Rules and other rules adopted pursuant to section 202. Michelle carey, chief of the bureau will give the introduction. Good afternoon, chairman and commissioners. The media bureau is pleased to present an order on modernizestion that broadcast ownership rules to reflect the realities of a modern marketplace. And seeks comment on how to integrate a program to facilitate new entry in the broadcast industry. Joining at the table, Brendan Hollins and chad of the media bureau. You this order which reveals and modifies outdated restrictions and institutes and Incubator Program to facilitate entry of new and Diverse Voices into the broadcasting industry. The commission is required by statute to review broadcast ownership rules every four years to determine whether they remain necessary in the Public Interest as a result of competition. And to repeal or modify any regulation the commission determines to be no longer in the Public Interest. In august of last year, the commissioner found a second report, completing the 2010 and 2014 rules. Several parties sought reconsiderations of various aspects of the report. About threer is restrictions. Record,orted by the three must be repealed or modified. Specifically, todays order reveals the cross ownership rule finding that the rule is no longer necessary to promote Viewpoint Diversity given the multitude of voices in the modern marketplace. The rule unnecessarily prevents combinations that would enable both broadcasters and local newspapers to better serve consumers in their communities. The radiotelevision cross ownership rule is no longer necessary to promote diversity. They must be eliminated. With respect to local television, this eliminates a eight stationst must remain. Was unsupported by the record or any reason basis. The order also incorporates a casebycase review option and the prohibition against common ownership of two toprated stations in a market. This approach to the application will better reflect Current Conditions in the market. Todays order also reveals the attribution role for television joint sales which are agreements that allow noncommonly owned stations to sell advertising time. Commissionsds the decision to distribute these agreements was unsupported by the record and that these are beneficial and serve the Public Interest by allowing broadcasters to better serve their local communities. Rule,cal radio ownership presumptive waiver approach for transactions involving embedded markets which are smaller markets that are part of a larger Nielsen Audio market. In addition, this order on ssas. Deration involves the disclosure of Online Public inspection files was supported by the record. Todays order finds that the commission will adopt and Incubator Program to help promote new entry and ownership diversity in the broadcast industry. Help,cubator program can can provide benefits to an entity or a class of entities through the provision of Technical Expertise and financial assistance. In todays notice, the Commission Seeks comment on how to structure and implement such a program. Incubation activities, incentives for encouraging incubation, the review process for incubation proposals, compliance and cost and benefits of such a program. Adopting this and requesting editorial privileges to make technical edits. Regular thank you. Thank you. , luckily i did not take commissioner carr predicted 1 00. We are both wrong. I might have to take a seven inning start. I said 1 15 p. M. I dont drink but boy i am getting closer. Resetting the tone. The problems with this order on reconsideration are so glaring, on process and substance, it is truly hard to decide where to begin. Do i start by describing why the wholesale elimination of the media ownership rules will harm localism, diversity and competition . Do i focus on the number of loopholes this commission blesses through this order . Or do i highlight how the fcc majority has chosen to take some of the same acts used by this commission over a year ago to reach the exact opposite conclusions . Thesei address each of failures in greater detail, allow me to explain the alternative proposal ipo forward to my colleagues proposal i put forward to my colleagues. Despite what you have been told about the genesis of this order, it is not really about helping small, struggling broadcasters or newspapers. Out, rather itis could actually achieve that goal, this is about helping Large Media Companies grow even larger which is actually in stark contrast to what the president said last week in discussing the importance of outlets asny news you can go. Tothese were to provide hope the tiniest media markets, we would have adopted a narrowly terrible a narrowly tailored proposal focused on the stations. Instead, todays actions coupled with the recent fcc actions including reinstatement of the you hf discount and the elimination of the main studio rules, we have paved the way for a new crop of broadcast media empires. They will be lightyears removed from the very local communities they are supposed to serve. Titans will have degrees of power far beyond the imagination of our local communities. Us local outlets that inform of what is happening in our community. Those outlets that investigate allegations of impropriety within government, that tell us whether we need an umbrella or an overcoat or we might need both. Before, on the ground naturaland after major and manmade disasters. Local stations clearly play a unique role in our communities and unlike those 24 hour cable news networks, our local outlets deliver their broadcasts using the public airwaves, and with that comes the responsibility to serve the Public Interest. If you are to stop someone randomly on the street and ask them who owns their local television or Radio Station, after they look at you and they wouldnch you, not be able to answer. Top fourf the television stations have the same owner, a third station was affiliated with the stations through sharing agreement . Localthey know that the news anchor is reporting a story using the same script as dozens of other stations around the country or even another station and their very own market . While these may not be cap of mind questions for most americans, the answers matter. The risen listeners have a right to know those answers. They should also be aware these practices are already happening today. When this order is adopted, the floodgates to more consolidation will come without transparency or accountability. To be clear, the media landscape has changed a lot over the past 30 years. When it comes to coverage of national and international events, there is no question americans have more choice today than they did in 1975. If we are going to play that of making comparisons between legacy platforms and newer interests, including cable news and online sources, we need a neutral umpire to keep score. These platforms are not created equal. The reality is, they are not substitute when it comes to local news and event coverage. As one news publication aptly put it last week, consolidating ownership will not put more reporters on the ground, but it will certainly amplified the influence of a small number of companies. I could not have said it any better. The simple fairness, the chairmans fun of making comparisons between local broadcasters and Tech Companies like google and facebook. , none oftime i checked these companies are in the newsgathering business nor to my knowledge are they engaged in local news production. Googlet visit to underscore this point to me. Tab for thecal news district of columbia, nine out of the first 10 search results linked to stories by, guess what . Traditional local newspaper, broadcast, or television, or radio outlets. Facts thathe simple we should never ignore. When we are evaluating the Current Media landscape, while i am not here to vilify the site the financial success, i want it for myself as much as i want it for you. The Horror Stories depicted in the filings are cited in this the largest of broadcasters as reasons for eliminating the rules, do not match the realities of what is being presented on wall street. One major broadcast group in fact reported that their revenues are up 15 this year. A new record. Anothers revenues are up 17 and yet another broadcaster saw its stock price reached a record high earlier this year. As even further evidence, not matching filings, retransmission consent fees are up yearoveryear by as much as 162 . These are the Financial Realities on the ground, why are we in such a rush to eliminate protections that may prevent consolidation but have untold on Viewpoint Diversity . But maybe less obvious are the loopholes in our media ownership rules that this order blesses. Take the use of joint Sales Agreements. As i have shared, there have been cases in which these agreements have been shown to be in the Public Interest, albeit rare. Ive also described arrangements that amounted to the full scale ,ontrol of brokered stations including the same programming, the same talent, the same management, and the same studio. Coupled withment the dismantling of other key media ownership rules, substantially distorts the reality of how much control a broadcast asian owner has in a broadcast station owner has. It fails to a knowledge the past benefits of unwinding these. A december 2014 blog, chairman wheeler and i described that by enforcing the local ownership rules, 10 new minority and women owned stations were established. Similarly absent from the ,ommissions analysis eliminating ownership attributions of these arrangements. As in a recent joint filing, nonattribution of jsas coupled with the repeal of the test can enable a Single Company to completely dominate Television Sales and make new entry impossible. Once again the order fails to properly consider this very tangible reality. Turning now to process. Where we reverse course, not much more than one year after the commission completed its last review. Certainly something must have changed in those last 15 months to warrant such a drastic change in direction . The facts are the facts. While my colleagues in the majority may not have agreed with the policy adopted by the Previous Administration, it was based on the record that has not changed. If they disagree with policy and that is their right to hold such a believe, what they should have done was open a new preceding and build a case for that position. The courts have admonished this agency in the past for changing rules without a supporting record and todays order on reconsideration ignores the courts instructions. Continuing with the topic of process, take a look at how the order incorrectly invokes to suit its policy goals. Has toldes, the court us that if we want to make meaningful changes to our rules to promote minority and female ownership, we must get comprehensive, reliable data. For example, the court stated, at minimum, in adopting or modifying rules, the fcc must andine the relevant data articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action, including a rational connection between the fact found in the choice made. Has flippedmission those instructions on its head by concluding without the benefit of new data, that we cannot continue to subject broadcast television licensees to aspects of local Television Ownership rules that can no longer be justified based on the unsubstantiated hopes that these would restrictions would promote minority and female ownership. Some supporters of this order, point to the commissions newly established Advisory Committee on diversity in digital empowerment as evidence that we are on a path toward obtaining better data. The problem with that notion, is that we are adopting todays ,rder less than two months after the Committee Held its first meeting. What is the point of establishing a committee if the fcc majority has already reached the conclusion that a core media ownership rule is no longer necessary to support our goal of increasing diversity . Committeebers of this have agreed to step away from their busy schedules to do what the chairman describes as taking important steps toward increasing diversity throughout the Communications Industry and bringing Digital Opportunities to all americans. Andnot let them get to work make recommendations to the full datassion and rely on instead of reversing the action of the Previous Administration simply because you feel differently . There was a path forward that could have guarded garnered my support but my proposal was rejected. All petitions for reconsideration should be denied from the commission rules. Specifically, this section of our rules outlines a narrow set of criteria by which the commission will consider a petition that includes new facts or arguments which have not been previously resented. Presented. Needed the fact nor arguments have changed since the last review. This majority has routinely rejected petitions for reconsideration that failed to meet these requirements but here it ignored these rules to satisfy its own selfserving interest. Second, i proposed opening a new preceding to explore the adoption of an Incubator Program. Such a concept has been debated for many years, with bipartisan support. It is largely untested. The questions proposed in the accompanying notice of proposed rulemaking are the right ones to be asking but we are undertaking this process in the wrong order. I urged my college to initiate a proceeding that would build on a comprehensive set of data, examining the impact of ownership diversity on the broadcast marketplace. The proceedings should also examine how further media consolidation would impact localism and competition. I propose that this Data Collection the undertaken expeditiously and completed prior to the start of the 2018 review. Lastly, i propose any changes to the commission, media ownership rules be considered as part of the 2018 review once the appropriate data is collected and an assessment can be made of the impact that an established into beta program has had in creating opportunities for new entrants in small businesses. These were not unreasonable in my opinion. They are consistent with the commission rules, the instructions of the Third Circuit and our commitment as an agency to be data driven. My colleagues in the majority and other proponents of eliminating these rules, might suggest that my aim was to further delay the inevitable. This could not be further from the truth. The reality is, the rule changes made in this order are all interrelated. By looking independently at each change rather than assessing the collective impact of the changes on the media landscape, we are left with a deeply flawed order with no data to support its conclusions. , toome back my friends industry consolidation month at the fcc. Where it seems my colleagues in the majority are more intent on granting industry wishes than giving a gift to those in the general public. Mark my words, today will go down in history as one when the to abdicated responsibility uphold the core values of localism, competition, and diversity in broadcasting. I vociferously dissent and look forward to the day when the right issues a decision to this sad it wrong. Thank you. Commissioner riley. Thank you. Let me start with a quote. Today the modern media marketplace includes thousands of broadcasting stations, hundreds of national, regional and Broadcasting Networks delivering a vast range of content, and more significantly, the internet and a host of Digital Technology enabled interactive services. This statement is from, chief judge sirica of the Third Circuit in 2004. 202h of 1996 uses unmistakable language in describing the commission obligations. Despite what some of my colleagues would have you believe, our action today is not part of a larger master and to favorably set the landscape for future merger. Implying that is untrue. Instead, todays item, in 2017, includes the commissions 20102014 review. Commission river eliminates the cross ownership rule. The item explains, in todays environment, the rule makes no longer sense. This is not a new idea. In fact the commission in one form or another has been unable to justify this role for more than 18 years. The commission completed a 2002 review, that a complete ban of cross ownership was no longer in the Public Interest. Upon review, the Third Circuit agreed with this conclusion but found the fcc alternative proposal to be arbitrary and capricious. As a result, the 1935 rule remained. , 2006. E next review the sec no longer believed it could justify the van and modified the rules accordingly. Once again the Court Remanded the issue. The 1975 rule remained. 20102014 review, the Third Circuit admonished the fcc for its delay, stating that the even thoughains the fcc determined a decade ago it is no longer in the Public Interest. Perhaps determined to continue the process of the past, when the commission acted, it examines the full media landscape and did nothing to adjust our rules in response. Despite having the votes to eliminate the cross ownership rules, the commission ignored precedent and decided to maintain the rule. Again the 1975 rule remained. Today we fix the shoddy effort of the previous commission. We establish a thorough record and analysis to find where the rule is no longer necessary. I have no doubt this item will wind up back before the desk of the Third Circuit. The court will be hardpressed to find that the fcc failed to justify reasoning. More than a decade ago the court found the fcc reasonably ruleuded that the nbco was not necessary. The item fully addresses why it is not needed to ensure diversity. Americans turnw, to a wide range of platforms for information. Recognizesircuit this multiplicity of voices. It simply disagreed with the commission on the degree to which services competed with local newspapers in 1994. Something else happened in 2004, a social media platform known as facebook launched followed by twitter in 2006. These platforms became sites that many consumers visit to first learn about breaking news, national or local. More than a decade later it is hard to overstate the impact of social media platforms in Online Platforms on Viewpoint Diversity. Since 2002, the commission has explored ways to modify local television rules. In 2004, the third largely upheld the decision to relax the eight voices test but remanded the numerical limit the fcc imposed. Once again, freezing the old rules in place. Ive long called for reexamining this rule. In many markets, duopolys could strengthen the overall state of broadcasting is and allow stations to concentrate resources on bringing more and Higher Quality local content to their viewers. At the very least, requirements like the eight voices test make even less sense now than they did in 2002 when the Commission First sought to eliminate it. Restriction, four i would prefer we were adopting bright line rules rather than relying on a casebycase assessment. These question how likely decisions would be reached. I trust as we reexamine this issue as part of the 2018 review, will give serious weight to the reexamination of the duopoly rule. I also hope we can more honestly define the media market as it exists today. The item acknowledges the video marketplace has evolved based on the current record, the commission declined to expand its definition beyond local broadcast television stations. I believe there is ample evidence that cable operators, internet sites and social media platforms compete with local broadcasters. Fortunately, the item at least recognizes its market definition could change in a future proceeding with a different be a missed it may opportunity today, i will be watching closely for this in our next review. We also eliminate the attribution rule for television joint Sales Agreements which never should have been adopted in the first place. First and further, we agree to set up an Incubator Program for exploring how best to structure this. Turning to radio. I appreciate the chairmans willingness to work with me, to address the issue of embedded markets. Originally this item denied the consideration of the petition. Critically this is a narrow issue that only applies in two market situations, new york and dc. I believe the commission should have granted this in full and marketsmethodology, containing embedded markets. Nielsen made clear, the lifting of embedded markets in the parent market is a reflection of geography, not an analysis of competition. However, it appears the Commission Wants to get more information on the record before going this far. For these reasons i understand the commission will reconsider this decision in 2018. There is convincing evidence that under the most extreme circumstances in which one party might own a maximum number of stations in each embedded market and they reached the highest ratings for the last 13 months, the owner would rank only third in the new york an 11. 2 h marketshare. In washington dc under the most extreme example, the station would rank sixth. Waiverrt a presumptive that the commission will evaluate proposed transactions of Radio Stations located in current markets with the multiple embedded market solely by looking at the transactions in compliance with the ownership limits in the embedded markets. Recordy does this support this but it will bring more certainty to the marketplace until we can more fully examine this rule these are important changes from the draft item. Beyond the issue of the embedded markets, i am disappointed this item did very little to unburden the radio industry. While i was pleased to see the elimination of the radiotelevision cross rule, i wish the commission would have gone further in addressing local rules. For starters, it is time to fmiew the commissions a. M. , sub caps. There will be an opportunity to reexamine this once again. Finally im disappointed the Commission Declines to reverse course from the previous commissions illadvised petition to disclose ssas. Despite assurances from the commission, make no mistake, Disclosure Requirements are generally used as precursors for regulations. Maybe not today or tomorrow but regulations will likely come. It is also counterintuitive that in one item we consider today, we question whether the cost of collections, in this item we retain illogical Disclosure Requirements. This is the wrong approach. We should treat this as part of the proceeding in the same way that we are treated items in media modernization initiatives. With deep skepticism. I look forward to elimination in the near future. In 2004, judges are a cup got it right. Judge sirica got it right. Warned, they kidding remanding the proposed rules to the commission will preserve the existing rules for years and the resulting delay will leave the public worse off than if the rules were to take effect. If only. These rules have been frozen in place for a decade. Romance result remands result in a prohibition of a functioning media marketplace to the detriment of the american consumer. Only the rest of the Third Circuit understood this as well. I can only hope, this time there will be a twist, the court will allow the commission to do its job and update our rules to accurately reflect todays media landscape. If not, i trust, we had the wherewithal to challenge any decision to a higher court. I think the chairman. Commissioner carter. Congress recognized the secs media ownership rules could outlive their usefulness. In 1996, it directed the commission to examine those rules every four years and determine whether they are Still Necessary in the Public Interest as a result of competition. Unfortunately, the commission in taken an ostrich approach every one of its reviews. When it got around to completing the 2010 and 2014 reviews in august, 2016, the commission ignore the realities of the modern media marketplace and the many ways americans now consume news and information. This failure does not serve anyone. Fortunately, the agency has a longstanding process that enables us to correct these types of errors. Under our rules, any Interested Party can petition the fcc to reconsider a final decision in a notice in rulemaking. A number of parties did so here. In response, the commission provided Public Notice for all stakeholders, an opportunity to comment. As a result of this process, we now reconsider several decisions made in august 2016. In doing so, we finally knowledge the reality that many of our current 80 ownership rules are outdated and counterproductive. Ban. The ownership in 1975. Dopted it the Commission Found that prohibiting one entity from owning both a daily print newspaper and a broadcast station within the same local market would preserve independent voices in a marketplace then characterized by a relative few number of them. For the extensive record compiled in this proceeding, it shows the newspaperbroadcast cross ownership ban is doing more harm than good. The record is replete with evidence of a newspaper evidence newspaper industry in decline. Era, theternet shuttering of hundreds of newsrooms around the country as a result. ,f we want to reverse this tide if we want to incentivize greater investment in journalism and Additional Resources for local reporting, we should eliminate the regulations that are preventing that investment. Our decision today does just that. The benefits of our decision are not just theoretical. The record contains numerous examples of grandfather combinations where the fcc allowed newspaperbroadcast cross ownership. Those combined operations are producing more local news van other enterprises. Richard come as no surprise as the commission it should come as no surprise, the cross ownership ban likely hinders localism goals. I support this long overdue decision to repeal the news papercrossover rule. I support the decision to repeal the radiotelevision cross ownership rule. In light of the modern media landscape, ownership rules should give broadcasters flexibility to attract investment that will enable them to better serve local markets. Thetionally i support decision to repeal the attribution rule for television joint Sales Agreements. The record makes clear these enable broadcasters to attract critical revenue and a market characterized by a petition for advertising. Investment services and improvements for local communities. Im glad we are seeking comment as well on an Incubator Program to promote more diversity and new entry into broadcast markets. Likewise, im pleased that the order provides relief to local radio broadcasters that operate in embedded markets which are smaller communities located outside of major cities. Our current policy prevents certain combinations of Radio Stations in these multiple embedded markets, even where doing so could enable broadcasters to improve coverage of local news, events, and better compete for local listeners. Grantonsideration we relief by adopting a presumptive waiver approach for these embedded markets, i appreciate commissioner riley and his staffs work on this effort and my colleagues willingness to make changes to this portion of the item. I want to thank the bureau for this, it has my support. Thank you. Which one of you said we were going to be done by 1 15 p. M. . 3 15 p. M. The price is right. When we waitede in the morning for the news to hit the front step in print and on paper. Then we waited at night huddled around the glow of a single Television Screen for the evening news. Those days are long gone. The world is changed. Not one of us expects our news and information to be available in such a limited way. Everyone of us looks for content at any time, in any place and on any screen handy. This is exciting. Lets be honest, it is also challenging. The economic models that have sustained traditional newsgathering have been forever changed by digitization. While new platforms are multiplying, what is viral is not always verifiable. If you need a lesson in why this is true, look at how fast false information spreads following the deadly attack last month in las vegas. The same happened following the recent shooting in texas. In Accurate Information during Hurricane Season increased the peril for those who were stranded. In rough wind and high waters. Untangling what is really happening with tax policy, health care, or anything else, a tough task. Trust, what sources to what facts to rely on and which authorities to credit are things we need to do a citizens. Is a big job. With real consequences. Consider we are only starting to tally the scope of the falsehoods held during election season and still struggling to understand the ramifications. This is a challenge. When this takes hold online and in accurately informs our actions we have a problem did authorization for use of military force authorization for use of military forc we have a problem. When filter bubbles emerge that never force us to consider what might be happening on the outside, we have an issue. These are not easy matters because they involve complicated questions, how do we advance journalism went out resume when algorithms are ascendant . This is hard. There are no simple answers. I know this, the solution does not lie in the fcc scrapping from top to bottom preventing media concentration. Of decades, at the direction congress, the fcc maintains limits on the number of broadcast stations that a Single Company can own. The agency curbed the ability to own broadcast stations and newspapers in the same market. The agency prevented a single entity from owning multiple television stations and Radio Stations in the same market and these policies were designed to sustain media diversity, localism and competition. The values may not be especially trendy. I think they are solid. I think they support journalism and news jobs. I think they play a Critical Role in advancing the next of facts we all need to make decisions about our lives, communities and our country. Today, the fcc dismantles those values. Instead of engaging in thoughtful reform which we should do, the agency sets its most basic values on fire. Theyre gone. As a result of this decision where we live, the sec is giving the green light for a Single Company to own the newspaper and multiple stations in your community. Any hardpressed to see commitment to diversity, localism or competition and that results. We should be troubled. Were not going to remedy what ails our media today with a rush of new consolidation. Were not going to fix our ability to ferret fact from fiction by doubling down on a handful of companies controlling our public airwaves. We are not going to be able to remedy the way the highest level in government is now comfortable stirring up angry sentiment, denouncing news as false facts and distilling favors on outlets with narratives that flatter those in power. Rather than offer the hardhitting assessments we need as citizens. Instead we are clearing the way for mergers of greater magnitude , like the one presently before us which will benefit heartily from the destruction of these policies today. Finally, a note on diversity. Media ownership matters because what we see on our screens says so much about who we are as individuals, communities, and as a nation. Can cometory and you to one conclusion. Consolidation will make our stations look less and less like the communities they serve. Women and minorities have struggled for too long to take the reins at major media outlets. On anst rulemaking incubator is not going to get us where we need to go. That is a high price for the damage this order does and that is an exchange i am unwilling to make. I dissent. Thank you, commissioner. It is a simple proposition. Of 2000 17egulations should match the media marketplace of 2017. That is the proposition the fcc indicates today. Nothing more, nothing less. It is about time. For a few of the secs rules are steeler than these regulations. Few of the fccs rules years ofr too many cold shoulders and hot air, this agency finally tracks its rules into the digital age. On theision is based fact on the record and sound economics. Some say we are gone too far. Others say we have not gone far enough. I think we have gotten it just about right. The order sets forth the detail rationale for our decisions. I will highlight four important points. We eliminate the news pattern the newspaperbroadcast crossownership rule. Rule is perverse. With the newspaper industry in crisis it makes no sense to place regulatory roadblocks in the way of those who want to purchase newspapers. The media landscape has changed dramatically in the last 42 years and the idea that a company could dominate a media market by owning a Radio Station and a newspaper is utter nonsense. This is a rule among other things, predating cable news and a little thing called the internet. Reflects a world in which people would come home from work, put on their slippers, read the evening newspaper and watch the 11 00 news. It does not reflect a world in which we get news throughout the day from Countless National and local websites, podcasts and social media outlets. Indeed, 1 wall st journal article recently dubbed facebook, the most powerful distributor of news and information on earth. I know from a fact from my twitter feed, many are following news of the meeting today through that outlet. To be sure, repealing the newspaper crossownership rule wont end the newspaper industrys struggles. It will open the door to competitive combinations that can strengthen local voices and enable both newspapers and broadcast stations to better serve their local communities. Second, we reform the local Television Ownership rule to eliminate the eight voices test. That test says that no company is allowed to own two television stations in a market unless there are at least eight markets in the market. To findnot been able another industry in which the government preemptively decrees there must be at least eight competitors for a market to be competitive. Nor have we found any economic literature justifying this opposition. Little wonder, for the eight voices test has a strong factual basis, as does the health myth that you should drink eight glasses of water a day. By ending this entirely arbitrary test, we allow combinations that can help television stations thrive. This is particularly true in small and midsize markets where there may not be sufficient advertising revenue to support eight vibrant competitors. Third, we reverse the prior mistaken crackdown on television joint Sales Agreements. s iever i think of jsa remember a visit to a station in jackson, mississippi. The station is owned by a historically black college. It produces its own content and carries programming designed for africanamericans. ,t offers hands on training during my station, we did a tour. The joint Sales Agreement with another new station had been crucial to that stations success. Without it, he told me point blank, the station would not have survived given limited financial resources. We adopted an Incubator Program to expand ownership diversity. We heard a lot of talk during the Prior Administration after eight years, what was there to show for it . Nothing. Zero. It was all just talking points as underscored by the prior majority upon specific rejection of my calls printing to beta program. This ftc is taking concrete action. We Seek Public Input on how it should be designed coud. I have test the new committee tasked the new committee to study this issue and provide recommendations. Im confident that we can craft a program that will help bring Diverse Voices into the broadcast industry. I would like to thank the dedicated staff that worked on this order, many of whom are listed in the order itself. Today marks the end of the 2010 and 2014 reviews. The bad news is it is november 2017 and soon, many of you will begin working on the 2018 review. Good luck. We moved to vote on the item. Move to vote on the item. The item is adopted. Tv, liveeekend on book coverage of the Miami Book Fair starting saturday at 10 30 a. M. Eastern, Chris Matthews on the political life of bobby kennedy. Walter isaacson on leonardo da vinci. On histar father immigration to the United States. Ur on troubling the truck covering the trump campaign. Charles sykes on the conservative movement. Cnns ben jones weighs in on partisan politics. Tatum looks at Race Relations in United States. Watch our live weekend coverage of the Miami Book Fair this weekend on cspan2s book tv. He was wearing a military with the blood drop and look right here and the initials kkk on his chest. Hip, he had a semiautomatic handgun and a holster. Kelly. Followed by mr. When the nighthawk entered the room and saw me, he just froze. Mr. Kelly bumped into his back. They stumbled and regained their balance and looked all around the room. I knew what they were thinking. The desk clerk gave them the wrong room number or this is a setup. I would like this to display my hands. I approached him and said my name is darrell davis, come on in. Therell davis has befriended ku klux klan members to understand their hatred and convince them that they are wrong,. This weekend on American History tv on cspan3, saturday and noon eastern, the 70th anniversary of the hollywood 10 hearings. Family members of blacklisted artists read from transcripts. I justast employment, finished a picture called the alta tall target. Ive been in theater for 25 years. I think im well enough known to all of them from the roles i have played. Ewan mcgregor the commonest party in 1942 were you a member of the communist party in 1942 . At 6 00 on the civil war, discussion on civil war monuments. It was about victory. The victory, in many ways celebrated in so many confederate monuments, was the victory over reconstruction. The 1944 world war ii propaganda film on the north africa campaign. President of the United States welcomed the Prime Minister of great britain. The gravity of the moment had brought them together. At 8 00 on the presidency, 26 seconds a personal history of the zip router film. Versions of the film began to leak out and people began to see it. When they saw it, because of the way the film looked, it did not look like what the Warren Commission concluded. Allmerican history tv, weekend on cspan3. Live to a discussion about the release by the cia of 100,000 documents collected by u. S. Special forces in the 2011 rate of osama bin ladens compound in pakistan. The foundation for defense of democracies is hosting this event. Live coverage on cspan