Media Diversity and Localism: Meaning and Metrics.

• Author: Phillips, Victoria F.
• Position: Book review

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."

-Albert Einstein

It has been more than ten years since Congress required the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to review its media ownership rules and decide whether any of them are still necessary and in the public interest in light of changes in the media industry. It has not been an easy process. The battle continues.

In the past decade, there have been several rounds of public comment on proposed rule changes, numerous empirical studies, court challenges, revisions dramatically relaxing the rules in 2003, public and congressional outcry over these changes, more court challenges leading to a remand, and, most recently, a series of public field hearings and yet more studies. All of these activities have been undertaken amidst a swirl of controversy. And the industry and public still await any modifications to the rules. Current FCC Chairman Kevin Martin recently hinted at the imminent release of proposed rule changes, shortly after making public controversial empirical studies and only days after holding the last field hearing. Public interest group and congressional outcry screaming foul quickly hit fever pitch again.

The media industry still claims that it cannot survive in the new media landscape saddled by rules originating in a three network world. It demands further relaxation of the ownership rules to allow further consolidation and much needed economies of scale to preserve struggling media voices and allow them to compete. It contends that there has been ample time for study and debate. It says the time to act is now. Public interest, consumer groups and members of Congress from both sides of the aisle continue to maintain that any rule change allowing further consolidation of the nation's media is a grave threat to the core values of localism and diversity so vital to our democracy. They contend that the time is not right, arguing that any proposed revisions to media ownership rules are far from ready for prime time. Once again, they claim, the Commission is rushing to a predetermined outcome favoring consolidation based on a record they allege is rooted in biased and flawed studies, a tainted peer review process, and insufficient time for public review and comment.

Philip Napoli's, "Media Diversity and Localism: Meaning and Metrics," published earlier this year, is a thoughtful and timely addition to these raging media policy debates.1 The collection of essays examines the concepts of diversity and localism underlying the Commission's public interest standard and explores their meaning for current communications policy and decision making. The volume arose out of a December 2003 conference at Fordham University organized by Napoli, a pioneer in the field of communications policy analysis, and the Director of the Donald McGannon Communication Research Center there. The goal of the gathering was to bring together scholars from a variety of disciplines to generate ideas, insights, and research approaches to inform the decision-making process in the ongoing media ownership debates and other contexts in which diversity and localism principles are relevant.

The goals of competition, localism, and diversity have long formed the foundation of the public interest standard underlying our system of American broadcast regulation. The bargain has been that it is a broadcaster's duty to serve the public interest in exchange for the free and exclusive use of the nation's valuable and scarce spectrum. Under sections 307 and 309 of the Communications Act, the FCC may grant the use of a broadcast frequency for a limited term to an applicant that demonstrates that the proposed service would serve "the public interest, convenience, and necessity. (2)

A number of the essays in Napoli's collection illustrate how these foundational tenets of the public interest standard have been shaken as competitive concerns have increasingly nudged localism and diversity goals to one side in the regulatory conversations and decision making of the last two decades. But even amidst the thwarted attempt in 2003 by the Powell Commission to overhaul the media ownership rules and the Martin Commission's stated intention to forge ahead with relaxation of the rules, the rhetoric on both sides still invokes localism and diversity as bedrock principles that benefit the country in important ways. In name at least, even those favoring relaxation of the rules claim the proposed changes support the longstanding goals. They argue that consolidation will help to preserve them in the new and competitive media landscape by invigorating voices that would otherwise disappear. On the other hand, those opposing relaxation claim these goals solely as their own as they fight the trend toward consolidation. They feel they are struggling to salvage the little regulation that remains based on these vital broadcast policy objectives. Given the continuing debate, it is surely an appropriate time to turn to Napoli's volume to remind us of the values underlying these norms and the continued and perhaps greater need for increased attention to each in today's evolving and congested media marketplace.

As the foundational essays in the volume make clear, the concept embodied in the goal of localism in media policy is a simple one-broadcast licensees should serve the needs of their local communities. Local service is critical for an informed and engaged citizenry and, in such respects, is fundamental to our participatory democratic process. The Radio Act of 1927 embraced localism as a central goal. Its purpose was to provide "fair, efficient and equitable radio service to each of the [states and communities seeking such service]." (3) Under the mandate of the Communications Act of...