In the close-knit community of Washington media lawyers, lobbyists and policymakers, all eyes will be on FCC Chairman Kevin Martin this morning as he appears before the House Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee.

Martin will be on the defensive. Last month, he announced his intention to relax the FCC’s newspaper-broadcast crossownership rules at the commission’s Dec. 18 open meeting.

Subcommittee Chairman Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and other key House and Senate Democrats (and some key Republicans) think that’s a bad idea.

Just yesterday, the Senate Commerce Committee unanimously passed a bill that would effectively block the FCC from any immediate action on media ownership rules, making clear where it stands.

This morning’s House hearing and another in the Senate next week are designed to "bludgeon him” into delaying action on ownership, says one Capitol Hill observer.

The consensus among FCC insiders is the chairman won’t back down. Despite “a lot of pressure and a lot of heat, Martin wants to get this done,” says a source close to the chairman.

But Martin is just one vote on the five-member commission. He is counting on his two fellow commissioners, Deborah Taylor Tate and Robert McDowell, to deliver their votes and produce a majority. Democratic Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein are opposed to loosening ownership rules.

And there is growing conjecture that Tate and McDowell’s support might fade, especially under the heavy congressional fire.

“Neither of them has seemed like the strongest of reeds in the face of strong political winds,” says one broadcast industry observer.

Tate is considered more likely to bend because her initial FCC term expired last June and she needs Senate confirmation to keep her job. “Tate obviously has more concerns because she’d like to have another term,” says one FCC insider.

Any Senator can place a hold on an FCC nomination, and there are plenty who think that the FCC has no business tampering with the newspaper-broadcast crossownership rule.

While Tate and McDowell will be under considerable pressure to abandon Martin, they will be getting little encouragement to stand by him.

Newspaper publishers and broadcasters feel Martin's proposal is too limited to be of much benefit to them and hardly worth lobbying for.

Under Martin’s plan, the crossownership ban would be lifted only in the top 20 markets and limited to combinations that involve a TV station not among the market's four top rated—in other words, a station other than a Big Four network affiliate.

Gannett and Media General have told Martin and his fellow FCC commissioners they would like to see much greater relaxation of the rule to permit crossownership in medium-size and small markets where they operate.

Martin’s proposal does offer crossownership waivers in smaller markets. However, there would be a stringent test to qualify for those waivers.

"It’s pretty thin gruel for deregulation,” says one broadcast attorney.

Even the Newspaper Association of America, which has fought for years for crossownership relief, is less than excited by the Martin plan.

NAA is glad to see ``some movement” at the commission, says NAA President Sturm. But, he adds, “the difficulties for the newspaper business are not limited to the top 20 markets.”

Tribune Co. might have thrown its weight behind Martin and his modest top-20 proposal and bolstered the resolve of McDowell and Tate, but the FCC last week granted Tribune waivers it desperately needed to hang on to its newspapers-broadcast combos in big markets. It’s essentially out of the game now.

In any event, Martin is going to get an earful at the hearing. “Everybody is mad at him,” says one industry lobbyist.

He could take hits from the left and the right, and those attacks are not likely to be limited to media crossownership.

House Republicans are not pleased with the chairman’s efforts last month to re-regulate cable.

All but two of the 26 Republicans who serve on the parent Energy and Commerce Committee wrote Martin to register their concerns about what they called a “misguided and harmful” proposal.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) has already made Martin aware of his displeasure over relaxation of media ownership rules by releasing a letter to the FCC calling for a congresssional investigation into what he calls a “breakdown in proper procedure at the FCC.”

The investigation would “ensure that the agency’s processes are fair, open and transparent and serve the public interest,” the letter says.

The letter also calls for a “firm commitment” from the chairman to publish rules in advance of commission meetings, provide sufficient time to review proposed orders and rules and provide his fellow commissioners  with “all the relevant information on which proposed orders and rules are based.”

It’s anticipated that Martin will signal his intent to reform the agency’s regulatory process today. Such a move might take some of the heat off the FCC chairman.

In written testimony submitted to the subcommittee in advance of today's hearing, Martin lays out his crossownership proposal and makes the case for it. The newspaper industry is under financial strain that is causing the layoff of reporters and editors, he said.

"Allowing cross-ownership may help to forestall the erosion in local news coverage by enabling companies to share these local news gathering costs across multiple media platforms," the chairman's prepared testimony says.

Luckily for Martin, the House is scheduled to vote today on a major energy bill that may cut into lawmakers’ time at the media hearing. Dingell and Markey are expected to play critical role in that debate and may not have as much time to devote to the FCC oversight hearing.

But the message to Martin from the subcommittee will be clear: postpone action on all proposals to relax media ownership restrictions.

“If he does that, I think he’ll have a chance to survive,” says one Hill observer. “If he doesn’t, he’s politically dead.”