By Frank Ahrens

The Bush administration yesterday abandoned plans to ask the

Supreme Court to allow a set of controversial rules to take

effect that would have loosened restrictions on how large media

conglomerates could grow.  The decision disappointed big media

companies that had lobbied heavily in support of the rules and

thrilled those who had fought to keep tighter rein on how much

control one company should have over television, newspapers and

radio stations in individual markets. The Federal Communications

Commission, which had adopted the proposed rules in a hotly

contested, 3 to 2, party-line vote in June 2003, now must decide

whether to start anew on rules governing media consolidation or to

re-argue its case before a lower court that the current proposals

should be approved.

The chief architect of the rules, FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell,

has announced that he will leave in March, so the next step will be

guided by his successor, who has not yet been named.  The rules would

have allowed television networks such as CBS and Fox to buy a few

more television stations nationally and let one company own the

biggest newspaper and highest-rated television station in most cities.

They also would have allowed individual companies to own more

television stations in the same city and restricted how many radio

stations one company could own, locally and nationally.  After

consulting with FCC officials, the Justice Department informed the

agency yesterday that it would not pursue an appeal of a lower court

decision to stay the rules.  Media giants NBC Universal, Viacom Inc.

(owner of CBS), News Corp. (Fox, New York Post) and Tribune Co.

(Los Angeles Times, several other papers and television stations)

said they will ask the Supreme Court to overturn the lower court's

decision. But the court has been reluctant to take such cases if

they are lead by an industry rather than a government agency, lawyers

say "Now that the government is not involved, there is significantly

less of a chance" the court will take it up, said Howard M. Liberman,

a media lawyer with Washington's Drinker Biddle.  In September 2003,

the day before the rules were set to go into effect, they were stayed

by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in Philadelphia.

The court said that the FCC had not done a satisfactory job of

justifying how it drew them up. The court did not rule on the merits

of the regulations and left open the possibility that it would approve

them if they were better argued.  The rules were opposed by a broad

coalition of interest groups and a bipartisan group of lawmakers, who

said that they would give a handful of media conglomerates too much

influence over the airwaves, reducing diversity of views and possibly

creating monopoly advertising markets.  Powell and the FCC's two other

GOP commissioners, who had backed the rules, said the old ones were

obsolete, crafted before the advent of modern outlets such as cable

television, satellite radio and the Internet. Yet Powell recommended

that the Justice Department not pursue an appeal, according to a source

familiar with the situation. He thought an appeal process would have

been drawn-out and politically messy, even while believing the lower

court did not show the FCC proper deference in staying the rules, the

source said.  Powell, attending the World Economic Forum in Davos,

Switzerland, declined public comment yesterday. In Washington, FCC

Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy declined to comment; Commissioner

Kevin J. Martin was unavailable.  The Democrats on the commission,

however, who had led the opposition to the rules, were cheered by the

decision not to appeal.  "The previous order was a disaster," said

FCC Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein. "Now the administration has

acknowledged it was legally flawed and not worth fighting for."

Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) said the proposed rules would have

allowed "excessive" media consolidation that "would have made Citizen

Kane look like an underachiever."  If the court does not take up the

media companies' appeal, the FCC is left with several options, any of

which are likely to rile numerous factions:

The FCC can attempt to stick with the proposed rules and simply return

them to the appeals court with better justification. Even with Powell's

planned departure in March, the commission retains a Republican majority

that may favor such a solution. Those who opposed the rules before

probably would do so again.

The agency can go back to the drawing board and craft an entirely new

set of rules. This is the approach favored by the FCC's Democratic

commissioners, Adelstein and Michael J. Copps, who favor tighter

restrictions on media ownership. Media companies and FCC Republicans

likely would oppose this plan.  Instead of trying to pass all the

ownership rules at once, the commission could try to approve them

one at a time in an attempt to defuse resistance. Martin, a possible

successor to Powell as FCC chairman, is the commission's strongest

advocate of lifting the rule that forbids one company from owning a

newspaper and television station in the same city. Copps and

Adelstein fear that attempts to pass such rules "under the radar scope"

would allow advocates to "accomplish piecemeal what they couldn't get

whole," Copps said in a statement yesterday.

The FCC can do nothing, leaving existing rules in effect. This would

keep the newspaper-television cross-ownership ban in place but leave

the FCC with no rule governing ownership of local television stations.

One rule now out of the FCC's hands determines how many television

stations a network can own. FCC rules had said that one network could

not own a group of stations reaching more than 35 percent of the

national audience. The new FCC rules would have raised the limit to

45 percent. The station-ownership limit became the most controversial

of the rules and, ultimately, Congress fixed it in law at 39 percent

in January 2004. The figure represents the percentage of audience

reached by News Corp. and Viacom stations; were the figure set lower,

the companies would have had to sell stations. It also prevents them

from buying additional stations.

Baghdad Governor Ali Al-Haidri was assassinated this morning in Baghdad, according to an Iraq Interior Ministry official. A bodyguard for Al-Haidri also was killed and two other guards wounded in the road ambush, officials said. Al-Haidri was among the senior members of Iraq's Interim government.

The death toll from Malaysia to East Africa stood at more than 141,000, and tens of thousands more were missing -- including thousands of tourists whose vacations took an unexpected turn early on the morning of December 26.

Wow, tourists seem to make the headlines because paradise turned sour...

Disease is what's next

Disease is the next danger that is expected to take the lives of just about 1/3 of the total so far. Not to mention that aftershocks are still occuring throughout the region. Some of the highest have registered 6's on the Richter Scale.

If you think that peoples' donations now are making a difference... wait 2 months when disease is running rampant and more money is needed for vaccinations and other medical supplies. Don't think that we (as a global community) are home free yet. $2 billion in donations is a very, very admirable start. But more will be needed...