June 8, 2001

Dear Senator McCain,

I have read with great interest an article in the Financial Times of May 10, 2001 that indicates that you would not be thrilled if Rupert Murdoch were indeed to purchase Direct Television. You were quoted as saying, "this could result in 'a consolidation of power' the likes of which this country has not seen since William Randolph Hearst."

I am a soon to be sixty-nine year old media executive and I am enclosing for your information and possible interest (1) a copy of my bio, (2) an Op/Ed article that I wrote that was published in the LA Times following the Viacom/CBS merger and, (3) a copy of the "Who Owns What?" web page from the Columbia Journalism Review (http://www.cjr.org/owners/) concerning News Corp (http://www.cjr.org/owners/newscorp.asp).

Direct Television has evolved into a "retransmission technology." By and large, it provides consumers with the same program services delivered by digital cable. Direct is owned and operated by General Motors. They are essentially a content neutral delivery service and would unlikely be subject to political pressure to either carry a program service or not carry a program service. Their judgment in these areas would most probably be, "are these services profitable to Direct or not?" As an American, I would not be comfortable for News Corp and Rupert Murdoch to be in a position to have their hands around the throat of a system that delivers these services. With News Corp's varied worldwide interests, it is impossible to predict what business or political pressures could be placed with Direct to either accept or deny carriage to new program services, or existent program services.

Also, in the "unconscionable department" is the FCC Ruling that has amended the "Network Duopoly" rules to permit one of the four major television networks - ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC - to own, operate, maintain or control the UPN and/or the WB television network. This allows Viacom (CBS) to own and operate the UPN network. The FCC said in it's report, "...thus, ...eliminating the emerging network portion of the Dual Network Rule will preserve rather than diminish the diversity of voices at the local level." Senator, I believe this comes out of the Commission's desire to approve a rule change and then to create reasons for such approval.

The prevailing media concentration, in my view, poses a threat to our traditions of free expression and competition. Even now, the FCC moves further to permit major broadcasters to acquire more broadcast properties and thus, more power.

Censorship from any source is an aberration and all government regulations should be content neutral. Unfortunately, we now have four networks who have the ability to exercise control of content (censorship) and we have allowed these companies to control so many other outlets which enables them to reduce any significant degree of free expression from other sources.

You have vigorously supported campaign finance reform and I believe that similar media consolidation reform is necessary. The power currently wielded by the conglomerates (e.g. Disney, Viacom, General Electric/NBC, and News Corp) has as great an affect on local and national elections as unrestricted and unregulated campaign financing.

Like it or not, the news most Americans receive comes from television stations and networks owned by Michael Eisner (Disney), Sumner Redstone (Viacom), Rupert Murdoch (News Corporation), Jack Welch (NBC/General Electric), and Steve Case (AOL/Time Warner). The old saying has it that freedom of the press belongs to he who owns the press. The same is true of broadcast and cable networks and television stations. It is in the best interest of each and every American that the ownership of such properties is in the hands of many different entities as possible, so that diverse opinions are available to all of our citizens.

The media merger "ship" has left port. It is vital to our country that some part of the federal apparatus work to change its course. It would be my hope that you will consider taking on this task and wage the same effective fight that you have waged on behalf of campaign finance reform.

Respectfully,

Norman Horowitz

Back to Articles