Broadcasters Press Supreme Court to Overturn TV, Radio and Newspaper Ownership Rules

Tribune, Sinclair, Bonneville, The Scranton Times, Clear Channel, Morris Communications, and the Newspaper Association of America all joined with Fox (News Corp.) to challenge not only the Federal Communications Commission's media ownership rules, but the spectrum scarcity rationale for media ownership regulations in general. In their petition that the Supreme Court review, and overturn, the Third Circuit's decision upholding most of the FCC's media ownership rules, Fox and legal friends argue that the spectrum scarcity rationale underpinning the media ownership rules (and other regulations) should be overturned -- it stems from the Supreme Court's own decision in the Red Lion case, and that, in any case, the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership restriction violates the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment because it singles out newspapers. "The time has come for the Court to intercede and restore the full protections of the First Amendment to broadcasters," said the petitioners. "[T]he scarcity doctrine expired long ago," they said, citing a revolution in media delivery since the early 1970s when Red Lion was decided.

In a separate filing, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) argues that rather than resulting in dangerous monopolies, allowing broadcasters to own multiple news organs helps them improve their financial health. That in turn gives them the flexibility to invest in higher quality reporting. “By harming local television stations all over the country, the duopoly rule also directly harms the public,” the petition reads. “When a station struggles financially or ceases to operate, it loses its ability to provide the news and public affairs programming on which members of the public rely. But placing stations under common ownership, resulting in an improvement in financial stability, leads to improved local programming – both in quality and in quantity – of the kind that is critical to viewers.” Furthermore, the petition says the Third Circuit’s decision conflicts with lower court opinions related to broadcast media ownership rules, and asks the court to intervene so it can clarify the regulations.