Public Interest Media Ownership Stay Request 'Baseless,' Says FCC Response
Public interest groups’ claim the FCC ignored the directives of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal on media ownership are “baseless,” the agency said in its response to the emergency stay request of the commission’s newly relaxed broadcast ownership…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
rules (see 1801290036). The FCC “carefully analyzed whether each of its rule changes would have a ‘material impact on minority and female ownership,’” as the 3rd Circuit ordered, the response said. Even if the FCC had failed to meet the court’s requirements, it wouldn’t justify the “sweeping relief” of a stay or the appointment of a special master, as Prometheus Radio Project and Media Mobilizing Project requested. The public interest groups attempted “to shoehorn their stay request into a mandamus petition” to get around rules requiring that they seek a stay from the FCC before seeking judicial intervention, the FCC’s filing said. “Petitioners’ failure to seek a stay through the normal channels is perhaps unsurprising, as they could not satisfy the traditional stay criteria.” The public interest groups “rely on speculative harm to the public that they claim might result from media consolidation at some undefined future time,” the filing said. The court’s prior rulings don’t require the agency to collect more data on the effects of ownership rules on minorities, the agency said. “To the contrary, this Court merely stated: ‘If [the Commission] needs more data to do so, it must get it,’” the FCC said. The agency concluded it didn’t need further data to readopt a revenue-based definition of eligible entity instead of one based on race or gender, the filing said. “Because the Commission complied with this Court’s mandates in all respects, Petitioners cannot meet the high bar of showing a clear and indisputable right to mandamus relief,” said the FCC filing. NAB and Sinclair Broadcast filed to intervene in the case on the FCC's side, but the court hasn't ruled on their motions. In a joint filing Friday, they responded to the stay request anyway, along with an attached pleading asking the court to allow their response. The FCC supports letting the broadcast entities respond, but Prometheus and the Media Mobilizing Project haven't consented, NAB and Sinclair said. The broadcaster joint filing argues the public interest groups' request for a stay and writ of mandamus is a thinly veiled attempt to prevent other parties from opposing a request or a stay" and is procedurally improper. "Petitioners could easily have sought a stay and know how to do so; they should not be allowed to sidestep that process or box directly affected parties out of the discussion," the joint filing said.