Diversified media are vital to a democratic nation

When bureaucrats ignore the obvious will of the people, it is time for Congress to step in. And now is the time, in the case of the Federal Communications Commission's action Monday to further deregulate the broadcasting industry.
The FCC has lost sight of its very purpose, which is to protect the public airwaves as a public resource. The FCC seems more interested now in maximizing the profits of giant media conglomerates than in guaranteeing a diversity of ideas in the market place.
This has not been an overnight development. Over the last 20 years, demands on broadcasters to prove that they were providing a public service have been steadily diminished. And the effects of greater deregulation of electronic media ownership approved Monday will not be seen overnight either. But eventually, the effect will be fewer media companies owning larger numbers of television and radio stations and community newspapers. And the effect of that will be fewer choices for viewers, listeners and readers.
Buy away, boys
The FCC now says it would be all right for a single network to own television stations reaching 45 percent of the national audience, up from 35 percent, and that in major cities, one company could own as many as three TV stations, up from two. These same conglomerates would be able to own combinations of television and radio stations and newspapers across the country.
The only true advocates for these changes were the conglomerates themselves and ideologues who believe that the only good government regulation is a dead regulation. Hundreds of thousands of people, spurred by groups ranging from Common Cause to the National Rifle Association, sent messages to the FCC opposing the changes.
Those organizations and individuals recognize instinctively that the more voices that are present in the nation's media, the better. They don't need studies to tell them that the FCC is not operating in the best interests of the public. But there are studies.
Quality suffers
The Washington Post reported on a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism in Washington that found that TV news operations owned by smaller companies were twice as likely to rank high on measures of "quality" (breadth of topics and sourcing, balance of viewpoints, etc.) than stations owned by the nation's 10 biggest group owners.
Tom Rosenstiel, executive director of the project, theorizes that big companies impose a "cookie-cutter" mentality on their stations, and that bottom-line pressures compel them to treat local newscasts as "cash cows."
It now appears that there is at least a 50-50 chance that the FCC action will be overturned.
The Senate is clearly ready to pursue a bill to reverse the FCC action. Sen. John McCain, R.-Ariz., chairman of the Commerce Committee, said he will schedule a vote June 19 on a bill.
But in the House, such a bill would have to go through the Energy and Commerce Committee, and its chairman, W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, R-La., opposes any attempt to overrule the FCC.
The framers of the Constitution envisioned the House as the arm of government closest to the people. Its members should not permit Tauzin and a handful of other powerbrokers to make a mockery of that concept. The House should be looking out for the hundreds of millions of citizens who are best served by thousands of independent media voices. The House shouldn't be catering to an elite group of media conglomerates.