|
|
|
are in Bush's court
House vote puts issue on 2004 presidential ballot
Michael Powell got his comeuppance yesterday when the House of Representatives voted to roll back the Federal Communication Commission's ruling last month to lift network ownership caps to 45 percent of the national market.
The FCC chairman could well be in for a second comeuppance.
The argument for lifting the caps, disregarding for a moment who would benefit, was certainly a rational one: that American media is sufficiently diverse these days that the protections in that and other media-ownership rules are no longer needed. American media is, in fact, far more diverse than it was even 30 years ago.
But that argument, while a winning one at the Republican-led FCC and the White House, ignores entirely public perception of the nation's media conglomerates. And the perception is that they already have way too much influence in our lives.
Ignoring that political reality was a mistake on the part of Powell, and the question now is whether Bush will make the same mistake or, with an eye to gaining reelection, side with the increasingly powerful constituencies demanding the rollback.
While the White House has openly threatened to veto any measure coming to the president's desk calling for rollbacks, those threats of late have been cautiously worded.
Bush's advisors may be loud supporters of the looser media rules, but they are not running for reelection.
Further to their discredit, they've also very badly judged the visceral backlash to those eased rules, both among powerful forces on the Hill and the public.
While Bush could well veto a rollback measure, the arguments of him not doing so appear to grow by the day.
Not only would it be Bush's first veto, but there is a very high risk that it could be overridden by Congress. That would be an insufferable embarrassment for any president and the last thing Bush needs facing a reelection campaign. At the least, it would cement in the minds of many voters the perception that Bush is a puppet of his advisors -- advisors who are out of touch with America.
Further, if Bush were to veto such a measure, the only friends he would win are ones he already has, the media conglomerates, such as Viacom and News Corp., direct beneficiaries of the loosened rules.
Politically, that's not a very strong argument for a veto. Those friends would be irked, but it's highly unlikely they'd bolt to the Democrats, who are already deeply committed to the rollbacks.
Another argument for a veto is that to do otherwise would be an affront to Powell, who in pushing the eased rules was doing so at the White House's bidding. In deciding whether to stand behind Powell, Bush will certainly consider his own future first. Political lieutenants are expected to fall on swords, and Powell, who's rumored to be quitting the FCC anyhow, will certainly accept a sword plunge for a cause in which he genuinely believes.
In contrast, refusing to veto a rollback measure would make great political sense for Bush.
Not only would it rob Democratic opponents of a potentially powerful cause in the coming presidential elections, it would be a wonderful gift to fellow Republicans in the House and Senate up for reelection.
It would spare them having to defend the eased media ownership rules when they are out talking to voters.
While Powell was very articulate in his defense of the easy caps, his forum was nearly always among an audience who could understand what's essentially a theoretical argument, whether they agreed with it or not.
Voters are a very different lot, and there's not one persuasive argument to be made by Republicans in favor of loosened media ownership rules. Voters certainly would not be swayed by the argument that the networks need to make more money. Nor would they be persuaded that eased caps will lead to better or more responsible programming.
But worse for Republicans, the debate over eased rules would bring out the worst sort of nut-case anti-corporate factions to every political event, side-tracking all rational discussion. They would do the heavy political lifting for the Democrats, preventing Republicans from campaigning on the achievements of the Bush administration. And having waged a war in Iraq that still needs defending, that's the last thing Bush wants going into the 2004 elections.
Having watched his daddy lose reelection after his war, the son is not going to risk his reelection over an issue so far afield from his political agenda.
July 24, 2003© 2003 Media Life
-Gene Ely is editor and publisher of Media Life.
Click
here to add the Media Life home page to your favorites!
Printer-Friendly
Version | Send
to a Friend
Cover Page | Contact
Us