The remarks below were prepared for testimony offered April 20, 2010 at the FCC workshop, “Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership Impact on Competition and Diversity in the Media Marketplace” and have been adapted for this format.
In 2007, you invited the people of this region to give their views on media ownership and more than 100 responded. I am pleased to have been among panelists then and I thank you for the opportunity to participate today.
In greeting you, I also welcome you on behalf of The Poynter Institute. Our mission and structure are important to this discussion on media ownership, so let me tell you a little about Poynter.
The Institute was created 35 years ago by Nelson Poynter as an unusual school for working journalists. Poynter’s mission is to teach those who practice the craft of journalism and those who lead news organizations. Poynter also promotes the essential role of journalism in a democracy.
One reason it is unusual is because the school owns a newspaper, the St. Petersburg Times, or, as I like to call it, the Pulitzer Prize-winning St. Petersburg Times. The school’s mission is to inspire journalistic excellence; the newspaper’s mission is to produce quality journalism and maintain a sound business.
After years of study, Mr. Poynter settled on this structure because he wanted to make sure that the paper he owned remained independent and locally owned long after his death. In the late 1960s and early ’70s, he was concerned about the power of chain owners and other corporate entities, much as the FCC discussion on ownership originated out of concern about powerful business voices.
Please note the rest of the story: Poynter owns a news organization that competes in Tampa Bay against one of the early converged news operations: Media General’s Tampa Tribune, WFLA-TV and TBO.com. FCC actions on cross-ownership could be of special interest in this region.
As you know, the media environment has changed dramatically since you were here three years ago. I will mention findings from reports released in recent weeks and comments from three meetings of media leaders last week. Newspaper publishers met in Orlando, editors met in Washington and radio and television news directors, as well as managers and owners, convened in Las Vegas. Mr. Chairman, I know you addressed the owners in Las Vegas.
Speaking at the American Society of News Editors summit, David Carr, media columnist for The New York Times, said he carries more publishing power in his backpack than the first newsroom he walked into. Michael Smith, executive director of Northwestern University’s Media Management Center, made the point more starkly to a group at the Newspaper Association of America meeting. He said an eight-year old –- let’s say an affluent eight-year-old — has more publishing power in her bedroom today than publishers in 1999.
Both statements speak to control of societal megaphones today. The FCC’s concern about media ownership is largely about who has the megaphones, or the means to speak to whole communities. For centuries, the owners of mass media were a powerful, exclusive club. They are still powerful, but they now share megaphones with the masses. Almost anyone can post almost anything to friends, a community or the world. Drawing an audience, of course, is another matter, as is the matter of producing news and information that is of value to society. The megaphone simply speaks to the means of commanding attention, of gaining influence. The tools are available and being used extensively.
As you know, dramatic changes are not limited to the means of sending messages. We also see big changes in the willingness to receive them. Traditional mass media news audiences continue a decline. Between 2008 and 2009 television network news, local television news, magazines and newspapers saw reduced audiences, according to the 2010 State of the News Media report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism. Print newspaper circulation losses accelerated to over 10 percent. Local television news dipped by about 6 percent. Audio audiences were fairly stable, and only cable television and the Internet gained audience.
Advertising revenue also declined. Cable advertising had the strongest showing by remaining flat. All other media experienced ad revenue declines including a 24 percent drop in local television and a 26 percent fall in the combined ad revenue of newspapers’ print and online businesses.
All this occurred in the context of national and worldwide recession. Business was down almost everywhere and that simply compounded the problems of the news business.
Still we saw a particular shrinkage in the nation’s news capacity. Huge staff reductions took place in network news operations, local news, magazines and newspapers. The decline was greater for journalists of color.
Last week, ASNE reported an overall loss of 11 percent of the workforce in member newsrooms, but a 12.6 percent decrease in non-white staffers. The RTNDA/Hofstra study of 2008-2009 showed an increase in white employees in radio and television, but losses of black and Hispanic staff members. Asian and Native Americans numbers increased very slightly or were flat. The number of women in broadcast increased.
Poynter media business analyst Rick Edmonds calculated that the newspaper industry has lost $1.6 billion in reporting and editing capacity since 2000 or about 30 percent over that period. This comes from the sector that produces the vast majority of original reporting in local, national and international news. Even the many news start-ups replace only a small fraction of editorial capacity, and they, too, must find long-term sustainability.
The PEJ report concludes, “Unless some system of financing the production of content is developed, it is difficult to see how reportorial journalism will not continue to shrink, regardless of the potential tools offered by technology.”
All this is to say, the matter of cross-ownership of media bears watching, but it is not the critical issue in national communications. Yes, huge corporations from traditional media, huge new media companies or non-media groups have the potential to grasp key outlets in many markets, but the incentive has been reduced and opportunities for other channels have been increased. I urge the FCC to continue to examine how relaxed cross-ownership might be accomplished without significant erosion to independent, locally produced coverage of community issues.
Moreover I urge the FCC to continue a re-examination of this Commissions’ role in the face of news media transformation, since you are the primary organization charged with monitoring the nation’s communication. The problems that I have outlined are a threat to an informed democracy. We are seeing the deterioration of informed civic discourse as we drown in information, opinions, debates, half-truths and lies.
I ask three things of this Communications Commission.
- The first is to uphold journalism as the business of news transforms. To this end, I commend your look at the Future of Media and join the call for “correcting the nation’s civic ‘deficits.’ ” I urge you to engage new means of assisting communities with a steady flow of daily, local, national and international news. A model similar to the Corporation of Public Broadcasting might be needed as an interim measure during transformation. Such a model would fund specific reporting areas through funds from … yes, government, foundations and citizen contributions.
- Second, I ask you to regain your leadership role in promoting media diversity. The death last week of Dr. Benjamin L. Hooks, former FCC commissioner, was a reminder of a time when this organization prodded media to increase diversity in media ownership and leadership, staffing and coverage. Look at major conferences today on the future of media or at the staffs of new media players and it often appears that we are moving to a media future that is less diverse than the present media.
The Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities noted that large segments of society don’t have access to broadband, mostly rural and urban poor communities. These are issues of economic diversity and often racial and ethnic diversity. I ask you to act so that all communities have access to news media and are included in the production and content of news.
- Third, I urge the Commission to return to championing civil exchanges in the interest of greater civic discourse. Examples include standing against hate speech and helping to raise the general level of exchanges. This matter and the others that I’ve mentioned call for creative solutions to bring results while respecting independent speech.
Let me conclude by returning to the news media conferences of last week. A long-standing tradition in the editors meeting is to recognize great journalism. This year’s award winners include:
- Two Philadelphia Daily News reporters who spent the year tracking down immigrant store owners whose businesses were destroyed by a small group of police officers.
- A Denver Post photojournalist who followed up when an editor asked, “Who would sign up for the military these days?” The photojournalist and a reporter told the story through an 18-year-old who went from high school to the Army in Iraq.
- A KARE-TV team in Minneapolis that reported on the economy by showing a fast food store staffed by former corporate employees: an engineer, IT specialist and a chef, among others who lost their jobs and moved to flipping burgers.
- A St. Petersburg Times reporter who focused on stories of everyday people, including: A single, working mother gave in to registering for food stamps, and a passenger on the plane that landed in the Hudson River, who is now afraid to fly but must.
Last week was about celebrating excellent journalism. This week is about preserving it. I thank the Commissioners of the FCC for this hearing.
