CONCURRING STATEMENT OF
                  COMMISSIONER GLORIA TRISTANI

In Re Application of Great Empire Broadcasting, Inc. and Journal Broadcast Corp. 
for Transfer of Control of Omaha Great Empire Broadcasting, Inc., Licensee of WOW(AM) and
                    WOW(FM), Omaha, Nebraska
             File Nos. BTC-980831GH, BTCH-980831GI


     I have written before about the Commission's illogical and indefensible rules for defining
the relevant radio "market" when assessing compliance with our local ownership caps.  My
previous statements have focused on two specific problems.  First, our rules preclude a
meaningful assessment of market concentration because they apply different definitions of the
relevant "market" for purposes of counting the total number of stations in the market and for
purposes of determining the number of stations that count toward the ownership cap.  Second,
and the problem highlighted by this case, our rules create unrealistic markets that do not exist
anywhere but in the halls of the FCC.

     Here, Journal proposes to acquire eight stations in the Omaha area.  The composite
principal community contour of two of those stations, WOW(AM) and KESY(AM), extends
approximately 20-30 miles beyond the other stations in the proposed combination.  At the
outermost edges of their contours, WOW(AM), and, to a lesser extent, KESY(AM), intersect
with the principal community contours of approximately a dozen stations from distant
communities.  Many of these are small stations, like Denison, Iowa's KDSN(AM) that operates at
500 watts daytime and 13 watts nighttime some 60-70 miles from Omaha.  No listener survey, no
advertiser, and no economist would consider KDSN(AM) to be a competitor in the Omaha
market.  Nevertheless, under the Commission's rules, KDSN(AM) and the other distant stations
count as being in the same "market" as the eight Omaha stations in the proposed combination,
simply because its signal overlaps with a sliver of the outermost reaches of WOW(AM)'s signal
contour.  Without these distant stations, there would be fewer than 45 stations in the market and
Journal's eight-station combination could not be approved under the Commission's rules.

     Indeed, the Order tacitly acknowledges that the Commission's market definition rules do
not comport with reality when it turns to the competitive analysis.  In that section, in which the
Commission attempts to assess market concentration among stations that actually compete with
one another, it completely abandons the fictional 53-station "market" created under our rules, and
applies the 23-station Arbitron market that the industry relies upon in making day-to-day business
decisions.  Thus, as a matter of economic reality, there are closer to 23 stations in the market in
which the stations at issue participate than the 53 postulated by the Commission's rules.  In such a
market, Journal could own only six stations, not the eight-station combination approved today.      
 

     The Order side-steps the illogic of our current rules by arguing that the rules should be
changed only in a rulemaking proceeding, after all interested parties have had an opportunity to
comment and the Commission has had the benefit of a "full and well-counseled record." 
Moreover, the Order asserts that such a process is already underway, stating that we "recently
sought comment on the current methodology for determining a 'radio market.'"  I fear, however,
that these protestations are simply a smoke screen for inaction.  First, the Commission sought
comment on the issue in a Notice of Inquiry in its biennial review proceeding, not in a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking.  There is a vast difference between the two:  an NPRM can lead directly to
rule changes; an NOI can only lead to proposed rule changes.  Second, the NOI was not "recent";
it was issued over a year ago and the record has been closed for almost a year.  Third, the market
definition issue in the NOI was identified in only one sentence.  Not surprisingly, few commenters
addressed the issue.  If the Commission were serious about resolving these market definition
issues, it would issue an NPRM immediately.

     In sum, our local ownership rules are clearly broken and in need of repair.  What is lacking
is not the need to act, nor the means to act, but the will.  Until that day arrives, I must operate
under our rules as they currently exist.  I therefore reluctantly concur in today's result.