Media ownership

When the current FCC rule against cross-ownership of newspapers and TV stations in the same markets was crafted, back in 1972, cable television was in its infancy and no one outside of a few visionary research labs had even heard of direct satellite television or “the Internet.”

So, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin wants to relax the cross-ownership rule.

Under Mr. Martin’s proposal, a single company would be permitted to own a newspaper and one radio or television station, but only if it was in one of the 20 largest markets in the country. And the acquisition would be OK’d only if after the transaction at least eight independently owned and operated media voices remained in the market.

Even then, such “cross-ownership” would be allowed only if the television station was not among the market’s top four.

This might be an appropriate point to add that the parent company of the Review-Journal owns other newspapers in various markets, and found itself on one occasion briefly owning a TV station in one of those markets. Thus, federal rules against media ownership “concentration” have in the past affected the parent company of the R-J.

But it is not pleading any special case to point out that Chairman Martin’s proposal is a baby step, at best, toward a return to a free media market.

Truly monopolized media — a setup where readers and viewers have little or no access to dissenting views — would be a bad thing. But ironically enough, the only system that’s generally been able to effect such a monopoly, anywhere in the world in modern times, has been one characterized by government intervention.

If Mr. Martin’s proposal is all that can be achieved for now, it’s a slight improvement. But the healthiest solution would be the same solution that’s proved healthiest for every other industry, from car dealerships to grocery stores: Let the federal government step aside, and set the entrepreneurs loose in the free market to buy and sell and see what the public really wants.