More Media Consolidation Coming Soon

Logic Bomb writes: "According to the Washington Post, a federal appeals court yesterday made a ruling that could make the last couple years of media consolidation look like nothing. Some major FCC rules about media ownership were ruled as "arbitrary" and therefore illegal, most importantly the one preventing a company from owning the cable system and television stations in the same place. Also, though the FCC gets one more chance to defend it, the rule about a company not owning stations reaching more than 35% of the national viewership may get tossed out too."

Comments

Spectacular

[zpengo]

This is great news. Any empire that gets that large inevitably becomes unstable (see "Roman Empire", p. xxxvi). Maybe this is the only way to get revolution to occur.

It's like a leashed dog. You hold the leash, the dog will pull on it. You let go, the dog will run around a bit then get tired and stop.

Re:Spectacular

[Daniel Dvorkin]

I think that's a false analogy. Imagine if the Roman Empire (and/or any of the other great empires of history -- British, Spanish, Chinese, etc.) had been operating under the authority of an even larger government, a super-empire that was structured for the maintenance of the imperial system. That's the situation with the US government and large corporations. Now, you may argue that this super-empire itself would inevitably fall ... but in the absence of something really drastic happening, I don't expect the US government to go away in my lifetime.

Re:Spectacular

[Chiasmus_]

Yes, any empire that gets larger than its carrying capacity will eventually fail. Certainly. An empire encompassing the Mediterranean, most of Europe, and some of Asia and Africa is impractical when it takes three months to get a message from one corner to the other, let alone a defense force.

The carrying capacity of a physical government, needless to say, has grown. The carrying capacity of a media corporation is likely much larger than the earth. Your argument is optimistic, but I can't say I buy it. AOL Time Warner might crumble if it tried to overextend itself to, say, Alpha Centauri, but something tells me it'll do just fine capturing, say, 99% of the market share.

truely the limits of freedom

[BlackSol]

On the onehand these laws are limiting large companies from competing with each other, these limits tie the hands of large corporations.

On the other hand it definately opens a huge door for monopolistic reign.

We all agree that large corps are evil but we love to pay $29.95 for highspeed internet access, have HDTV yesterday, have 1000 tv channels, etc.

Its society shooting it self in the foot again. Will loosing such competitive laws and strengthening the monopoly laws possible provide a solution? Or are they the same thing and large corps just buying the laws to strengthen their strangle hold on the competition?

Who Owns What

[SkewlD00d]

Who Owns What, the list keeps getting smaller and the entries get longer.

Cnnbcaolcom

[zpengo]

Isn't that Cthulhu's cousin?

Unrestrained monopolies are poison to a republic

[Mr. Mikey]

When one corporation owns all the news outlets, they can decide what you see and hear, and have the money to buy whatever legislation or legal shielding they need. "But, I get my news from the net!" That's great... until they restrict that too. "But, some entrepreneur will start their own news service" Yes, perhaps... until OneCorp buys the right politicians, or puts pressure on your ISP. A nightmare.

great quote

[elmegil]

Somehow the slashquote:

"Sometimes insanity is the only alternative" -- button at a Science Fiction convention.

Just seems so appropriate.

Not like it matters these days...

[Riskable]

The reason why these restrictions were put into place were pretty much for NEWS. That way, you would never have just one (or even two) sources reporting the news (in theory, the stations will correct eachother and ferociously try to "get the scoop" first). It was to create competition and better the general quality of the content on your TV stations. The separation of local and cable-based viewership was also thought to be necessary in this regard.

However, in recent years, companies that wish they could merge, but can't due to regulations, have found the perfect way around the problem: Content sharing agreements.

So instead of having to come up with ORIGINAL programming, news, and movies, they can just copy eachother's work. These sharing agreements also cross into paper and Internet media as well.

So it used to be that if media company X did something terrible, companies Y and Z would report on it. However, nowadays we'll see a content sharing agreement between company X and Y, with Z sharing content with Y as well. Since none of them want to lose their 'agreements' they won't say anything bad about eachother... Or resist buying into 3rd party content.

This way they don't have to merge and they don't have to share revenues, but they can save a ton of money--at the cost of original programming and the public's best interest.

Re:Not like it matters these days...

[Keith Mickunas]

Not only was it for protection of different news sources, but it also keeps advertising rates in check. There are some suits going on regarding clear channel. I hate to sound like a clear channel taking over the world alarmist because I've already posted once about them, but they are a problem. I read a while back (sorry I don't have a link handy) that they sometimes sell radio stations to small companies, whose ownership is unclear, when they approach the limit in a particular market. Then they operate that station for the other company. Some of these things are fact, the unclear thing is the ownership of the small company.

The point is, when one media conglomerate controls a significant amount of a single media type (radio, TV, newspaper) in one market, they then control the ad rates in that market. That's a major problem.

Arbitrary?

[Waffle Iron]

Some major FCC rules about media ownership were ruled as "arbitrary"

This is great news. There are thousands of arbitrary laws on the books that must now be repealed. Let's start with this one: in my state, you can't buy beer on Sundays before noon. What's up with that? Why not Tuesdays 2-6 p.m.?

Microsoft is nothing

[SilentChris]

I love people who are constantly arguing against the Microsoft monopoly on Slashdot, as if it were the most important thing in the world. It reminds me of people who fight for the lives of animals but could care less that a war is going on.

THESE mergers are the killers, people. When you own all the media, all the ways to send it, and the people and resources to shape it, you have enormous power. Who cares if one company runs the software under a couple hundred million computers. We're talking BILLIONS of people affected by the media they see, hear, and consume.

Re:Microsoft is nothing

[akb]

Actually, Microsoft is becoming a media giant and its looks like it will be able to join the club. Bill Gates and Paul Allen have been investing in cable, telco, etc forever. Microsoft is bankrolling the Comcast / ATT merger, and has a plethora of media interests MSNBC, MSN, ISP for QWEST, ISP for DirecTV (and maybe soon Echostar as well), Xbox, cell phones, set top boxes. They are extraordinarily well positioned for broadband / interactive TV / video on demand services that are about to be rolled out.

Its very clear that Microsoft has its sights set on cornering the new media market. And I agree that this pales to what they have done on the desktop.

Re:Maybe its time to registed a new domain name

[SkewlD00d]

$ whois www.mcaoltimewarnercnnattcomcastnbcabccbscisco.com

McWorld (NETBLK-MCAOL-DTC)
1 OwnJ00 Wy
McCentral, McVA 00001
McUS
McWorld

Netname: AOL-DTC
Netblock: 0.0.0.0 - 255.255.255.255

Coordinator:
McAmerica Online, Inc. (AOL-NOC-ARIN) domains@AOL.NET
0

Domain System inverse mapping provided by:

DNS-01.NS.AOL.COM 1.1.1.232

Record last updated on 27-Apr-1998.
Database last updated on 19-Feb-2002 19:57:50 EDT.

Goodbye affiliates

[IGnatius T Foobar]

The rule about maximum ownership was what originally spawned the idea of national networks having local affiliate stations.

If the 35 percent rule goes away, we'll be very likely to see the big networks simply merge with their affiliate stations, or buy them outright.

Another example of Government for by and from Biz.

[GSloop]

This is the court system, but I think we're just moving one step further to a Serf/Master system.

We're becoming the Serf's, and Ultra Large Corps are becoming the masters.

Government isn't interested in even seeming to keep such entities in check.

We have an executive and legislative branch that is only truly responsive to large monied interests. These branches both work to stack the courts with stooges that follow the party line as much as possible.

The manipulation of our Courts really began in earnest in the Regan administration, though I'm sure it happened to a lesser degree earlier. But Regan made it a public point to try to shape the legal system in it's image, rather than just appointing those who were strong mental thinkers, without requiring a specific "position.

I've ranted before about the horrible state of our government, but I'll keep doing so. (For those who will immediately say "Well go live in Cuba" - I say - Piss OFF! I know that we probably have the best system around (although Canada is looking more and more attractive - taxes regardless) but having the best system around doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to improve it.) One key approach in putting the brakes on our system is a control of power/money.

It seems that huge corporate interests are a key part of the problem. The campaign finance reform issues revolve around huge "investments" (so-called campaign contributions) to both the executive and legislative branches of government. What might help stem the problem is a smaller corporate system. Smaller corps means less power and money pooled in a single hand.

Look at the DMCA... We have a monied interest on one hand, and virtually no money-making interests on the other hand. Tell me, how are we going to defeat this? Consumers can't really effectively fight such legislation. And these trends just continue. The end result is a killing fields/scorched earch style environment. If you aren't represented by a massive corp with lots of money and financial gain, you're just screwed. We may eventually beat the DMCA, but the interests will just continue to assult the law until they get what they want. Sure we may win the battle, but eventually we loose the war.

Next, look at corp entities. (Lets take the defunct Value-Jet) They, as far as I can tell, intentially voliated rules that resulted in the death of 110 people. If you or I had done these things, we'd be charged with murder, and get a long prison term or the death penalty. If you're a corp, you say "Oops. Oh, by the way, we're bankrupt too - sorry." The CEO, executives and board members took home huge salaries, and all them walk away at the end of the day. If they aren't responsible for the acts of the corp, who is? What were they paid the high salary for then?

Basically, corps have "person" status - free speech and almost every other right a "person" has, but no limited limetime, and really no real threat of criminal prosecution. Sure, they will forfit all assets, but that's not a real threat. Esp. if the corp is setup right, as a shell corp., the available assets are very minimal.

So, in base, if we limit the rights and powers of corporations, I think we would then restore some oxygen to the "individual." Less power to corps, and more power to individuals, means a more responsive gvmt, and thus a gvmt that regulates where it must to protect the individual.

In todays world, the individual has NO power. Legal threats (DMCA/Sony Game Boy/Mattel Web filter hack/DVD etc) are very effective, because most of us don't have anywhere near the resources to defend ourselves. Even if we did, is there a financial justification? It's WAY cheaper just to fold. But the financial justification for a huge corp is enormous(sp)!

This comment has gotten way too long, but in general, we need an equalization of powers. The action of the courts just tilts the balance even more toward the ultra large corp, even in the face of lax regulation by the FCC. The courts ruled that the FCC, even as lax as it was, was too stringent!?*&*^!~! This is just another example of the continuing spiral that the US Gvmt is in. I hope that we can successfully counter this, 'cause if we don't, it's going to be a very sad day!

just when you thought things couldn't get any wors

[joss]

Western media is overwhelmingly in the hands of a handful of individuals already. Check out this article in pravda

TV follows radio into the Abyss of Suck

[termchimp]

the rule about a company not owning stations reaching more than 35% of the national viewership may get tossed out too

This reminds me of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which within a brief span of years turned my favorite radio station (among others in the Denver area) into a sleek, pop spewing, Clear Channel Crap Spigot. Yay for mega-conglomoration!

Thank God for college radio.

Don't like corporate-controlled gov't policy?

[Jeremi]

... then stop voting for it. The sooner people stop voting for the Demopublican Party, the sooner we can wrest control of our country/airwaves/lives back from corporations.

As for people who argue that voting for a 3rd party is 'throwing your vote away', I submit that not voting for a 3rd party is throwing your vote away, since it doesn't much matter whether you vote democratic or republican anymore; either way you are just voting for corporate control of government.

As for which 3rd party to vote for, I prefer the Green party (natch) because they don't accept contributions from corporations, but there are probably other good 3rd parties out there as well. Voting for any of them will at least signal your discontent with the status quo, and maybe the demos/repubs will take notice and clean up their act (well.... could happen, anyway)

The 35% rule is arbitrary and dumb.

[GlenRaphael]

Any company should be allowed to own enough stations to reach 100% of the market. There's nothing magical about the 35% rule that makes competition within a given market more likely. It's arbitrary, like the court said.

A 35% rule doesn't guarantee competition. Rather, it could easily allow total monopoly over news coverage in each region with three oligopolies dividing up the US such that every citizen has access to only one.

A 100% rule doesn't prevent competition. Under a 100% rule we could still have twenty fiercely competitive companies with nationwide coverage. For instance, ABC might be channel 7 across the entire United States, NBC might be channel 11 across the entire United States, and so on for another dozen or more companies. Each network has a potential reach of 100%, but none of them actually does reach all those subscribers except when their programming is sufficiently compelling that viewers choose to watch it.

Open competition is good. Forcing companies to jump through hoops to provide the nationwide coverage their customers want, is bad. The court made the right call.

We Were Warned Back in 1968

[Infonaut]

Obviously consolidation of the media has been going on for some time. This article is interesting because it was published in 1968, before the rise of cable networks, before Fox, before Sony got into entertainment distribution, before NBC/GE, before ABC/Disney.

Interestingly, the consolidation hasn't thwarted competition. It has, however, thwarted disemmination of information from a variety of sources - just as Commissioner Johnson warned back in 1968.

Don't Worry, It's All For the Best

[StefanJ]

Basic economics tell us that this is a Good Thing! Really!

Just think. Because of the economics of scale, larger media companies will be able to produce programming more cheaply, using larger, more efficient studios (plants). They can then spend the surplus on better scripts, better actors, fancier sets and more realistic special effects.

Also, more customers, providing more input, will mean large media companies have an overall better picture of exactly what people want!

The result: Better programming, and news tailored to exactly fit the world-view of their customers, promoting happier viewers who buy more product, resulting in even greater profits and even more money spent to produce even better programming!

You'll see. It will turn out just fine. Don't worry. Go back to sleep . . . we'll take care of things.

-- Stefan "Hey, why aren't my 'searing sarcasm' tags not working" Jones

Relevant links about Clear Channel

[Bistronaut]

I remember a good article about Clear Channel on Salon.com a while back... here it is:

Radio's Big Bully

This one also looks relevant: Clear Channel an Illegal Monopoly

Vary your news sources

[andaru]

You are very correct, sir.

The best way I can see to fight this is to vary your news sources. Read the little guy (if you can find him) as well as the mainstream news. Check out several sources from both.

Comparing an article on CNN's site to an article on the BBC's site can really be enlightening. On the same day, CNN failed to report 20,000 Israelis demonstrating for peace with Palestine, while the BBC stuck it at the bottom of an article summarizing the latest violence. I would think that since violence in the Middle East is the status quo, talk of peace is far more newsworthy.

Another comparison is when Bush caused the Yen to tumble during his speech by using the wrong economic term (devaluation instead of deflation - suggesting to some that he was supporting artificial devaluation of the Yen in order to make exports more attractive to consumers, when he was really just referring to bad things already going on with the Japanese economy).

The BBC used the occasion to print an entire article (quite amusing, but also quite editorial) describing the incident and recalling other times Bush has misspoken, ending with the observation that somehow, despite his obvious stupidity and incompetence, he was still extremely popular with the American people. CNN covered the speech about Japan's economic troubles, but made no mention whatsoever of the economic troubles that the speech caused. ABC briefly mentioned it at the bottom.

Every news source I know of is biased in some way, and over the years it seems that journalists have blurred the lines between news and editorialism more and more (they are both good to have, but should be properly labeled).

Reading different sources can often tell you just as much about these companies' motives as it can fill in your understanding of what actually happened.

Even reading news from fanatical and therefore unreliable sources tells you what various extremists are thinking and alerts you to the subject so that you can do your own research.

And to be trite, every lie that you spot shows you some truth about the liar.