Women's Rights

WomenMatter will continuously post updates on all this and other issues as we monitor the continuing philosophical and practical debates nationwide. Please check back often for updates. Past updates are available for reference on the Women's Rights Archives page.

Since Women's Rights is in many ways an umbrella issue, WomenMatter will highlight related updates from other Life Issue areas here:

• Time Off Instead of Time Paid
• Tax-credit taxing if you are too poor to pay taxes
• Surprise! The Supreme Court Protects Family and Medical Leave for State Workers

Mickey Mouse V. Charlton Heston: The Debate over FCC Regulations

Believe it or not, The National Organization of Women (NOW), The National Rifle Association (NRA), and The National Council of Churches (NCC) agree on something. They all want diverse and localized media and are opposed to the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) deregulation of big media.

Individually, these organizations are powerful. But by joining forces, NOW, the NRA and the NCC are like a trio of superheroes ready to battle the FCC and big business, a duo that seems, itself, unassailable.

Big media can get bigger

With backing from the White House and the Republican Party, the FCC decided to ease restrictions on media conglomerates by allowing them to buy more media stations. Under the new regulations, media companies can own both television stations and newspapers, and individual media corporations are allowed to reach up to 45% of the American public, versus the 35% under previous laws.

People are afraid that if big media companies can buy more newspapers and TV stations without much regulation, there will be a lack of diverse opinions presented to the public. Those in favor of the FCC changes claim that the old regulations (which were adopted between 1941-1975) are outdated and need to be modified to allow media corporations more flexibility in the new age of cable TV and internet.

Government and capitalism

Many critics are discussing the FCC debate in terms of big business versus the public, multinational versus local, and it is that, but it is also more. It can be viewed as a conflict within the capitalist system that the government has to negotiate. Excellent goods and services (in this case, fair and accurate media) are the result of competition, a cornerstone of capitalism. But, there are those who say that the system also requires companies to grow, or else they will die. At question is what is different when the product a company sells is critical to the public interest, like free speech and access to the widest audience?

So, naturally, big media companies like Disney (who owns the ABC network), Viacom and News Corp. have put pressure on the FCC to loosen regulations and allow them to buy more, to grow and expand. But critics of the FCC (like the NRA) say the regulations are there to prevent media monopoly.

Should the government prevent growth?

Although the huge media conglomerates mentioned above are not about to go out of business, it is in their best interest to develop and diversify. Some say the dated FCC regulations were keeping that from happening and that government needs to get out of media.

But others believe that the expansion of giant media corporations will inhibit free speech. Groups like the National Rifle Association and the National Organization of Women criticize the idea of a few organizations owning all of the information. They say that different and radical voices, be they liberal or conservative, are likely to be silenced as big media business buys up small local outlets.

Government hears the outcry

The FCC did not hold public hearings before making its decision. So people and groups complained loudly after the FCC voted 3-2 in favor of relaxing regulations (that’s right, the FCC = five people, three Republican and two Democratic legislators). The House and Senate also responded after the fact, attempting to repeal the decision instead of preventing it. That is not to say that Congress could have prevented the re-regulation, because the FCC does have the power to review and alter media regulations without their consent.

Members of the House who are against the new FCC regulations decided that the only way to revoke them was to starve the FCC of the funds they need to carry out the new laws. Everything having to do with money (so, basically everything) must go through The House Appropriations Committee. This committee must approve all new spending, no matter how miniscule.

Just add an amendment

So, members of the House who are against the new FCC regulations added an amendment to a spending bill that was up for a vote in the House Appropriations Committee; this bill provides funds to the Commerce, Justice and State departments. This bill has nothing in common with the amendment except timing; the amendment has everything to do with the FCC, because it blocks media moguls from further concentrating their commercial television markets (however, it does not say anything about television and newspaper cross ownership).

But why did the House have to add an amendment to a spending bill? Why did the amendment have to go through the House Appropriations Committee to go through at all? Typically, a bill having something to do with the FCC would begin in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, but the chairman of that committee, W.J. “Billy" Tauzin (R –La.), promised to block any effort to repeal the FCC deregulation.

Amendment strategy

Adding an amendment is a great way for legislators to assert their beliefs and prove their loyalty to their constituents. In this case, both Republicans and Democrats revealed their disapproval for the FCC decision by voting in favor of the amendment. Watching votes on amendments is a good way to understand what your representative really represents.

For now, things are up in the air

President Bush is in favor of FCC deregulation. The White House has threatened to veto the spending bill with this amendment attached to it.

The FCC regulations for media are still undecided. It is possible that the amendment passed by the House Appropriations Committee could become law. If you want to discuss the FCC deregulation with other readers, [click here]. If you would like to contact your representatives or the White House to let them know how you feel about the changes [click here].

Article Posted on: 7/22/2003

On July 23, 2003, The House of Representatives voted to block the new FCC regulations that would allow media giants to expand by buying up more local stations. An overwhelming majority of the House is against the new FCC rules; the vote was 400 to 21 in favor of legislation that would revoke them. The decision to fight the FCC through the budget process in committee worked. An important maneuver that showcases how legislators learn to use to their advantage the committee system AND the practice of trading votes with opposition members whenever possible.

However, The White House supports the new regulations. The Bush administration denies the claim that the new rules would inhibit competition and free speech. Stephen Friedman, the president’s top economic advisor, argued that the new policies would not result in any sort of media monopoly because there would be four networks competing for public interest.

But groups like the National Organization of Women (NOW) and the National Rifle Association (NRA) don’t feel that four voices represent the diverse American chorus. Lawmakers heard them loud and clear and voted to agree with them.

Politicians need local media

In addition to the effective petitions, e-mails, and phone calls, House representatives may support the legislation to stop the FCC, because politicians need local media to reach their constituents. It would be more difficult for representatives to present local issues to local people via media if all media outlets were owned by large national corporations.

Bush in a pickle

For the first time in his presidency, Republican leadership is not backing Bush on an issue. The President has threatened to veto the legislation if it reaches his desk, but doing so may cause a rift in the Republican Party and a hostile response from organizations like the NRA and the National Council of Churches.

Stay with WomenMatter as we track this issue. We will bring you Bush’s decision, which you can then discuss with other readers on our [online forums]. You can also let your President know how you feel about the new FCC regulations by [clicking here].

For more detail on the new FCC regulations and the legislation to revoke them, [click here].

Article Posted on: 7/31/2003

click here to go to next section

return to top