http://www.naa.org/News-and-Media/Press-Center/Archives/2014/NAA-FCC-cross-ownership-comments.aspx NEWSPAPER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA STATES THERE IS “NO RATIONAL EXPLANATION” FOR FCC'S CROSS-OWNERSHIP BAN TO CONTINUE NAA submits comments to FCC in support of repealing the 39-year-old cross-ownership ban because it no longer serves the public interest by restricting resources in support of local journalism Sean O’Leary Director of Communications (571) 366-1009 August 06, 2014 Arlington, Va. – Today, the Newspaper Association of America, on behalf of its nearly 2,000 newspapers, submitted comments to the Federal Communication Commission that urges the repeal of the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban that has been in effect since 1975. Congress requires the FCC to review these regulations every four years to determine whether the rules “are necessary in the public interest as the result of competition,” and to “repeal or modify any regulation it determines to be no longer in the public interest.” In its comments, the NAA stated that the low barrier of entry on the Internet has “created more opportunities for individuals to express their opinions and gather news and information through digital-only news sites, social media and blogs.” The comments cited recent Pew research that indicates that nearly 75 percent of U.S. adults regularly visit a social media network, often for news and information. “Yet the Commission continues to regulate the cross-ownership of newspapers and broadcasters (and only newspapers and broadcasters) because these emerging independent websites ‘often contain local news content that originates from’ newspapers and television stations,” read the NAA comments. “In other words, because competitors routinely pilfer the content of newspapers and broadcasters, the Commission will continue to impose the cross-ownership restrictions exclusively on newspapers and broadcasters.” This reasoning goes against the stated goal of encouraging original reporting, which starts the conversation that is continued online. The FCC must recognize that the public conversation is at risk if newspapers are not able to attract investment and resources in an ever-challenging climate. NAA also provided examples from seven markets (Phoenix, Dayton, South Bend, Milwaukee, Cedar Rapids, Atlanta and Spokane) where cross-owned properties, which have been grandfathered or operate under a waiver, produce compelling journalism that benefits the public. “Commonly owned newspapers and broadcasters focus on their respective strengths and produce local journalism that is more in-depth than it would have been if they were separately owned,” read the NAA comments. “There is no rational explanation for continuing this rule.” To read the complete NAA comments to the FCC, please click here. About NAA NAA is a nonprofit organization representing nearly 2,000 newspapers and their multiplatform businesses in the United States and Canada. NAA members include daily newspapers, as well as nondailies, other print publications and online products. Headquartered near Washington, D.C., in Arlington, Va., the association focuses on the major issues that affect today's newspaper industry: public policy/legal matters, advertising revenue growth and audience development across the medium's broad portfolio of products and digital platforms. Information about NAA and the industry also may be found at www.naa.org.
Re: NAA states there is no rational explanation for FCC's cross-ownership ban to cont Let's not let the internet distract from the propaganda. Why is it that the far left is so in favor of repealing this law?
Re: NAA states there is no rational explanation for FCC's cross-ownership ban to cont They got it backwards. It's a fantastic law. But it needs to be strictly enforced, which it hasn't been since Reagan was elected.
Re: NAA states there is no rational explanation for FCC's cross-ownership ban to cont So, they want to allow newspapers and tv stations to be owned by the same companies?
Re: NAA states there is no rational explanation for FCC's cross-ownership ban to cont So are you admitting you're a Republican now PapaD?
Re: NAA states there is no rational explanation for FCC's cross-ownership ban to cont The Tribune Co. owns WGN (TV station) and the Chicago Tribune (among other newspapers). In fact, they own 23 TV stations.
Re: NAA states there is no rational explanation for FCC's cross-ownership ban to cont I'm confused then, what is this deregulation going to change?
Re: NAA states there is no rational explanation for FCC's cross-ownership ban to cont Radio stations.
Re: NAA states there is no rational explanation for FCC's cross-ownership ban to cont Oh okay, thank you Denny. Aren't radio stations and TV stations sometimes owned by the same companies already?
Re: NAA states there is no rational explanation for FCC's cross-ownership ban to cont It is TV, too. The 1975 law bans cross ownership. The 1996 law enables a TV station and newspaper to merge. The tribune is grandfathered in to owning WGN since it founded WGN in 1924. In fact, WGN stands for Worlds Greatest Newspaper. The cross ownership rules do not (and never did) restrict the Chicago Tribune from owning TV or radio in other markets. Just in Chicago.
Re: NAA states there is no rational explanation for FCC's cross-ownership ban to cont How could you make that leap in logic? Also, the PapaG name is gone, as was asked of me. Why are you trying to bait me?
Re: NAA states there is no rational explanation for FCC's cross-ownership ban to cont You just questioned the "far left," however the parties involved do not seem "far left" to me. Only someone from a "Right-wing" would view them as such. Sorry I didn't get the invite for your name change meeting. I'll behave accordingly now that I've been told for the first time.
