are you a Republican? Oh right, Martin is!

This reads as if I am saying that consolidation is good. Yikes! Elliot is correct about Martin, though. He is a Republican, but that does not mean that Republicans are the bad guys on this issue. I believe this is more of a Bush administration problem, which by extension makes it a Republican problem.

Some of the leaders against media consolidation are Republicans. Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both from Maine, are big on this issue. Snowe has joined up with Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., pushing for a net neutrality law. Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., has also teamed up with Dorgan on media ownership.

Traditional Republican reflexes are for less government, and a distrust of big business. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, then William Howard Taft were the original trust busters.

We should not forget that the latest wave of consolidation happened with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 during the presidency of Bill Clinton. There was a Republican majority that overwhelmingly voted for the legislation, but so did nearly all the Democrats in the House.

Media consolidation is too important to be reduced to partisan bickering. An independent press is at the core American democracy. That should be enough to unite and defeat what really is a threat from the Bush administration.

Twenty-one civil rights groups sent a letter to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin today. The letter implores him to do something about the lack of minority owned broadcast outlets. The letter is below.

Dear Chairman Martin:

We are writing to call on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to address the issue of minority ownership. Assembled together here as leaders of minority communities speaking with one voice, we request the creation of an independent task force to conduct a specific inquiry into the impact of market concentration on female and minority ownership before moving forward with issuing any new ownership rules for broadcast media. On its face, the Commission's movement toward eliminating media ownership limits appears to severely undercut its statutory and moral obligation to promote minority ownership of broadcast stations. The failure of the FCC to even acknowledge this contradiction is deeply troubling, and this letter is intended to highlight the problem and propose a course of action.

We appreciate that you are open to the idea of creating a task force to thoroughly study the policy goal of promoting minority ownership of broadcast stations. But we are alarmed by recent reports indicating that you will not wait until the work of such a task force is completed before issuing new rules that may permit further media consolidation. This is not acceptable. An uninformed rush to eliminate ownership limits may set back the expansion of minority ownership by a generation and leave us little recourse.

The Commission already labors under a credibility deficit on this issue. Minority ownership is in crisis precisely because the FCC has long neglected to consider the issue as a critical public policy goal. The frustration is not limited to our community. The U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals admonished the FCC for failing to address the issue of minority ownership. The available evidence indicates cause for deep concern. According to the best available independent research--which, unfortunately, has never been duplicated by the Commission--women and minorities own broadcast stations at roughly one-tenth the level of their representation in the population. This statistic should have set off alarm bells long ago. We simply cannot understand how this is not a top priority for your agency.

Yet for many years, the FCC has failed in its responsibility to examine or address the impact of market consolidation on communities of color and broadcasters of color. The Commission has never even managed to conduct an accurate count of its own data on the race and gender characteristics of licensees to determine the true number of women and minority owners. Economists hired this year by the Commission to study the problem were unable to do so because the data provided to them was unusable. They wrote: "The data currently being collected by the FCC is extremely crude and subject to a large enough degree of measurement error to render it essentially useless for any serious analysis." Without this information, it is impossible to have an adequate understanding of how different policies governing media ownership in general would impact minority ownership specifically.

We call upon the FCC to elevate its commitment to the promotion of minority ownership. The Commission should create a task force on the issue which would, at the very least, conduct the simple steps that the agency has inexplicably failed to accomplish to date. First, the task force should ensure that an accurate accounting of the FCC's data is conducted on the actual number of minority and female broadcast station owners. Second, the task force should perform an analysis on this accurate data set to determine the likely impact of policies which permit further media consolidation, policies which tighten ownership limits, and policies which may offer incentives for expanding minority ownership. Only when the work of this task force is completed should the FCC move forward with any changes to the rules governing media ownership. Only when it is well armed with the facts and analysis provided by this task force can the Commission expect to determine the appropriate policies which will further the goal of increasing minority broadcast ownership.

The legacy of race and gender discrimination in the broadcast industry is a disgraceful reality in America today. It is not a problem that will be solved quickly or easily. But we must take the first step by truly understanding the nature and scope of our present crisis. History will not excuse ignorance as a justification for policies that further depress the level of minority ownership. We ask that the Commission take adequate steps to ensure that it makes the right choices to reach a long overdue justice on the issue of minority ownership in the broadcast media.

Most sincerely,

Rainbow PUSH
National Hispanic Media Coalition
National Council of La Raza
Asian American Justice Center
Hip Hop Caucus
National Congress of Black Women
Native Public Media
National Institute for Latino Policy
Urban League
Industry Ears
League of United Latin American Citizens
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
National Association of Hispanic Journalists
Independent Spanish Broadcasters Association
Black Leadership Forum
Cuban American National Council
Latino Literacy Now
National Association of Hispanic Publications
National Association of Latino Independent Producers
Latino Gerontological Center
National Coalition on Black Civic Participation

The FCC has clearly decided go through the legal motions of hearing the public's concerns about media ownership issue. If the commission was acting in the public's interest it would not have given only four business days notice for next Friday's hearing on media ownership.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is responsible for picking when and where the commission's hearings take place. His actions during the past few weeks demonstrate that he wants to fast track changes to media ownership. He gave only five business days notice for the commission's last localism hearing, which took place on Halloween. Martin has done the same thing with the Seattle hearing, which is the FCC's last of six hearings on media ownership. Martin wants a vote on media ownership rules by Dec. 18.

The short notice is a disservice to the public. How can the commissioners possibly distill the mountain of public testimony from the hearings, and digest studies about media ownership by Dec. 18? They cannot.

Unfortunately, Martin probably has the votes to loosen media ownership rules to allow more concentration. Three of the FCC's commissioners, including Martin, are Republicans. Martin voted with the former chairman, Michael Powell, in 2003 to allow a company to own a newspaper, eight radio stations, a television station, and an Internet Service Provider in the same market.

Jonathan Adelstein and Michael Copps, the two Democrats on the FCC, are opposed to freeing corporations from the current constraints. Hopefully Congress and the courts feel the same as Copps and Adelstein.

The reaction to today's announcement has been swift from the media reform crowd, and politicians.

Josh Silver, executive director of Free Press, summed up what most people who follow this issue felt about the shotgun hearing.

On late Friday afternoon, Chairman Martin announced the last so-called hearing on media ownership for just one week from today -- next Friday in Seattle. This is another slap in the face to the American public. Chairman Kevin Martin's determination to ignore millions of concerned citizens, Congress and simple fairness is outrageous. It is now crystal clear that Chairman Martin could care less about what happens to our local media. This whole process has been a charade.

Two of our state's delegation were quick to send out press releases denouncing the timing of the hearing. Sen. Maria Cantwell deals with media issues on the Senate Commerce Committee, and has been a strong voice against media concentration. Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Bainbridge Island, serves on the House Commerce Committee. He too has been working on media issues. Here is the joint letter they sent to Martin's office:

Dear Chairman Martin:

We are pleased to read reports that your office has selected Seattle as the location for the Commission's sixth public hearing on media ownership, although we are troubled by the speed at which you are attempting to complete the proceeding. We urge you to give at least four weeks advance notice before the Seattle hearing, in order to allow the public time to arrange plans to attend and prepare testimony.

At the Commission's last public hearing on its localism proceeding held earlier this week, it was evident that your last-minute announcement of the hearing on October 24, 2007 effectively barred many people from participating, and ran counter to the shared objective of soliciting broad public input.

Our offices have learned that there is significant interest in this hearing not only in Seattle, but regionally across Washington, and in Oregon, Idaho and Alaska. Individuals traveling from these areas, as well as working people and those with family or health care obligations, need reasonable advance notice in order to participate.

We appreciate your consideration in this matter and look forward to joining you at the media ownership hearing.

Sincerely,

Senator Maria Cantwell, Congressman Jay Inslee

I want to hear what readers have to say about the Seattle hearing. Your comments will be posted here at Daily Democracy.

The Federal Communications Commission has scheduled a media consolidation hearing in Seattle on Nov. 9. The hearing - which will be from 4 p.m. to 11 p.m. at Town Hall, 1119 Eight Avenue - is the last of six FCC media consolidation hearings.

There is an interesting story in the newspaper today about Oregon's reaction to the music recording industry going after students at the University of Oregon. The recording industry filed a lawsuit in August against 17 Oregon students for music piracy. This week Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers submitted court papers that would bar the university from identifying the students who illegally downloaded music.

Part of me understands what the recoding industry is doing with its piracy lawsuits. Musicians and record labels should be compensated for their work. The industry's problem is that it was slow to react to file sharing, and came in as a heavy once it recognized a threat.

The industry should be finding a way to work with fans and musicians instead of suing a generation of consumers who know no other way of interacting with music.

Good for Myers. The University of Oregon should not have to do the leg work for the recoding industry's lawyers. If the conglomerate record labels want to punish college students they should have to build the case. Not Oregon.

The Internet's importance to independent musicians was obvious at the Crocodile Cafe on Tuesday night. I went there for Matt Nathanson's concert, which was billed as a Rock the Net show. I had never heard of Nathanson but everybody else at the sold-out show knew him. The young crowd sang along, lyric-for-lyric, and yelled out requests in-between songs.

How is a musician on an independent label like Nathanson able to sell out a show so quickly to an obviously smitten crowd? Through the Internet and a lot of touring. The Internet is vital tool of commerce and communication for a musician who is on the road for about 10 months.

Nathanson is part of a growing list of 763 bands and 155 record labels that have joined the Rock the Net campaign. Seattleites will recognize many of the names on the list like Death Cab For Cutie, and Conduit Records.

Nathanson was part of a teleconference for Rock the Net before his show on Tuesday. The teleconference highlighted why a net neutrality law is needed for the music industry. Nathanson explained how he has used the Internet to make a career in music and communicate with fans.

The community that I have built between my fans and myself, and the network that I built -- the lifeline of my existence -- is crucial that the Internet be free and clear for everybody to use.

Independent labels and bands could be shut out if service providers are allowed to discriminate against competing content or content not to their liking.

Luckily for independent artists there are a number of groups pushing for good Internet policy. In Washington, D.C., The Future of Music Coalition is working hard for net neutrality, and closer to home there is Reclaim the Media, which was at Nathanson show. Jonathan Lawson of Reclaim the Media manned a table with literature about net neutrality and the FCC's still not figured out Seattle media ownership hearing.

Nathanson made an effective pitch deep into his set. He pointed out that Rock the Net had a table by the entrance, and explained why net neutrality is important. He couched it as a free-speech issue that demanded the attention of the youthful crowd.

The First Amendment never really goes out of fashion, he said.

The message was not lost on an attentive audience. As the crowd squeezed through the exit a group of fans huddled around the Rock the Net table.

There is a story and op/ed in today's Seattle Times worth reading. The story found here is about Wednesday's Federal Communications Commission's localism hearing. The op/ed found here is part of the Democracy Papers and was penned by Peter Hart. He writes about News Corporation's new business channel. Hart works for FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting) and is the author of "The Oh Really? Factor: Unspinning Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly."

Both are good pieces. The localism story captures the disorder of the FCC, and its rush to try and change media ownership rules before the end of the year. I believe Hart is going to be proven right about the type of business reporting that will come from a FOX business channel.