» The Telecommunications Act of 1996 incorporated Congress’s vision of communication in the digital age, laying out the basic values that would guide the FCC for the next two generations.

» With little debate, despite the magnitude of the issues at stake, Congress passed the law and hailed it, with industry leaders, as a victory for democracy: the "deregulation" of the media industry would foment a new wave of competition, which would lead to lower prices and higher quality service, eliminatingthe need for government regulation on behalf of the public interest.

» The baseline selling point here was that the market would regulate the media industry better than the government.

» What the rhetoric of deregulation missed – and continues to miss in debates today – is that the very term"deregulation" is a misnomer, a factual and historical distortion.

» Deregulation is commonly defined as liberating the market from government checks and controls, allowing private interests to compete without interference from those who would attempt to misguidedly"regulate" or temper the excesses of the market to assure that the public interest – and capitalism itself– is served by the healthy and competitive flow of information, ideas, debate, and capital.

» In reality, then, there is no such thing as "deregulation," if deregulation is taken to mean freeing the market from government attempts to regulate it. With regard to the media industry, what’s really meantby "deregulation" is re-regulation – a switch from government regulation of the public airwaves onbehalf of the public owners of these airwaves, to government regulation of the public airwaves on behalf of the private companies that broadcast on these airwaves.

» Framed this way, the effects of the Telecommunications Act make more sense: the immediate re-regulation of the telephone industry and the radio industry on behalf of private interests has resulted in a shrinking number of companies in both industries – therefore less competition and less freedom for the public to make choices.

» The fundamental and clear change is this: more private power, less public accountability. Before the "deregulations" of 1996, we had a handful of companies that were regulated in the public interest; we now have an even a smaller number of companies that are even less regulated in the public interest.

» The result with radio has been especially disastrous; the easing of ownership restrictions has effected precisely the opposite of what was promised: fully two-thirds of radio stations have been sold since the Telecommunications Act eased restrictions on how many stations a company could own, so that ahandful of companies now own most radio stations.

» Radio, previously the most democratic and creative of our media, has been transformed into our most regimented, formulaic, standardized, hyper-commercialized medium.

» There is little doubt that a broad cross-section of the American public is dissatisfied with radio, and media generally – but lacking clear information about the nature of these decisions, the potentialpolitical power of this dissatisfaction pales in comparison with the influence of corporate lobbies on legislators wielded behind closed doors.

supposed to emerge from its passage?

2. How does the reality of the media landscape today differ from these initial predictions? And why?

3. Why, according to McChesney, is the term "deregulation" a misnomer?

13

4. McChesney argues that the Telecommunications Act was never intended to truly deregulate the media

industry – but to re-regulate it. What does he mean by this? Re-regulation by whom, and on behalf of whom?

5. What specific changes enacted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 led to changes in how the telephone

and radio industry operate?

6. According to McChesney, what threats to democracy have been posed by the alleged "deregulation" of media

enacted by this law? What observations and facts can you offer to support or refute this argument?

This assignment calls for you to research this media giant and to examine its reaction to recent FCC rulings

designed to limit media ownership. Follow the research guidelines below, take notes on what you find, and

prepare to write up or present your research.

a. Research the history of this company by looking at the timeline it provides on its website

( www.clearchannel.com/ci_oh.php). Note its growth from 1972 to the present, with particular attention

to what happened following passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. See also the statement by

CEO John Hogan (www.clearchannel.com/radio/) describing how Clear Channel believes in and furthers

"diversity" and local quality.

b. With this bit of research in mind, see the recent statement by the FCC explaining how and why it

decided to set some limits on how many radio stations can be owned by conglomerates like Clear Channel

(www.clearchannel.com/documents/news/20030602_Corp_FCCRuling.pdf).

c. Next, read Clear Channel’s reaction to this decision (which it characterized as a "big mistake" and a threat

d. Finish up your research by reading the "Issues Update" on media ownership, regulation, and the FCC provided on the Clear Channel website:(www.clearchannel.com/documents/press_releases/20030602_Corp_FCCIssuesUpdate.pdf).

1