According to a report in The Washington Post today, commenters are up in arms about a proposal circulating out of Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski’s office that allegedly relaxes the ban on a television station owning a newspaper in the same town or city. Advocates, such as Free Press and Public Knowledge, don’t like the proposal, fearing that media consolidation would put a damper on speech and expression.

I believe the lack of transparency in the FCC’s decision making process is at the root of the confusion over media ownership rules. Given the impact the rules could have on increasing diversity in media ownership particularly, as well as the flow of capital to struggling newspapers, the FCC should provide an opportunity for scrutiny of the Chairman’s proposal during a hearing process. The comment system does not ensure that different and relevant perspectives are being reflected in any record on the matter.

The FCC risks being seen as a play pen where only a few vocal advocacy groups can be allowed in to play. This approach negatively impacts consumers and investors alike.

I just finished reading Commissioner Mignon Clyburn’s statement on the Federal Communications Commission’s proposed rule making for media ownership. Ms. Clyburn expressed that she felt “hope, fear, frustration, expectation, and exasperation” regarding the tasks of pursuing diversity in media ownership while ensuring that the information market spoke to the needs of the information consumer.

The conflicting emotions are understandable when you see that the FCC must address not one, but two information related markets at the same time. One I term as the “media market.” In this market buyers and sellers of media platforms such as radio, television, newspapers, and online media properties meet and exchange these properties for a price.

The second market is the “information market.” This is where the news watchers and readers come and consume content in exchange for paying subscription fees or at least clicking on ads.

It’s probably best that the FCC delineate the two markets, at least for the purpose of coming up with actions to address each one. Both are related which drives the confusion. The player that connects the two markets is the buyer of media platforms. Once the buyer enters the media market and negotiates the purchase of radio and television stations, they are in a position to add to the diversity of viewpoints the FCC wants to promote.

The buyers enter the media market in response to final demand from consumers in the information market. It’s a chain derivative that requires you complete the work on one relationship before moving to the next. That approach should help alleviate the frustration.

Charter Communications, Inc., believes the Federal Communications Commission can go it alone when it comes to retransmission rules. In an ex-parte filing yesterday, Charter disclosed that it reiterated to FCC staff that the FCC had ample authority to implement new retransmission consent rules.

The rules, according to Charter, should prohibit retransmission consent leveraging by multiple broadcasters acting in concert. Charter gave examples of such leveraging. One example involves one company controlling multiple “big four stations”, for example, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox. This could lead to an escalation of retransmission consent fees, according to Charter.

Another example, according to Charter, is where several broadcast stations including at least two of the big four stations, designate one representative to negotiate fees for the block of stations.

Charter’s filing was made in the FCC’s docket addressing media ownership.