FCC DELAYS REVIEW OF CROSS-OWNERSHIP RULE

By: Todd Shields Sources Say Delay Was To Await Bush Appointees


The Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday abruptly postponed its anticipated examination of the rule barring common ownership of newspapers and nearby broadcast stations.

Industry and FCC sources presented the delay as temporary, and said it was likely to be surmounted in coming weeks as new Bush administration appointees take their seats on the commission.

With little elaboration, the FCC Tuesday said it had removed consideration of the cross-ownership ban from the agenda for its monthly meeting, set for Thursday.

It takes three votes of the five-member commission to open a rule to reconsideration. With the resignation of its former Democratic chairman, the FCC is split evenly between two Democrats and two Republicans.

However, sources said it appeared the disagreement that prevented Thursday's cross-ownership action had more to do with ideology than partisanship. Commissioner Harold W. Furchtgott-Roth, a Republican appointee skeptical of many regulations, did not want a proceeding that left open the possibility of retaining the cross-ownership ban.

Commissioner Gloria Tristani, a Democratic appointee, did not want to leave open the possibility the rule might be repealed.

FCC Chairman Michael Powell has said he wants to validate or eliminate agency rules. His chances of getting three votes to begin looking at cross-ownership likely will improve after three nominees named by the White House are confirmed by the Senate.

Senate officials on Tuesday said hearings could take place next week for the nominees, who include two Republicans and a Democrat. The new commissioners could be seated as early as next month.

The FCC put the cross-ownership rule into place in 1975, saying it was needed to preserve a diversity of voices. The regulation bars common ownership of daily newspapers and television or radio stations in the same market.

Opponents argue the explosive growth of cable and satellite television and the Internet ensure a multiplicity of voices, and obviate the need for the rule. Defenders say the regulation is still needed because newspapers and television stations remain such dominant voices in public affairs.

Some newspaper-broadcast combinations exist today; they mainly predate the rule.



Todd Shields (tshields@editorandpublisher.com) is the Washington editor for E&P.



Copyright 2001, Editor & Publisher.