Go Slow on Cross-Ownership   

It would be bad news for news consumers.

Even before the war on terrorism turned our attention to more pressing matters, an important media regulatory issue was advancing essentially under the public's radar.

I'm talking about the Federal Communication Commission's proposed lifting of the so-called cross-ownership rule, which bars newspapers from purchasing television stations in their own markets. It is the first item in a package of broadcast changes the FCC has under consideration, and the commission will be rendering a decision later this year.

The major newspaper companies are pushing hard to end the cross-ownership ban, which was imposed in 1975. (Some 40 markets where papers already owned stations were grandfathered in.) The companies argue that the ban's original intent, which was to preclude local monopolies, no longer pertains in a digital age that has given consumers the Internet, cable television, satellite radio and telephones that talk back to you.

For media executives, however, the issue is much less a philosophical one than a financial one. Not so much in their testimony, but very much in their minds, are notions of leveraging advertisers, pumping up revenues beyond their sturdy but "mature" newspaper operations and spreading reporting costs over a variety of news outlets. Theirs are dreams of synergy, visions of convergence.

And I don't blame them. In their position I would be advocating the same thing.

As a citizen, however, I don't know that ending the ban is such a good idea.

In theory, today's media environment should be a godsend for consumers, and in terms of entertainment and sheer access to information, it has been. But the promise of a robust new day in journalism hasn't materialized. Here, if anything, the media frenzy actually has been counterproductive, with competition across the spectrum having become so intense that costs are pared at every turn. And nothing costs more than good journalism.

Thus, original reporting on the Web is harder to find than a profitable dotcom. Except for a handful of major markets, there is little local news to be found on cable. In radio, where once virtually every station had some local news resources, now few do. Local television stations long ago traded public-affairs reporting for "health watches" and overheated "storm centers." And even before the recession, many newspapers were trimming staff in an effort to prop up high profit margins.

All this is occurring against a media backdrop where consolidation reigns. The Big Four television networks are now small cogs in huge conglomerates, and their news divisions are being marginalized. Six years after the landmark Telecommunications Act was supposed to give us cheaper cable, that industry is rapidly consolidating, and rates are up by 33 percent. And a recent federal court ruling is apt to set off a rash of megamergers between broadcast and cable interests--quite possibly including some newspaper companies that also own TV stations.

Given this landscape, it's entirely predictable what will happen with relaxation of cross-ownership. As the news operations of papers and stations "converge," their communities will see fewer total reporters at work, and fewer editors making key news decisions. Consumers may have more news outlets, but they will find the same news wherever they turn. Coverage of government will continue its steady slide. And newspaper chains will scramble to buy and swap stations as they cluster into logical groups; already they are licking their chops.

The FCC maintains that in revisiting the ownership rule, it wants to ensure a diversity of voices. But one of the experts it has asked to testify on this issue, Maryland's own prize-winning media economist Douglas Gomery, has taken a cold, hard look at the market forces and says precisely the opposite will happen. If in fact you want more diverse voices and more localism, he asserts, "the rule which bars common ownership of a broadcast station and a daily newspaper in the same market ought to remain."

Persuasive a guy as Douglas is, the FCC's disposition seems to be to eliminate the rule.

Unlike my colleague, I'm no expert on deregulation, although it does seem to me that in recent practice it has cost us poor consumers dearly, whether you're talking about airlines or cable TV or energy (how do you think Enron got so creative in the first place?). But here we're talking news, and in a democratic society news is a unique and precious commodity. Reason enough to go slow on the cross-ownership decision and truly think through its profound implications.