Slashdot Mirror
FCC Approves Media Consolidation
evenprime writes "You can expect more media consolidation in the future. CBS is reporting that the FCC has approved the media deregulation that was previously discussed on Slashdot. Expect Clear Channel, Viacom and their kin to get bigger, and the radio to have even less diversity (a situation that some people think is responsible for falling CD sales)."
I gave up watching TV and listening to the radio long ago. There's simply nothing good on anymore, and the radio has been crap for years. I'm sure many of you feel the same way.
RaGe
We're all just noise on the wires..
Perhaps it will be up to PBS to step up and become a real news source much like NPR is on the radio. (True NPR as its own biases, but they seem much less pronounced than any of my alternatives.)
Has Powell, at ANY point, actually outlined how he thinks that allowing for further broadcast television consolidation will help it compete with cable? I could have SWORN the main reason people get cable was for the diversity of the programming.
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
Soon, there will only be a single, united group of consolidated conglomerates, where it will be impossible to discern if what you are watching is entertainment, news, or just a clever marketing ploy. The saddest part of all is that the average citizen doesn't know or care. From American Idol to soundalike "Gangsta Rap," -trademark used by permission of ClearChannel - it is a seamless integration into our culture, where we are being trained by the richest 1% to be complacent with whatever is produced. The ultimate goal is to turn our lives into an MTV frenzy.
And it is working.
During the Iraq war I heard it said that the Iraqis had state run media, controlled entirely by the government.
We have corporate controlled media. Which is worse, I wonder?
Like figuring out which dildo hurts least going in...
Jukebox Jihad
That whole comment and the "What would Elvis do to stop piracy?" really annoys me to death. The Jihad comment for taking the word of the month (you know, terror, evil people, so on, so forth), and appling it to something that doesn't relate in the least.
Why doesn't the industry start talking about real leaks in their profits? Bad press for suing kids for $97 billion comes to mind, a price fixing scandal in the mid 90's gets on that list too, but above all, the state of music, the state of repetative crap that continues to be put out... it's like if 31 flavors determined that most people liked choclate and vanilla. You could get those two and only those two flavors at the counter. The others were still available, but you would have to go to black-market 31 flavors to enjoy it, all the while being called a criminal for spending money you never would have spent if you never made the effort to look for more flavors in the first place.
The industry must nevertheless also content itself with conducting business on a more modest scale, painful though the process might be. No one needs to spend in excess of $40 million on a record, as Sony did with Michael Jackson's 2001 flop, Invincible, for instance, when the White Stripes can muster a hit record for $10,000.
That's because the White Stripes is good, and Michael Jackson is getting old. By the way, I like how they skip mentioning that the "flop" sold many millions of records, just not on the same scale as previous, and I don't believe that "Elephant" (latest White Stripes) has cracked 1 million sold anywhere yet...
SecondPageMedia - Wha
I know the radio sucks, but I had no idea that the record industry felt the same way.
The music industry hates radio monopoly for the same reason consumers do -- if you own all the stations, it's a lot easier to demand more payola^H^H^H^H^Hmarketing support from the record companies, since they can't shop their product around to other stations as easily.
But don't worry, someone *cough*Disney*cough*AOL-TW*cough* will figure out that if you own the labels and the stations, it's an even better deal.
The agency was also six months behind on completing its biennial review. Under a congressional law, the FCC is supposed to revisit its media rules every two years. ... and some urged the agency to ignore its deadline.
Revisiting the rules so frequently gives too much opportunity for rules to relax to quickly.
It's like continually asking the question "were we right?", then rolling the dice.
It's a complex issue, requiring lots of information to be collected and assessed. If this is rushed, it makes it too easy to make a bad call.
To badly paraphrase "the progress of a society cannot be increased just by speeding it up".
I think the Ents had it right.
Esteem isn't a zero sum game
Is that this is a good thing for content producers. Think of it this way:
When consumers major media outlets completely cease to produce anything other than plain gelatin in terms of content, who will fill the void? More and more media choices are available every day. Even through the mainstream channel of cable and satellite options, there are more choices and more content produced.
When people find something creative and appealing, it will give a leg up on the regurgitated reality fare offered by the major players.
Anyone who thinks that they get the straight scoop from any major outlets - NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, Fox News, slashdot.... - needs to have their preconceptions evaluated.
The future of broadcasting is not to be found in the major media outlets. They will be left behind by the next generation of media. It's coming, and making programming more mindless will only hasten the death of TV as we know it.
This could be a great thing.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
...and no rules to bind them...
Gee, and why should they? After all, companies know what's best for the consumer, right? Hey, I want all of my news and entertainment to come from just a couple companies who can disseminate their news, products and viewpoints, that way we are not so confused by different sides of reality.
I'll tell ya folks, the truth is about to become muddier to the average citizen, and yet much more difficult to discern for those that actually are interested in the truth.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
What exactly have you seen/heard/read during the administration of the FCC by Michael Powell that would indicate to you that any decision they've ever made was done to serve the public interest?
That's fine for Fox to refuse certain ads, in the current environment anyway. Now imagine a future where Newscorp or clearchannel or disney owns 98% of a market - they will control all info. You won't even know what the issues are because you will never hear about them.
The internet is inadequate for solving this problem. Start looking for the "friendly cooperation" links - like the WashPost/Newsweek/MSNBC cluster. Nice, eh? The truth is that Big Media controls a lot of the internet too. Popular exceptions are rare - Drudge Report, for instance - but often lack "credibility" in the minds of many.
What is with the bias against large companies? It always amazes me that almost everyone on Slashdot is against any large company simply BECAUSE it's a large company. What's so bad with a large company controlling more of what you see and hear? Think about it logically... which might be tough for some of you government-school-educated youngsters...
A company is concerned with profit. Profit comes from customers. Customers come from people that are pleased with what you provide. If you don't please people with what you provide, you don't get customers, and you don't make a profit. If you don't make a profit, you go out of business, and someone else takes your place. The Big Corporations aren't the enemy... the public is the enemy. If the public is diversified enough to demand more variety in their television and radio, then the Big Corporations will create more programming to suit those needs. If those needs aren't being filled, a new company will be formed to fill them (and at worst, the Big Corporation will buy the small company when it becomes a menace to their profits, but the Big Corporation will keep the programming that made them successful, thus increasing their profit).
I don't see how politics has anything to do with the FCC's decision, but as long as you bring it up, nobody said anything when ABC, CBS, and NBC were the only stations in the market, so why worry now that Fox (and Rupert Murdoch) are becoming successful? Again, the law of supply and demand kicks in.
Step 1: Demand conservative-biased news reporting.
Step 2: Supply conservative-biased news reporting.
Step 3: Profit!
Why is this so difficult to understand? With all the coverage it's getting, you can hardly say that the "current regime" is "NOT interested in anything that might produce news media that isn't 100% behind" them. It's the simplest of economic rules and it's been working since the dawn of time, yet you continue to put the political spin on it. Why are you so afraid of a little competition from someone who obviously understand economics?
"It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
This surprised me not at all.
A few years back, when Murdoch was a Canadian citizen, he tried to get British Peerage, which is illegal for Canadians and so was blocked by the Prime Minister. This did not please Murdoch and so the issue became front-page news on the National Post, the Canadian national newspaper he'd founded not long before. That's right--he used his newspaper chain as a venue for a temper tantrum. (IIRC, Murdoch eventually gave up Canadian citizenship so he could get his lordship. Good riddance, I say.)
More seriously, he also ordered all of his papers to run editorials opposing a particular major land-claim settlement with various First Nations groups.
And then, there was the town that got so pissed off at him that they started their own local newspaper.
Anyway, y'all had best start investing in printing presses and broadcast licenses. The only way you'll get decent media now is if you make it yourselves.