CHIRP: Chicago Independent Radio Project

Posted by Dustin D. on March 19, 2008 around 10am

A new study released by Penn State’s Institute for Information Policy criticizes the methods used by the FCC to organize their six public hearings on media ownership held throughout 2006-2007. Though the stated purpose of the hearings was to “fully involve” the public in a re-evaluation of the media ownership rules, Obar & Schejter argue that the FCC’s actions suggest that they had little interest in what the public had to say. This indifference towards the public’s input was made evident not only in the way the events were run, but also by the fact that references to public opinion were almost non-existent in the documentation of the final decision. After reviewing Obar & Schejter’s findings, the hearings (which cost more than $200,000 to run by the way) seem like nothing more than an elaborate public relations campaign – a dog and pony show put on to create the illusion that the FCC was interested in the public’s opinion.

Every minute of the six hearings was reviewed (44 plus hours), as well as the FCC’s Report & Order.

Study Findings

Notice & Access
• For 3 of the 6 hearings, time/location details were released only a week prior.
• All hearings started during prime working hours (9am in Harrisburg, PA), and required individuals to arrive hours beforehand to sign up.

Hearing Structure
• Preferential treatment was afforded to public officials, media owners/operators, etc. while public comments were relegated to the end of the hearings. With some hearings lasting 8 and 9 hours, some people had to wait all day to be heard.
• 2 hearings devoted more time to non-public comment than to public comment, with two other hearings devoting more than 40% to non-public comment.
• Members of the public had 2 minutes each (some in Tampa and Chicago had only 90 seconds each). Everyone else was allowed 5 plus minutes each.
• The FCC often interrupted the public for comments by more “important” people (dignitaries, etc.) who dropped-in at their convenience.

The Result
• A quarter of the individuals that signed up to testify went home before their names were called.
• Two hearings (Los Angeles and Harrisburg) were ended before all individuals signed up to testify could be heard.

Once the public finally had their chance to speak, 52.6 percent spoke out against media consolidation/deregulation, while only 1.4 percent spoke in support. The final Report & Order epitomizes the FCC’s indifference towards the public’s input as hardly any references are made to public comments from the hearings, even though the hearings themselves are highlighted in the report as a groundbreaking element in the rulemaking process.

By: Jonathan Obar & Amit Schejter

**reprinted with permission
*Citation - Obar, Jonathan A and Schejter, Amit M., “Inclusion or Illusion? An Analysis of the FCC’s Public Hearings on Media Ownership 2006-2007″ (March 4, 2008). Available at http://www.freepress.net