What We’re Listening to: NAB on ‘Why Broadcast Ownership Rules Matter Now’
Broadcast ownership rules and the debates attached to them have taken a prominent role under the Brendan Carr-led FCC. Companies advocating for changes to be made and the critics pushing back have been busy submitting their respective takes to the Commission’s docket on the matter, but some have already started maneuvering under the assumption that reform is imminent. Take Nexstar and Tegna, for example, whose proposed merger would be north of the current 39% audience cap. However, there remains a push from dissenters, who got some momentum when President Trump voiced his concerns shortly before Thanksgiving.
Nevertheless, supporters are continuing their own campaigns, with NAB among those leading the charge. The association devoted its latest podcast episode to discuss “Why Broadcast Ownership Rules Matter Now,” with NAB Chief Legal Officer Rick Kaplan joining SVP, Communications Alex Siciliano to deliberate on why they endorse potential adjustments—in addition to disputing some of the talking points from skeptics.
It’s no surprise that the episode quickly brought up the limitless reach Big Tech companies have, but Kaplan noted how cable networks like Fox News, MS Now and CNN also don’t possess the same local focus that broadcast stations provide to their communities. Kaplan later mentioned radio stations being in a similar boat and facing even more financial pressures, though he attributed that to rules pertaining to the number of stations allowed in a single market.
“It’s great to have the national news, it’s important to have the global news, but what affects you on a day-to-day basis, that’s what broadcasters do,” Kaplan said. “It’s much easier to just be national or global. It’s hard to do local. That’s why only we do it.”
Kaplan eventually posed the question, “Why is it that our platform is restricted in ways that the others aren’t,” despite offering similar content. He acknowledged that the existing rules were set when streaming services were still quite far from entering the general media ecosystem, but that’s more reason to evaluate and potentially modernize guidelines.
In regard to those who say the FCC doesn’t have the authority to change ownership rules, Kaplan disputed the notion that Congress removed the Commission’s jurisdiction when it no longer required the agency to review ownership rules in its quadrennial review. “Congress is not stupid. Congress would’ve said that. All Congress said was that [the FCC doesn’t] have to review it anymore,” Kaplan said.
In Kaplan’s view, the momentum still points toward reform, asserting that Carr “really understands the issue” and the problems broadcasters face. Even with his confidence, though, it’s hard to tell how soon things could happen.
“I have always tried to shy away from predicting the FCC, not only because things tend to take longer than usual, but you just never know in Washington, D.C. what might come up. I think we’ve learned that lesson many times over, [and] these days are no different,” Kaplan said. “But I do think it’s a priority of this Chairman to move forward… I think we’re talking about a shorter term. Hopefully sometime in the next year or so we’ll see some major changes.”