Document Actions
Communications, Community and Controversy
Q & A With Former FCC Commissioner Benjamin Hooks
July 24, 2003
He's a former Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decision-maker who also headed the NAACP. Ben Hooks has a unique perspective on how media ownership rules affect coverage, diversity and communities. See what the former FCC commissioner has to say about the FCC's recent decision to loosen controls on media ownership limits.
Introduction
Benjamin L. Hooks has examined the impact of mass media on society as a civil rights activist, a member of the media and as a member of the Federal Communications Commission.
An ordained minister and practicing attorney, Hooks was an activist in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Southern Christian Leadership Conference during the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. He was a renowned minister at Greater New Mount Moriah Baptist Church in Detroit - flying in from Tennessee twice a month to deliver sermons. In addition, he was producer and host of several television shows in Memphis before he was tapped for an important government post.
In 1972, President Richard Nixon appointed Hooks to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Hooks was the first black to serve on the commission. As a commissioner, Hooks addressed the lack of minority ownership in television and radio, minority employment in broadcasting and the image of blacks in the mass media. He remained active in civil rights during his tenure. In 1976, the 64-member board of directors of the NAACP elected Hooks executive director.
Hooks left the FCC in 1978 to devote more time to his position at the NAACP. Minority employment in broadcasting grew from three to fifteen percent during his tenure at the commission. Hooks devotes some of his time to the University of Memphis - home of the Benjamin L. Hooks for Social Change. He is still an advocate for diversity within the media.
Concerned about the impact of recent media consolidation on diversity and local coverage, Hooks agreed to comment on the FCC's controversial June 2 decision to loosen limits on media ownership - changes that would allow some of the nation's largest media companies to expand further. He recently spoke with C3 Online from his home in Memphis.
| C3 Online | What's your position on the FCC's decision to loosen limits on media ownership? |
| Hooks | Basically, I disagree with the changes that were made by the commission on June 2nd. I was a member of the commission when we tightened up on ownership. And the rules that were in effect - for the most part - maintained limits (on TV and radio ownership). Basically, I favored those rules. |
| C3 Online | As you know, many members of Congress are trying to roll back some of these changes. Do you favor such Congressional action? |
| Hooks | I have not taken a position on the Congressional changes because when you start a legislative initiative - until you get through all of the changes that they make - you really don't know quite what you're supporting - I don't' get involved too much with legislation until it moves down to its end and you have some idea of what you were really dealing with. |
| C3 Online | What are the prospects of increased minority ownership of media outlets if the FCC changes are allowed to stand? |
| Hooks | I think that for a period of time, there will be larger groups that will be put together. And as I have said, I was basically opposed to the concept of the large number of media outlets being owned by the same company. I thought it lessened the chance for a diversity of views and lessened the chances for minority ownership. I still feel that way. I don't think you'll have as much opportunity for minority ownership now as you did before the rules were changed. I may be proven wrong, but that's my belief at this point. |
| C3 Online | Minority employment in broadcasting rose from 3 to 15% during your tenure at the FCC. What are the prospects of increasing minority employment in the industry in the current regulatory environment? |
| Hooks | Well, it depends on factors other than just the radio-television field. The whole concept of affirmative action, Unfortunately, is under attack. We just recently witnessed the case involving affirmation action at the University of Michigan as it related to university admissions. And while I think we won a narrow victory, there are lawyers who think we didn't win anything. As one who has watched the civil rights field for at least the last 40 to 50 years, I think that we did win a small victory in that five-to-four ruling that more or less kept things as they were. Not a very big win, but at least a win. And because affirmative action is still under attack, there is a question about future job opportunities across the board - not just in radio and TV. The progress we once made may be slowed. |
| C3 Online | What are the prospects for "localism" - media attentiveness to the news, information and public service needs of communities - if these changes are allowed to stand? |
| Hooks | Well, part of the hope that we had - those of us who favored smaller ownership groups - was that there would be a great opportunity for having local views presented more freely and more completely. And of course, I still feel that way. However, we are in a time of transition, and we'll see whether or not those who are hired - rather than those who own - can make a difference. The (pro-consolidation) argument is that these large media groups will still be managed by local people, and those local managers can make choices. I don't think that's true. I think the local managers will be hemmed in by an overall push for profits. And if having more news, information and greater emphasis on local news cuts into the profit margin, I'm sure the owners will be heard from. Of course, they will say, 'Let's opt for higher profits.' So I think less localism and less coverage of community news is going to be the prospect for the future. |
| C3 Online | Any thoughts on how this will affect the free flow of ideas and diversity of thought? |
| Hooks | Well, I think we'll still have diversity of thought; it just won't be expressed as much through the media. In the old days - when Ben Franklin talked about freedom of the press - all you had to do was have a piece of paper and a pencil. You could print what you wanted and go to the town square and put it on a post. Well, with the increase in allocation of the (broadcast) spectrum, where the government, in reality, owns the space and leases it or rents or lets it be used by a group, the group that has (airwave spectrum access) will certainly have a say in what is said or done. For that reason, I've believed that it's fair and just that more groups have access (to the airways); and that the more groups that have access, the greater the chance of diversity of thought and editorial content Ö I have not seen any proof that larger (media) groups will be more attentive to the needs of the diverse groups that make up our country. |
| C3 Online | The FCC held just one official public hearing on these media ownership limits. Should there have been more hearings? And if so, why? Or if not, why not? |
| Hooks | I think there should have been more. But it seems to me that we're living in a time and in an environment where what happened was going to happen no matter how many hearings you had. There is a tide in the affairs of men. There's a spirit that is living, and the spirit now seems to be in favor of larger (corporate) groups. There's been a major change from the time I was on the commission 30 years ago Ö At that time, there was a strong feeling that because the (broadcast) spectrum was owned by the public, that there ought to be more rules, more regulations, more controls. And I think that we had a golden age before the recent rule changes. We were able to get minorities involved at the ownership level. We were able to get minorities involved at the level of production, direction, and managerial expertise. We're in the process, I think, of losing that now. In the meantime, who knows, something better may come. But I don't see it. I think that there is a possibility that blacks may understand that we may not own individual stations now, but maybe we should invest some of our money in the stock of companies that control the media Ö and give ourselves a chance at the corporate table to bring about some change. I think that what we did 30 years ago, 25 years ago, were good rules that worked well. I think we'd be better off had we stuck with them. |
| C3 Online | Some say the FCC is unduly influenced by industry lobbyists who provide commissioners travel to trade shows. What are your thoughts? |
| Hooks | I don't think I ever met a commissioner who was overly influenced by lobbying. We have to listen to all sides. And there's nothing wrong with listening. The idea is to come up with your own concept after you listen. I don't believe that commissioners are unduly influenced by the prospect of a trip. When I served, we could not have the trips. But if they had paid my way, it would not have changed my viewpoint. I stood for what I stood for. I appreciated the advice and comments that I got from everybody. Even those I disagreed with. I did not shut my door to them. I don't think you can be a good commissioner if you close the door on anybody. You listen to them and make up your own mind and make up your own opinions. |
| C3 Online | This sort of relates to that, but it's a slightly different question. Some FCC commissioners have become consultants for media companies after leaving their government post. Of course, you didn't. You left to run the NAACP. Is this a cause of concern? |
| Hooks | I don't think I ever met a commissioner who was overly influenced by lobbying. We have to listen to all sides. And there's nothing wrong with listening. The idea is to come up with your own concept after you listen. I don't believe that commissioners are unduly influenced by the prospect of a trip. When I served, we could not have the trips. But if they had paid my way, it would not have changed my viewpoint. I stood for what I stood for. I appreciated the advice and comments that I got from everybody. Even those I disagreed with. I did not shut my door to them. I don't think you can be a good commissioner if you close the door on anybody. You listen to them and make up your own mind and make up your own opinions. |