Press Release
Consumer Groups Blast FCC's Biased Research
Contact: Timothy Karr, 201-533-8838
WASHINGTON -- Consumer groups blasted the Federal Communications Commission today for releasing biased research favoring further media consolidation. In a new report, the Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union and Free Press show how the FCC designed a series of studies -- released today -- to favor lifting the longstanding ban on newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership.
"The agency failed to conduct an external review of the research design, failed to conduct a competitive bid to select researchers, and did not conduct a peer review of the results," said Dr. Mark Cooper, director of research at the Consumer Federation of America and author of Biased Questions Yield Biased Answers. "The deck was stacked before the research commenced."
According to a July 2006 research plan -- obtained by the consumer groups via a Freedom of Information Act request -- FCC Chief Economist Leslie M. Marx began the research process with "thoughts and ideas" about "how the FCC can approach relaxing newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership restriction."
The chief economist then identified "some studies that might provide valuable inputs to support a relaxation of newspaper-broadcast ownership limits." The studies outlined in the document were then implemented by the FCC, and at least one researcher identified as being on the "A-list" was chosen to carry them out.
"The FCC's chief economist started from the results the agency wanted and worked backward," said Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press, "selecting studies and framing research questions to reach a foregone conclusion."
Biased Questions Yield Biased Answers found that the FCC's research plan:
"Many of the so called 'thoughts and ideas' put forward by the chief economist are really interpretations and arguments that belong in a final rule," said Gene Kimmelman, vice president for federal and international affairs at Consumers Union. "Putting them up front and using them to structure the research taints the whole process."
Last year, it was discovered that the FCC under former Chairman Michael Powell had buried two federal studies in 2004 that contradicted claims made by consolidation proponents. The "Review of the Radio Industry," conducted by the FCC Media Bureau, found that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 had led to a drastic decline in the number of radio station owners -- even as the actual number of commercial stations in the United States had increased.
The second study, "Do Local Owners Deliver More Localism?," showed that locally owned stations produced -- on average -- five minutes more local news coverage in a half-hour newscast than their consolidated competitors.
The controversy over the shelved studies prompted Martin to order an independent investigation into why they were never made public -- an investigation that has been pending since last September.
"Coming on the heels of a major flap over the suppression of research that contradicted the agency's policy recommendations in the media ownership proceeding, it is clear that the new blatantly biased research plan was intended to avoid that kind of embarrassment and produce the results the FCC was looking for," Cooper said.
"The agency failed to conduct an external review of the research design, failed to conduct a competitive bid to select researchers, and did not conduct a peer review of the results," said Dr. Mark Cooper, director of research at the Consumer Federation of America and author of Biased Questions Yield Biased Answers. "The deck was stacked before the research commenced."
According to a July 2006 research plan -- obtained by the consumer groups via a Freedom of Information Act request -- FCC Chief Economist Leslie M. Marx began the research process with "thoughts and ideas" about "how the FCC can approach relaxing newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership restriction."
The chief economist then identified "some studies that might provide valuable inputs to support a relaxation of newspaper-broadcast ownership limits." The studies outlined in the document were then implemented by the FCC, and at least one researcher identified as being on the "A-list" was chosen to carry them out.
"The FCC's chief economist started from the results the agency wanted and worked backward," said Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press, "selecting studies and framing research questions to reach a foregone conclusion."
Biased Questions Yield Biased Answers found that the FCC's research plan:
- Attempts to equate quantity and quality of news with the important public policy variables of competition, diversity and localism. They are not the same.
- Incorrectly assumes that a competitive TV market ensures a competitive overall media market.
- Incorrectly assumes that different types of media are close substitutes, an assumption that is contradicted by the FCC's own research.
- Sets a low threshold for declaring a TV market "competitive" that doesn't match the requirements of the Communications Act.
- Uses backward-looking averages of antitrust challenges that occurred in case-by-case reviews of mergers to set a forward-looking bright-line standard to approve local media mergers. This approach is completely inappropriate, and if implemented would lead to extremely concentrated local news markets.
"Many of the so called 'thoughts and ideas' put forward by the chief economist are really interpretations and arguments that belong in a final rule," said Gene Kimmelman, vice president for federal and international affairs at Consumers Union. "Putting them up front and using them to structure the research taints the whole process."
Last year, it was discovered that the FCC under former Chairman Michael Powell had buried two federal studies in 2004 that contradicted claims made by consolidation proponents. The "Review of the Radio Industry," conducted by the FCC Media Bureau, found that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 had led to a drastic decline in the number of radio station owners -- even as the actual number of commercial stations in the United States had increased.
The second study, "Do Local Owners Deliver More Localism?," showed that locally owned stations produced -- on average -- five minutes more local news coverage in a half-hour newscast than their consolidated competitors.
The controversy over the shelved studies prompted Martin to order an independent investigation into why they were never made public -- an investigation that has been pending since last September.
"Coming on the heels of a major flap over the suppression of research that contradicted the agency's policy recommendations in the media ownership proceeding, it is clear that the new blatantly biased research plan was intended to avoid that kind of embarrassment and produce the results the FCC was looking for," Cooper said.
