FCC's Kevin Martin Plays Santa to the Chicago Tribune Company and Corporate Media

BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG

Mark Karlin, Editor and Publisher, BuzzFlash.com

December 21, 2007

By a 3-2 party line (political appointee) decision on December 18th, a former lawyer for the Bush-Cheney Florida stolen election in 2000, Kevin Martin, led the FCC into defying Congress and the courts by further easing the regulations on media consolidation.

What this will mean, if the regulation is allowed to be enacted, is that even fewer multi-billion dollar parent corporations will own most of our broadcast and large print outlets. The political implications of the further concentration of media operations in a few pro-Republican hands is profound.

That is why BuzzFlash made Kevin Martin the BuzzFlash Media Putz of the Week, because he is really the kingmaker Media Putz for the GOP.

We'll say this one more time, Big Media -- which sets the frames of public perception in the United States -- may occasionally write an expose on some corruption among Republicans, but it is endlessly supportive of the White House propoganda line of the day. More importantly, after seven years of verifiable deceit and illegalities, it still covers Bush with kid gloves and provides him with a mantle of legitimacy and credibility.

As BuzzFlash has pointed out many a time, Big Media is really just Big Business. And Big Business needs the Republicans for tax breaks, deregulation, protections against anti-Trust charges, favorable financial legislation, special exemptions, etc.

As a case in point, the Chicago Tribune has benefitted from all of the above favors from the Bush White House.

In fact, just prior to the latest de-regulation drive by Martin, the three Republican commissioners on the FCC granted the Chicago Tribune another special waiver (the FCC Republicans recently passed more than 40 such "special" waivers) to continue cross-ownership of media. Ostensibly, this was done to allow the acquisition of the Tribune Company by Chicago Billionaire Financier Sam Zell to proceed.

But the FCC went even further than a typical waiver. In a complicated and difficult to understand legal maneuver, it positioned the Tribune to sue the FCC in a way that would be a no-lose proposition for the Tribune.

Now, try and follow this explanation of the waiver and lawsuit as explained in the "Broadcasting and Cable: The Business of Television" news publication:

It didn't take long for Tribune to take the Federal Communications Commission to court over its decision to grant temporary waivers for the company's newspaper-broadcast cross-ownerships in five markets.

The company filed suit in the D.C. Court of Appeals Wednesday, saying the decision was "contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not supported by substantial evidence."

Why would Tribune sue a commission that just saved its buyout deal? Because it still gets the waiver whether it sues or not. And if it wins, the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban could get thrown out altogether -- a step the chaiman has signaled he is unwilling to take. As expected, the filing took aim at the ban in its entirety as well. "[T]he commission's ongoing enforcement of its newspaper/broadcast crossownership rule in its existing form is unconstitutional," Tribune told the court.

Tribune had asked for indefinite waivers. The company said it needed to get the waivers in five markets at least 20 business days before the end of the year so that it could get the deal done by Jan. 1 or risk having it fall apart and having the company sold for parts. The FCC's Republican majority denied permanent waivers, agreeing only to two-year waivers or six months after the end of any litigation over current or future ownership rules. Commission Democrats opposed the waivers, with commissioner Michael Copps anticipating Tribune's move.

"If the majority simply granted a two-year waiver to Tribune -- which would have been the straightforward thing to do -- Tribune would have been unable to go to court because a party cannot file an appeal if their waiver request is granted," Copps pointed out in his dissenting statement. "So what does this order do? It denies the waiver request but offers an automatic (and unprecedented) waiver extension as soon as Tribune runs to the courthouse door. Presto! Tribune gets at least a two-year waiver plus the ability to go to court immediately and see if they can get the entire rule thrown out."

Copps also opined that Tribune would be able to appeal to the "more sympathetic" D.C. Circuit, bypassing the Third Circuit, which remanded the general ban back to the commission, although even that court indicated that the FCC could make a case for modifying or lifting the ban.

In short, a so-called news company worked in collusion with the FCC to agree to sue the Commission to assist the Tribune in trying to game the regulatory process without any risk, and without endangering its leveraged multi-billion dollar buyout. Furthermore, Kevin Martin devised a scheme whereby the Tribune can challenge the entire process of regulating cross-ownership in court, courtesy of the Republican dominated FCC.

Now, if you don't think that the Tribune editorial page and news editors are aware that the future of the Tribune corporation rests with a highly partisan Bush-appointed and GOP loyalist FCC (DOJ, WH, IRS, etc.) -- and that ticking off the White House in its news and editorial pages might sink the Tribune Company -- BuzzFlash has a bridge in Brooklyn we want to sell you.

But that's not all, a few years back, the Tribune was hit with an approximately billion dollar fine by the IRS having to do with taxes on assets it acquired when it purchased the Los Angeles Times business empire. But in October of this year, the cash-strapped Tribune needed funds to pull together its fragile sale to Zell. So, magically, the IRS refunds $286 million dollars of the LA Times purchase fine at a most crucial moment.

And there's more, much more, but we'll just leave you this one additional nugget. In a commentary by Charles Benton of the Benton Media Foundation, he notes that there will be lost tax revenue to the public purse as a result of the FCC Tribune waiver: "The sale represents a complex corporate restructuring that would allow [the] Tribune to eliminate most of its corporate taxes."

Yes, there is much, much more to detail in how Big Media, such as the Tribune, has its first allegiance to its financial, shareholder and lender interests, not the interests of the public. Its news and editorial policies must inherently be paristan and Republican, otherwise it will not get the financial breaks that it needs to enhance its bottom line or even survive.

It's not about journalism; it's about business. That is why, quite simply, Big Media continues to give Bush the patina of credibility he needs to continue to stay in office.

As one wag noted, "the Tribune gets tax breaks;[the] public interest gets lumps of coal."

It's a corruption of the public trust that is repeated over and over again between Big Media and the Republicans (as well as some Democrats in Congress) -- and involves the entire financial and regulatory process.

There will be plenty of cash gifts left under the Christmas Tree for Big Media by the Bush Administration, but when you open your little tattered box, all you will find is sawdust.

BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG

Technorati Tags: EditorBlog Martin FCC Big Media Republicans