Loading...

FCC’s Media Deregulation Plan Can’t Go Forward, 3rd Circuit Says

September 23, 2019 by Dan McCue
FCC’s Media Deregulation Plan Can’t Go Forward, 3rd Circuit Says

WASHINGTON – The Federal Communications Commission must redo and better justify an order that eased restrictions on media companies wanting to consolidate their holdings in a single market, the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday.

The highly anticipated ruling is a setback for companies such as Sinclair Broadcast Group and News Corp, who own both broadcast stations and newspapers in several metropolitan markets.

The FCC didn’t show that it adequately considered how “its sweeping rule changes will have an effect on ownership of broadcast media by women and racial minorities,” the Third Circuit said.

At issue was the agency’s decision to eliminate the newspaper-broadcast and the radio-TV cross-ownership rules; allow dual station ownership in markets with fewer than eight independent voices; and eliminate attribution of joint sales agreements as ownership; and created a diversity incubator program.”

An alliance of public-interest groups — Common Cause, the Communications Workers of America, Free Press, the Media Mobilizing Project, the Prometheus Radio Project and the United Church of Christ Office of Communication, Inc., as well as attorneys from the Georgetown Law Institute of Public Representation — challenged the Trump FCC’s ruling for its failure to address the impact of this radical deregulation on race and gender diversity in broadcasting.

Monday’s decision vacated all the moves the agency had made.

The court found the FCC’s deregulation of ownership arbitrary and capricious because it did not provide the requisite justification for how the agency gauged those changes’ impact on race and gender.

“Although it did ostensibly comply with our prior requirement to consider this [diversity] issue on remand, its analysis is so insubstantial that we cannot say it provides a reliable foundation for the Commission’s conclusions,” the court said. 

But the court also suggested it might have found some adverse impact acceptable if only the commission had justified that outcome.

“The Commission might well be within its rights to adopt a new deregulatory framework (even if the rule changes would have some adverse effect on ownership diversity) if it gave a meaningful evaluation of that effect and then explained why it believed the trade-off was justified for other policy reasons. But it has not done so,” the ruling said.

The appeals court also agreed with Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council and National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters which appealed the format of the newly created incubator reward system, the court finding it “badly designed” and liable to “create perverse incentives.”

“On remand the Commission must ascertain on record evidence the likely effect of any rule changes it proposes and whatever “eligible entity” definition it adopts on ownership by women and minorities, whether through new empirical research or an in-depth theoretical analysis,” the court said. “If it finds that a proposed rule change would likely have an adverse effect on ownership diversity but nonetheless believes that rule is in the public interest all things considered, it must say so and explain its reasoning. If it finds that its proposed definition for eligible entities will not meaningfully advance ownership diversity, it must explain why it could not adopt an alternate definition that would do so.

“Once again we do not prejudge the outcome of any of this, but the Commission must provide a substantial basis and justification for its actions whatever it ultimately decides,” the ruling states.

“Congress put broadcast-ownership limits in place for a reason: to promote a diversity of viewpoints among local stations,” Jessica J. González, vice president of strategy and senior counsel of Free Press, one of the plaintiffs in the case. “[We] sued the FCC for turning its back on this core principle, placing station ownership in too few hands and denying millions of people in the United States broadcast media that serve community needs.

“Media consolidation leaves communities with far less of the local news and information people need to stay informed,” she continued. “Despite the growth in digital-media options, free over-the-air broadcasting remains a critical news source for people of color and low-income communities in particular. To meet the needs of these populations, the FCC must nurture ownership diversity, not let giant companies like Nexstar, Fox and Sinclair devour even more local stations.”

FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel said in a statement released after the ruling that “media ownership matters because what we see on our screens says so much about who we are as individuals, as communities, and as a nation.”  

“Over my objection, the FCC has been busy dismantling the values embedded in its ownership policies.  Today, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals agreed,” she said. “The court rightly sent the FCC’s handiwork back to the agency because the FCC’s analysis was so “insubstantial.”  The FCC shouldn’t be in the business of cutting corners when it comes to honoring our long-held values when updating media ownership policies.”

But in a separate statement, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said the commission will appeal the decision.

“For more than 20 years, Congress has instructed the Federal Communications Commission to review its media ownership regulations and revise or repeal those rules that are no longer necessary. But for the last 15 years, a majority of the same Third Circuit panel has taken that authority for themselves, blocking any attempt to modernize these regulations to match the obvious realities of the modern media marketplace,” Pai said.

“It’s become quite clear that there is no evidence or reasoning—newspapers going out of business, broadcast radio struggling, broadcast TV facing stiffer competition than ever—that will persuade them to change their minds. We intend to seek further review of today’s decision and are optimistic that the views set forth today in Judge Scirica’s well-reasoned opinion ultimately will carry the day.”

In a partial dissent U.S. Circuit Judge Anthony Scirica said he would have let the deregulation stand.

The three-judge decision can be appealed to the full Third Circuit (en banc,) or directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The case is Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC.

In The News

Health

Voting

Law

February 3, 2023
by Tom Ramstack
Lawmakers Want Justice Department to Investigate More Trump Supporters

WASHINGTON — House Democrats are asking the Justice Department's inspector general to investigate whether Special Counsel John Durham and former... Read More

WASHINGTON — House Democrats are asking the Justice Department's inspector general to investigate whether Special Counsel John Durham and former Attorney General Bill Barr abused their authority with their review of Congress' Russia inquiry. The Democrats say they suspect Durham and Barr might have been helping... Read More

January 25, 2023
by Tom Ramstack
Justice Dept. Sues Google Again Alleging Monopolistic Ad Tactics

A Justice Department lawsuit filed Tuesday against Google accuses the internet giant of illegally acting like a monopoly with its... Read More

A Justice Department lawsuit filed Tuesday against Google accuses the internet giant of illegally acting like a monopoly with its digital advertising technology. The lawsuit filed in federal court in Virginia seeks a court order to break up Google’s grip on online advertising sales and to... Read More

January 24, 2023
by Tom Ramstack
Attorneys General Challenge Social Responsibility Policies for Investing

Some state attorneys general are continuing a conservative backlash against investment strategies that emphasize social responsibility with a challenge to... Read More

Some state attorneys general are continuing a conservative backlash against investment strategies that emphasize social responsibility with a challenge to two corporate advisory companies. A letter written last week to the two companies says forcing social responsibility onto investors could be irresponsible, perhaps shortchanging them when... Read More

January 20, 2023
by Tom Ramstack
Environmentalists Fire Back Against Oil Industry in Lawsuit over Greenhouse Gas Regulation

WASHINGTON — Environmentalists tried this week to strike down efforts by oil industry supporters who are challenging U.S. government warnings... Read More

WASHINGTON — Environmentalists tried this week to strike down efforts by oil industry supporters who are challenging U.S. government warnings about greenhouse gasses. They filed a brief that urged a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., to dismiss a lawsuit by the pro-fossil fuel groups against... Read More

Florida Judge Fines Trump, Lawyer for 'Frivolous' Lawsuit

NEW YORK (AP) — A Florida Judge sanctioned former President Donald Trump and one of his attorneys Thursday, ordering them to pay... Read More

NEW YORK (AP) — A Florida Judge sanctioned former President Donald Trump and one of his attorneys Thursday, ordering them to pay nearly $1 million for filing what he said was a bogus lawsuit against Trump's 2016 rival Hillary Clinton and others. In a blistering filing, U.S. District... Read More

January 19, 2023
by Dan McCue
Arizona Appeals Court Upholds State’s Mail-In Voting System

PHOENIX — Arizona’s mail-in, early voting process does not violate voters’ constitutional right to privacy, the state Court of Appeals... Read More

PHOENIX — Arizona’s mail-in, early voting process does not violate voters’ constitutional right to privacy, the state Court of Appeals has ruled. Tuesday’s ruling by a three-judge panel is a blow to the Arizona Republican Party and its chair, Kelli Ward, who had previously tried to... Read More

News From The Well