Media for Everyone

The Federal Communications Commission has reinitiated its effort to further loosen media ownership rules. The last time the FCC tried this, in 2003, I, and nearly three million Americans, objected. We wanted to make sure that the media worked in the public interest, not to the benefit of a few. We wanted to make sure that the media showcased our nation's rich tapestry of interests, ideas, and experiences.

Americans need a media system that allows free and fair competition. But with our current highly concentrated media market we must ask, who is shut out of that market? Whose lives are not reflected in our news and entertainment?

It's very easy to identify one trend: growing media concentration has been harmful to minority owners and minority communities.

Since Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, minority ownership of radio and television stations has declined. In 2000, only 175 minority broadcasters in radio owned 426 stations, about 4.0 percent of the nation's 10,577 commercial AM and FM radio stations. In the television market, minorities owned only 23 full power commercial stations, representing 1.9 percent of the country's 1,288 licensed stations. This is the lowest level recorded since tracking of the data began in 1990.

We need ownership rules that will expand opportunities for minorities to enter the market, not limit them. Keeping minority owners out of the market is detrimental not only to them, but to the consumers they wish to serve. Without diverse ownership, many Americans will never see images and hear stories that reflect their own experiences. Invisibility--or demeaning visibility--can lead to stereotyping, bigotry, and racism.

As big media get bigger, owners and executives are less likely to take the risk of offering new and interesting programs that feature minority characters. We're already witnessing this process with the merger of the WB and UPN networks. In March, seven of my colleagues and I wrote to Dawn Ostroff, President of the newly created offspring of this merger, the CW network, urging her not to cancel the many minority-driven programs upon which WB and UPN built their reputations.

I fear how this phenomenon will play out at the local level if the FCC lifts cross-media ownership restrictions. Will the great diversity of communities--like my congressional district in Southern California--be represented in TV, radio and print if only one or two corporations control a majority of the Los Angeles media market? How will this impact the dialogue on issues of concern to minority communities, like immigration and civil rights? These are questions we must consider before we allow the FCC to create local media monopolies.

A media environment lacking in diversity affects not only minorities, but all Americans. A multiplicity of views that can be seen and heard is essential to a healthy public discourse, which is what democracy is all about. In 2003, I along with several of my colleagues protested in front of the Federal Communications Commission headquarters in Washington, D.C. the growing convergence of the U.S. media market and the FCC's proposed rule changes that we believed would lead to greater media consolidation. Many ordinary American citizens also responded with a historic outpouring of letters sent to the FCC protesting the proposed rule changes.

We won that fight, but those of us concerned about the health of our democracy must remain vigilant. We must make sure that our media works for everyone, regardless or race, religion, ethnicity, or income level. The air waves belong to "we the people." We must make sure that our American story is truly all-American.