Ownership

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai announced this week that the commission will vote in November to eliminate or revise four key rules aimed at preserving media diversity in local markets. The changes will come in an order on reconsideration. Although the November 16 vote will end a significant chapter in the ongoing debate over media ownership rules, it is not likely to be the final chapter. As interested parties consider court challenges, we'll bring you all the developments in Headlines.

Facebook is trying to make it easier to identify political ads in your News Feed. The company announced it will soon require advertisers — especially political candidates — to disclose more information about their advertising efforts on the platform as the company seeks to temper concerns from the US Congress about Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

Facebook’s new policies include labeling political ads so they’re easier to identify, and creating a catalogue of these and other ads so users can see how much advertisers are paying and who they are targeting. But many of the changes intended to create more transparency don’t appear to address the most problematic ads purchased in 2016 by Kremlin-backed, online trolls. These ads, referred to as "issue ads," sought to stir social and political unrest in the United States around issues like Black Lives Matter, not necessarily to promote candidates like Donald Trump. Still, the announcements come as Facebook prepares for what could be a brutal grilling before the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. The panels are investigating Russia’s suspected interference in the 2016 presidential election, and they’ll also hear from senior executives at Google and Twitter during back-to-back hearings on Nov. 1.

Sen Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is demanding that Facebook and Twitter turn over reams of new data about Russian disinformation spread on their platforms during the 2016 US presidential election. Her requests — detailed in exhaustive letters to the two tech giants’ chief executives — are part of her broader probe into the Kremlin’s potential coordination with President Donald Trump’s campaign.

Specifically, Sen Feinstein seeks information about any Russian-connected user accounts, pages, organic content and ads that targeted their efforts at the United States. And with Twitter, in particular, she asks the company to share some direct messages sent and received by Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks. In both cases, though, Sen Feinstein demands answers by Nov 6. That’s five days after Facebook and Twitter are set to send their senior legal advisers to Capitol Hill for back-to-back hearings before the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, which have spearheaded lawmakers’ Russia investigations.

Facebook removed thousands of posts shared during the 2016 election by accounts linked to Russia after a Columbia University social-media researcher, Jonathan Albright, used the company's data-analytics tool to examine the reach of the Russian accounts. Albright, who discovered the content had reached a far broader audience than Facebook had initially acknowledged, said that the data had allowed him "to at least reconstruct some of the pieces of the puzzle" of Russia's election interference. "Not everything, but it allowed us to make sense of some of this thing," he said.

Facebook confirmed that the posts had been removed. But a spokesman said it was because the company had fixed a glitch in the analytics tool — called CrowdTangle — that Albright had used which provided "an unintended way to access information about deleted content." "Facebook is cooperating fully with federal investigations and are providing info to the relevant authorities," the spokesman said.

[Commentary] Broadcasters have been expecting good things from new Federal Communications Commission chief Ajit Pai. And he didn’t disappoint with the agenda for Nov's FCC meeting. There was good news on two fronts. First was the plan to relax the local ownership rules. Then came word that the FCC will greenlight ATSC 3.0.

Not every long-standing Federal Communications Commission rule should be eliminated or modified just because of its age. But the broadcast ownership rules fail to reflect today’s digital media marketplace, and the FCC’s past failures to update its rules flew in the face of Congress’ directive that the Commission must every four years determine whether its rules remain “necessary in the public interest as the result of competition” and “repeal or modify” those that are not.

The action Oct 26 shows that the FCC finally not only recognizes the realities of the 21st century media marketplace, but also is willing to take the manufactured political heat that will undoubtedly accompany this update of the rules. While some opponents of any rule changes likely will pretend that the FCC’s action was undertaken for the benefit of one TV station company (which doesn’t even own any newspapers), reform of these restrictions are, in fact, essential for the broadcast industry to flourish.

CenturyLink is joining the chorus of incumbent telecommunication companies that want the copper retirement and legacy service discontinuance process to be simplified to facilitate the build out and expansion of next-gen fiber and IP-based services.

In an Federal Communications Commission filing, CenturyLink has asked the regulator to streamline the Section 214 and copper retirement processes. “CenturyLink expressed wholehearted support for the Commission’s proposals to expedite and streamline the Section 214 and copper retirement processes,” Century wrote. “The migration to next-generation facilities and services is both natural and desirable. The Commission therefore should eliminate prior approval requirements where possible and streamline those that remain.”

[Commentary] On Oct 27, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai announced that the FCC would vote as soon as November on a proposal to eliminate the cross-ownership rules and usher in a new era of media monopoly. For the better part of two decades, efforts to gut the rules have been blocked by grassroots groups representing consumers, journalists, and democracy advocates. But Pai is moving quickly in hopes that he can avoid the sort of mass mobilization of citizens that—with an assist from the federal courts—derailed an effort by the Bush administration to overturn the cross-ownership rules. Former FCC commissioner Michael Copps, who writes for the Benton Foundation and now advises Common Cause on media issues, calls Pai’s proposal “a virtual death sentence for local media."

The assault on cross-ownership rules is the ultimate government intervention, as it will clear the way for large corporations to gobble up media outlets, consolidate newsrooms, and diminish competition. The current rules seek to encourage genuine competition and robust debate by supporting a diversity of ownership and—by extension—diverse journalism that offers differing coverage and differing perspectives on the news. Pai’s intervention will diminish competition in communities across the country and benefit monopolistic corporations.

In a ruling seen as a major win for the largest media conglomerates in the country, the Federal Communications Commission voted to repeal the Main Studio Rule, a 77-year-old regulation that required local television and radio broadcasters to maintain physical studios in the communities they serve. The Oct 24 vote, along party lines, with Republican commissioners supporting repeal, clears the way for major media companies to continue buying up local stations and eliminating positions for journalists, while centralizing programming decisions.

One of the primary arguments made by media companies petitioning the FCC for the repeal was that social media renders local stations an anachronistic requirement of the past. Broadcasters, in the wake of the Citizens United decision, which unleashed a torrent of ad dollars, are increasingly reliant on political advertising. That creates perverse incentives for how the stations engage with well-heeled interest groups seeking to influence the public. As The Intercept has reported, broadcasters routinely lobby aggressively against campaign finance reforms, including a proposal to allow candidates equal access to the airwaves, and even a minor requirement that political advertising disclosures must be posted online.

On Sept. 15, nine days before the elections in Germany, the Green party complained to Facebook about a popular series of attack ads deriding its stances on gender-neutral bathrooms, electric cars and other topics. The party accused the advertiser, Greenwatch, of providing false contact information on its Facebook page and blog, which would violate a German Media Authority regulation requiring accurate contact information. But Facebook didn’t take down the ads or trace their origins. And after the election, Greenwatch disappeared. Its website and Facebook page were deleted, leaving behind only the nine Greenwatch ads that were captured by ProPublica’s Political Ad Collector, a tool that enables Facebook users to collect political ads that target them.

The Greenwatch episode illustrates that ads of dubious provenance aren’t just aimed at Facebook users in the US, but in Europe as well. Facebook’s failure to confront the advertiser — despite repeated complaints — raises questions about whether and how the world’s largest social network will deliver on its promise to monitor political advertising aggressively on its platform.