Slashdot Mirror


The FCC and Media Consolidation

An anonymous reader writes "A story on this evening's All Things Considered but also at Now with Bill Moyers reports this June, the FCC will choose whether to keep or drop longstanding rules limiting the number of media outlets (radio stations, TV stations, etc.) a company may hold in a single area. That means all the radio stations in your area, for example, may one day be controlled by one company, like Clearchannel or Rupert Murdoch's FOX Communications. One irony is virtually no news outlet is covering the story. Another is the justifying argument for this move comes from the emergence of new media, like the Internet and Cable/Satellite. Yet with all 100's of new TV channels available, there are only five major media companies out there controlling them all, and recent copyright rules applying to the Internet have all but squelched-out Internet radio. So the old rules might not be so outdated after all. But the only voices being heard in this argument are coming from the media giants." In a related story, AOL/Time-Warner is petitioning the FCC to lift the restriction forbidding AOL from launching "advanced" IM services without letting others access the IM network.

9 of 189 comments (clear)

  1. Don't forget print/broadcast consolidation by Zygote-IC- · · Score: 5, Informative

    One part of the FCC rules that could be lifted prohibits a company from owning a newspaper or broadcast outlet in the same market. So not only could they own all the radio and television stations, but they could also own the newspaper in town.
    Sounds great from a "diversity of voices" standpoint doesn't it?

  2. Big Media Players by CBNobi · · Score: 4, Informative
    For those that are curious, these are the current 'big players' in the media industry, along with some of the major TV networks they own.

    AOL Time-Warner - WB, HBO, Cinemax, CNN, TBS

    General Electric - NBC, A&E, Bravo, MuchMusic

    Viacom - CBS, UPN, MTV, VH1, Showtime, Nickelodeon

    Walt Disney Company - ABC, Disney Channel, ESPN

    Liberty Media Corp. - Discovery Channel, TLC, USA Networks, Sci-Fi Channel

    AT&T Corp. - Many shared stakes with AOL-TW

    News Corp. - Fox Network, FX

    Bertelsmann - Largest European broadcaster

    Vivendi Universal - USA Network, Sci-Fi Channel, HSN, Sundance

    Sony - Telemundo, Game Show Network

    More detailed information available at The Nation.

  3. Merchants of Cool by starvingartist12 · · Score: 3, Informative

    PBS has a very informative website outlining The Merchants of Cool -- "a report on the creators and marketers of popular culture for teens".

    But the most eye-opening part is their section on the Media Giants. It has a huge listing of all the holdings and subsidaries of the largest media giants: News Corp, Vivendi Universal, Sony, AOL Time Warner, Walt Disney and Viacom.

    Check out AOL Time Warner, for instance.

  4. FCC Irrelevant and Hinderance by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 3, Informative

    As you know from a previous /. story, the spectrum is limitless. Current dumb devices tune to frequency X and simply display, A/V or other; smart devices would be able to filter transmissions, meaning that you could have an infinite amount of data in a very small chunk of spectrum. Spectrum is nothing more than colors, visible or otherwise, and you cannot run out of colors. Even if it was not so, the internet gives one the ability to transmit whatever they please, assuming of course that they are willing to make the same investment as those already in play. The FCC, by basing itself on the flawed-theory of spectrum scarcity, is doing far more to limit broadcast diversity than any one corporation.

    --
    Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
  5. Why this is a bad thing. by SlashChick · · Score: 5, Informative

    I do some contract work for a nationally-syndicated home improvement radio show, so I'm quite familiar with the whole Clear Channel buyout process. Since some of you may not know how this works, I'll explain it as succinctly as I can.

    Let's say you own a radio station. Your radio station plays Top 40 stuff. You have hired some local DJs from the nearby college to play music, and you have some fun with various weekend and Friday night shows that showcase some local artists. You have a playlist that is based both on what other Top 40 stations are playing (the "popular" music), and requests from your listeners. You're doing well, but you have to maintain a staff to sell ads, and you're finding it harder and harder to do this.

    Clear Channel comes in and offers to buy your radio station. Now, Clear Channel has enough money so that they can make you an offer you can't refuse. You acquiesce and agree to become a Clear Channel station.

    Clear Channel places your station into one of seven formats. Everyone who listens to radio is now clear on what these formats are, because that's pretty much all that remains on radio today. There's "Top 40", which is what your station will be. There are also "easy listening", "talk", and four others.

    Clear Channel fires 4 out of your 6 local DJs and replaces them with DJs from other areas. This is how Clear Channel makes its money: it can pay one "regional" DJ $15 an hour to broadcast out to 4 regional stations, or you and 3 other stations could each pay $12 an hour to 4 DJs to do the same thing. Thus, the complaints from the listeners start to arrive about losing the "local" feel, but by then there's nothing you can do--it's all in Clear Channel's hands.

    Clear Channel takes a look at your programming and decides what you will and won't continue to play. In the case of Top 40, they give you a playlist. In the case of talk stations, they give you a list of syndicated shows and force you to drop everything that isn't on the list. (This is where On The House comes in-- every time Clear Channel buys a station out, they force the station to drop On The House in favor of their home improvement guy. We've lost several affiliates this way.)

    Let's continue with the analogy of your (er, Clear Channel's) Top 40 station. You're now forced to drop the local bits since you only have two local DJs left (and in all likelihood, they're both doing the morning show, since that's the most lucrative time for radio.) You're now fed a playlist. Clear Channel has national playlists. That means that whatever your station is playing is the same stuff that every other Top 40 station owned by Clear Channel is playing. Do you wonder why all radio stations seem to play the same stuff? If they're owned by Clear Channel, it's because they are playing the same songs.

    How does Clear Channel come up with these songs? They test-market in one market. ONE. In your case, the Top 40 stuff is tested in places like New Mexico. Yep, listeners in New Mexico are deciding what your station is going to play! Welcome to Clear Channel.

    If you're wondering why radio seems to have gone downhill, you can look no further than Clear Channel. Sadly, DJs are pretty much corporate minions these days. They no longer get to spin new local tracks, and they don't have a choice on what to air. Many of them aren't even in the studio for half or more of the time they're on air -- they pre-record bits and play them as their segment progresses.

    It's a sad time for radio. Fortunately, I believe the independents like On The House will survive. The independent radio stations will find their niche as well. I believe that Clear Channel will eventually feel the consumer backlash, much like we lashed out against high CD prices.

    Please don't shrug your shoulders about the new FCC regulations being suspended, though. Loosening these regulations is a bad thing. Clear Channel doesn't need to hurt radio any more than it already has.

    1. Re:Why this is a bad thing. by ChadN · · Score: 3, Informative

      Thanks for this post.

      For anyone who listemns to music radio these days, the effect described above can easily be seen with one singer: Avril Lavigne

      Avril has been heavily pushed by Clear Channel stations (I travel a bit, and I try to keep track of which stations are owned by Clear channel). Now, Avril has a song, "Complicated", which was a hit, and could have reasonably been seen to be worthy of about three weeks of fairly solid radio play, before dropping into the occasional play zone.

      Instead, I still hear it almost all the god damn time, after almost a year, especially when listening to a Clear Channel station. There is NO WAY that dumb, trite, banal song should be played like it is after almost a year on the chart. It is being pushed (and I suspect it is because Avril is young, and "trendy", so that by pushing the music, the fashion image can be sold on magazines, etc. which Clear Channel probably also owns, or at least has a stake in.) and the target market of teeny bopper girls can be molded in to Avril wannanbees.

      There is nothing new about all this, of course. But it has gotten so bad that is goes beyond just being noticeable. It is unescapable.

      Consider also that Clear Channel owns a great number of billboards, I've noticed, and if I did some digging, I'd assume they have a large horizontal ownership presence in many media outlets.

      Another recent Clear Channel story that hit the independent newspaper circuit was how they were caught getting permits for assembly at city parks, then having their radio stations promote "anti-anti-war protests" at these places (Their DJs would say things like "everyone go out there and do your patriotic duty supporting our president and our troops. Let's show these anti-war protestors how americans really feel"), and then send out their news teams to cover these events as if they had occured as a spontaneous assembly of people. In essence, they were creating the news that they were reporting (as well as astro-turfing; they denied this, of course, but people did research and traced the permit applications back to Clear Channel)

      So, in conclusion, Clear Channel is evil. :)

      --
      "It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
  6. Clear Channel by Michael.Forman · · Score: 3, Informative


    This site provides information on the current monopolies that dominate media due to the deregulations in the early 1990s. Extrapolate from there.

    Michael.

    --
    Linux : Mac :: VW : Mercedes
  7. I counted 42 subsidaries so far... by starvingartist12 · · Score: 3, Informative
    Fox is owned by News Corp... which owns the following (and you'll probably recognize some of them):
    1. Twentieth Century Fox
    2. Blue Sky Studios
    3. Fox Searchlight Pictures
    4. TheStreet.com (partial ownership with New York Times Co.)
    5. Healtheon/WebMD Corp. (partial ownership)
    6. FOX Broadcasting Company
    7. FOX News Channel
    8. FOX Kids Network
    9. FOX Sports (partial in some markets)
    10. The Health Network
    11. fX
    12. National Geographic's cable channel (50%)
    13. Golf Channel
    14. TV Guide Channel (44%)
    15. 22 Fox affiliated stations
    16. British Sky Broadcasting
    17. STAR TV (Asia)
    18. Fox Sports Radio Network
    19. New York Post (U.S.)
    20. The Times (U.K.)
    21. The Sun (U.K.)
    22. News of the World (U.K.)
    23. The Australian (Australia)
    24. The Daily Telegraph (Australia)
    25. The Herald Sun (Australia)
    26. The Advertiser (Australia)
    27. TV Guide (partial ownership)
    28. The Weekly Standard
    29. Maximum Golf
    30. HarperCollins General Book Group
    31. Regan Books
    32. Amistad Press
    33. William Morrow & Co.
    34. Avon Books
    35. Los Angeles Dodgers
    36. New York Knicks (partial ownership)
    37. New York Rangers (partial ownership)
    38. Los Angeles Kings (partial ownership)
    39. Los Angeles Lakers (partial ownership)
    40. Dodger Stadium
    41. Staples Center (partial ownership)
    42. Madison Square Garden (partial ownership)


    (From PBS's Merchants of Cool)