We rely on the media to help us make informed decisions by presenting not just the details of important issues, but also a variety of perspectives and opinions surrounding them. Unfortunately a new proposal from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would weaken important existing protections that ensure our free access to media of all varieties.
When media companies are consolidated and huge monopolies are formed (for example, Rupert Murdoch’s expansive News Corporation), local media is often bought up, the range of voices is changed to one voice, and we lose those vital voices in our communities. Recognizing the importance of a diversity of opinions in media coverage, the FCC established media ownership rules in the 1970s to promote competition and diversity in our media by protecting local markets from being controlled by a small handful of media companies.
The FCC proposal, which was published in today’s Federal Register (a daily publication with notifications and proposed rules by the federal government), moves to relax the rules restricting ownership of both a newspaper and a television or radio station in the same local market. These rules protect against the kind of consolidation that kills local stations and newspapers that can’t compete against large media conglomerates.
Despite the existing protections, the market is still shrinking as media is becoming increasingly consolidated. Currently, six major companies control most of the news in this country, including many of the most popular Internet news sites. In 2011 alone we saw a huge period of media consolidation and record breaking mergers. E.W. Scripps bought nine stations from McGraw-Hill for $212 million last October. And, in the single biggest television station acquisition in four years, Sinclair Broadcast Group bought eight TV stations from Freedom Communications for $385 million.
This is the third time the FCC has attempted to weaken these rules protecting diversity (Congress requires the FCC to review media ownership rules every four years). Previous attempts were overruled in the courts. In both cases, the courts were specifically concerned with the lack of representation of women and minorities in the media and the effect a weakening of the rules would have on them. The courts have repeatedly called on the FCC and the media to gather data on women and minority ownership in media and they have repeatedly failed to do so. In fact, in 2011 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals decision, the court said that the agency had “punted yet again on this important issue” and accused the FCC of ignoring evidence that media concentration makes it harder for women and people of color to break into the industry and become broadcast station owners.
In our complex and diverse society, local media plays an important and necessary role in covering a range of issues from the perspective of underrepresented communities — particularly women and minorities. Even the rise of the Internet has not changed this fundamental dynamic; a recent Pew Center study found that 74 percent of Americans still watch local television broadcasts or visit local television websites at least once a week.
Minority ownership also improves civil engagement. A young Latina woman is likely to be more engaged by someone from a similar background as compared to a white male from out of town. Studies bear this out. According to researchers, there are higher voting rates in minority communities where radio station owners are of the same ethnicity.
A healthy democracy requires a robust and diverse press to enrich the marketplace of ideas and provide for a well-informed citizenry, which in turn requires media that is representative of our complex and diverse society. The ACLU believes that in order to best serve the people and our democracy, the FCC should hold on to rules that encourage diversity and media ownership by women and minority communities.
Learn more about diversity in media ownership: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.