As the federal agency that regulates media in the United States, the FCC plays a critical role in preserving media ownership rules that protect the public interest. Free Press frequently partners with other public interest groups, including Consumers Union and Consumer Federation of America, to file comments with the FCC.

Review of media ownership rules is an ongoing part of the FCC's mandate. Here are FCC filings by Free Press and allied organizations on the media ownership issue:

2009 Comments on Ownership Data Collection for Public Broadcast Stations

While currently the FCC collects ownership data for commercial media, it does not collect the same data for public broadcasters. Free Press filed comments in support of also collecting diversity information, such as race, ethnicity and gender, about the governing boards of public media outlets. In the filing,Free Press cites correlation between board diversity and program diversity, and advocates for greater ownership diversity and transparency for the public information about the market.

Comments on 2006 Review of FCC Broadcast Ownership Rules

Every four years, the FCC reviews the broadcast ownership rules. This is the time when Big Media pulls out all the stops to convince the FCC to do away with the rules that prevent them from consuming even more of the media we read, see and hear every day. In 2006, Free Press and our fellow commentators, Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union, led the public interest fight to rebut every claim made by Big Media.

The fight over media ownership rules that started in 2006 is still ongoing. In December 2007, the FCC voted to lift the "newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban" that protected media diversity, competition and localism for more than 30 years. In May 2008, the Senate rejected the FCC's new rules, which are now being challenged in court. A decision by the court is not expected until spring 2009.

The current fight over ownership rules represents the sequel to former Chairman Michael Powell’s disastrous proposal in 2002 to throw the rules out. Powell’s ill-conceived proposal was ultimately rejected by the Senate, the courts and the American people.

Comments on Broadcast Localism

Consumer groups recommend more stringent requirements for broadcasters who seek expedited renewal of their broadcast licenses. (April 2008)

Comments on FCC Chairman Martin’s Proposed Rule

After Chairman Kevin Martin presented a proposed rule allowing for greater media consolidation by placing an editorial in the New York Times (only 72 hours after being told to do no such thing by the citizens of the Pacific Northwest), consumer groups responded by exposing the proposal for what it was: a concealed attempt to allow massive consolidation through numerous loopholes. (December 2007)

Third Filing on the Research Commissioned by the FCC

Consumer groups respond to Big Media’s attack on their critique of the FCC-commissioned research studies, and specifically to the attack on their critique of the agency’s research into cross-ownership of a newspaper and broadcast stations and further evidence of the violation of the Data Quality Act. (November 2007)

Reply Comments on the Research Commissioned by the FCC

While consumer groups provided an exhaustive critique of the FCC’s flawed research, Big Media simply parroted the conclusions of the FCC analysis (rather than review the methodology by which the agency’s conclusions were reached). In these reply comments, consumer groups restate their arguments from their previous comments. (November 2007)

Testimony of S. Derek Turner at FCC Localism Hearing

Free Press Research Director S. Derek Turner was invited to testify at an FCC hearing on localism in Washington, D.C. He presented a thorough refutation of the FCC-commissioned studies and clearly demonstrated that no justification for further media consolidation exists. (October 2007)

Comments on the Research Commissioned by the FCC

Consumer groups submitted an extensive filing providing a detailed critique of the 10 FCC-commissioned studies. The critique specifically cites the way the agency’s research was commissioned and the methodology and conclusions of the reports themselves. (October 2007)

Reply Comments on Minority Media Ownership Proposals

In these brief reply comments, public interest groups reiterate their position on the agency’s media ownership proposals and take issue with a proposal from Clear Channel Communications, the largest owner of radio stations in the United States. (October 2007)

Comments on Minority Media Ownership Proposals

The FCC asked for comment on 34 proposals to diversify the media by increasing broadcast ownership by women and minorities, which remains at dismal levels in both radio and television. Remarkably, the FCC had not even compiled an accurate dataset of minority and female ownership, despite having had the data to do so. Free Press met this need and in these comments, takes the FCC to task for its failure to compile a dataset on broadcast ownership by women and minorities. (October 2007)

Complaint Under the Data Quality Act

In order to respond to the mountain of research authored by consumer groups, the FCC commissioned ten studies of its own. Beyond the agency’s predictably pro-consolidation conclusions, consumer groups identified multiple violations of the official process for the release of research studies by a federal agency, including the rule that such studies be peer-reviewed prior to their release. To attempt to correct these violations, consumer groups filed a complaint with the FCC detailing the agency’s faulty, results-driven research process. (September 2007)

Reply Comments on Review of 2006 Broadcast Ownership Rules

Most of Big Media’s arguments for scrapping media ownership rules are rebutted in Free Press’ comments (see below), and the remaining arguments are addressed in this response. These reply comments include irrefutable evidence that the Internet is no substitute for local news outlets. (January 2007)

Comments on Review of 2006 Broadcast Ownership Rules

This extensively researched filing provides detailed justification for the preservation of the ownership rules under review. The filing includes such a large amount of new research that it was turned into a book. In other words, the best place to start is the table of contents. (October 2006)