July 2, 2001

Dear Senators Hollings and Dorgan,

I read with great interest your recent article in the Washington Post, "Your Local Station, Signing Off." My concern and dismay over the consolidation of media ownership is based on over forty years of experience as an executive in these businesses. It is certainly true that we have come to a place in our media where diversity, competition, and localism are rapidly disappearing.

My proudest moments were at CBS. While CBS was most certainly interested in profitability, we were in the business of providing high quality news, documentaries, and a broad variety of informational and educational programming for our audience. CBS did outstanding documentaries, many of them critical of our country (The Selling of the Pentagon and Hunger in America) and were prepared to take the heat from the Nixon administration when reporting on issues contrary to the government's position regarding the Vietnam War.

The media in the sixties and seventies waited for the industry's expansion into UHF, satellite, and cable television. It anticipated a variety of alternative viewpoints in news and entertainment programming. Unfortunately, for the most part, this did not happen. The eighties and nineties unexpectedly brought us three additional networks: FOX Broadcasting (controlled by News Corp./20th Century Fox), the WB (controlled by AOL/Time Warner), and UPN (controlled by Viacom/CBS/Paramount).

While these network additions provided entertainment diversity, it was unfortunate that these networks were owned by three vertically integrated motion picture studio companies. It was very disappointing to have the FCC approve the merger of UPN with Viacom/CBS/Paramount. When the FCC noted that UPN (along with WB) were nascent subsidiaries of large program producers, their merger with a major network, (ABC, CBS, FOX, or NBC) may permit realization of substantial economic efficiencies without undo harm to FCC diversity and competition goals.

Senators, how could this possibly not harm diversity and how could it possibly not harm competition? It would be reasonable to once again infer that the Commission decided to take a certain course of action and looked around in order to find a reason to support such a decision.

When you quote the New York Times, "The decline of independent producers is a reflection not only of increased network ownership of shows, but, far more important, of the ascendancy of conglomerates like Disney and Viacom, General Electric, and News Corporation, who own the networks," it is absolutely true.

The networks have long campaigned for the repeal of financial interest and syndication, stating that it was not in their best interest to vertically integrate the production and programming process for their networks. This, along with most of their other representations, is absolutely proven not to be so. Is it possible that the networks (and their lobbyists) misunderstood their testimony and intentions or did circumstances change from the time of their testimony to the present or is it possible that they intentionally misled and lied to the FCC?

Quoting from the April 25, 2001 article in the Los Angeles Times, written by Brian Lowry; "not quite two years ago, the Walt Disney Company, having acquired ABC, merged the network and the studios TV production arm. Last year, FOX implemented it's own restructuring, placing both its network and 20th Century FOX Television - which produces the Simpson's and Ally McBeal as well as such competing network shows as ABCs "The Practice" and CBSs "Judging Amy" - under one roof. As usual both Disney and FOX are providing the vast majority of new series candidates for their sister networks. As it is, FOX already receives 80% or more of it's programming, depending on the week, from the visions of parent company News Corp, including the network's entire nightly line-up from Friday through Monday."

Does it benefit the American public to have the ABC network news promote the Disney release of Pearl Harbor? Does it benefit the American public that the ABC station in Los Angeles did a major piece in its local news promoting ABC's new series "The Beast?" Does it benefit the American public to have the ABC local station in Los Angeles refer to it's camera's "high-atop the Disney Channel building" or to do a series of promotional pieces from Disneyland?

Does it benefit the American public for News Corp and Rupert Murdoch to buy Direct Television? Does it benefit the American public to have NBC control PAX TV? Does it benefit the American public for Viacom/CBS to own UPN? Does it benefit the American public for the Walt Disney Company to use ABC as a promotional vehicle for itself, its theme parks, and movies?

Seventy-five years ago, when the FCC was established, the airwaves were to be licensed to those who would use them for the public benefit. It does not benefit the public when the FCC permits widespread ownership of media outlets by just a few companies. Diversity of ownership promotes diversity of thought and America has thrived on diversity of thought for over 200 years. This diversity may not suit the Mel Karmizan model of efficiency and profitability, but it most certainly suits the best interest of the American public.

I am pleased and encouraged by your position and your article.

Sincerely,

Norman Horowitz

Screen Gems, Vice President; CBS, Director of International Sales; Columbia Pictures Television, World Wide Distribution President; Polygram Television, Founding President; MGM/UA Telecommunications Company, President/CEO; Media Consultant

Back to Articles