Local Unions and Civil Rights Organizations Assert That Abolishing Ownership Limitations Will Negatively Impact, Rather Than Enhance, Localism
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has received 233 filings in response to its request for public comments on ownership rules governing broadcast station groups. Among these responses, a significant number come from unions, consumer groups, civil rights groups, church groups, liberal organizations, free speech advocates, and others, who strongly oppose any change to the current 39% ownership cap.
One of the main arguments against lifting the cap is the impact it could have on workers in the broadcasting industry. A union-backed study, conducted by the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians - Communications Workers of America (NABET-CWA), blasts Nexstar for paying low wages. The study found that the majority of Nexstar workers earn less than a living wage for their metro area for a single person without children and 89% earn less than a living wage for their metro area for a single person with one child. Furthermore, the study also found that a majority of Nexstar workers rely on family, friends or public assistance to get by, and that a majority of survey respondents report delaying necessary medical care and buying groceries among their struggles to get by on Nexstar's low wages.
Civil rights groups, including the United Church of Christ Media Justice Ministry, Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC, and the Hispanic Federation, argue that the creation of gigantic broadcast station groups will harm the competitive position of smaller broadcasters, reducing diversity in media ownership. The Hispanic Federation urges the FCC to convene a negotiated rulemaking committee to secure a productive, just, and competitive broadcasting regulatory environment. They contend that the 39% broadcasting consolidation cap must be maintained due to the vital role that broadcasting plays in local communities, particularly Latino communities, and the unique status of the broadcasting spectrum as a national resource.
Broadcasters, including NAB and Nexstar, argue that eliminating the national cap will not lead to a decline in employment, lower wages, and decreased job security. However, the union-backed study argues that if broadcasters are able to merge without limit, we will see low wages, poor work conditions, and further degradation of an already declining local news ecosystem.
The broadcasters' argument that eliminating the ownership rules will strengthen their ability to compete with big tech and improve local journalism is rejected by these organizations. Instead, they argue that the filings raise a host of other issues, including the argument that Congress, not the FCC, is the only government body that can change or eliminate local ownership rules. The joint filing by broadcasters claims that regulating the labor market is not one of the FCC's functions under the Act.
As the FCC considers these arguments, it remains to be seen how the Republican-majority agency will rule on the ownership cap. One thing is certain, however: the debate over the future of broadcasting regulation is far from over. This article is part of an ongoing series on the FCC's ownership rules, with a separate article detailing arguments against lifting the ownership cap made by pay TV companies and organizations backed by pay TV operations, broadband providers, and telcos to be published on August 29.
