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)."
...and no rules to bind them...
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..
"If I were a record seller, I'd lay heaps of blame on radio, which used to be 80 per cent of the reason people bought music. ..... Today, that figure is closer to 20 per cent, insiders say."
I know the radio sucks, but I had no idea that the record industry felt the same way. Seems like everything to do with music needs a remodel.
"I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
Neo-conservatives strike again! Thanks Mr. Powell!
The continuing decline of the overall quality of US radio has been my primary motivation in finding alternative music sources. I tried shoutcast and spinner as well as some of the smaller webcast groups. Eventually, I just started listening to Radio 1 from the BBC. This now streams into my home 24/7 as well as my laptop at work. I have never looked back. Hopefully as folks start becoming more disgusted by the dumbed-down and monotonous crap that Clear Channel pumps into Everytown, USA, folks will start to look abroad for entertainment. The music is out there, you just have to look beyond the borders.
Here ya go!
Radio 1 - Rock and Pop
Radio 1 Xtra - Rap and Hip Hop
Some of the music is exactly what you hear in the US on Clear Channel stations, but there is a hell of a lot more music-base to generate the playlists.
While you're there, be sure to read/stream the news. CNN has been becoming even more remarkable selective in what they post lately. Another symptom of the disease that infects the deregulated media industries.
Enjoy!
It's strange indeed that the over-the-air broadcasters successfully complained about the threat of cable, when GE, Disney, Viacom and Fox are hip-deep in cable properties themselves. Gotta love them lobbyists!
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
I like all kinds of music.
As long as the radio plays both top-40 and pop, it doesn't really matter to me.
Best Windows Freeware
deserve's got nothing to do with it...
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.
Sounds like it's time to start maintainin
a list (web site, blog...) of the
non-alignend radio & TV stations....vote
with your tuner.
It increases the ownership from 35% to 45%, but prevents mergers from the big 4 (Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC). I'm not sure the % increase would make a huge difference anyway, but by not allowing the big guys to merge will keep some semblance of diversity in programming. That's assuming you think there is currently any diversity in OTA offerings.
Also the radio markets are still limited to a max. of 8 in markets of 45 or greater stations. Same issue as above, if there is no variety now, how in the world are they going to make it much worse?
-- Rick
All those found conversing with the thought criminal will be treated in the same manner. Have a nice day. Or else.
With media conglomerations owning local channels, there is no incentive to provide news with a local slant. Thus, no one will hear about local issues. Since (thanks to the incredible human intelligence) nothing exists unless we see/hear it, small cities will cease to exist. I say that only partially in jest, but think about how many local issues that get squashed because it conflicts with a more profitable (in the minds of the corporate master) slant? Local environmental impact? Oh, no. Mustn't give that airtime lest it impact the profit machines in the big cities. Also, how about this for a twist on the first amendment? Condider offensive material. People in different areas have different standards, and THAT'S OK. If your city believes that the Golden Girls are the harem of Satan, it should be able to keep Golden Girl re-runs off their local stations. More power to'em. We shouldn't force global culture to be homogenous, even in the name of "Free Speech" and equal access. Ahh... yet more reasons for rejoicing in our household. We have taken our media budget (TV, movies, etc...) and plowed it into books and other activities.
somebody sets up 'public access' style internet TV? IPv6 has great multicast handling, and we're getting more and more bandwidth at home. We essentially have all the tools, and millions of potential channels. Anything you want to watch, when you want to watch it, all for the price of cable or dsl.
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
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...
What isn't mentioned is that there is growing bipartisan distaste for this ruling. Trent Lott and several democrats have spoken out against it and are talking of bringing the issue to congress. Hopefully more republicans will jump off ship and support Lott and the others.
-Sean
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
Oceania is now allied with Eastasia. Oceania has ALWAYS been allied with Eastasia.
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
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?
Dan Gillmor wrote a column in advance of this decision, worth a read at http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/598 9915.htm
Welcome to life under the Republicans.
Do you even know what you're talking about? The current FCC Chairman was appointed by Bill Clinton. The fact that Bush made him chairman doesn't change the fact that Clinton was the one who brought him on board in the first place.
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
Except that the FCC is required to review the diversity of media every two years and decide whether or not ownership limitations need to be opposed or lifted (this was result of the 2 year anniversary from the last review). So if the media really did become a monoculture and the FCC actually did serve the public interest ... then we'd be okay.
:)
Oh yeah, you know where I learned that? NPR
Well, there were the married people making between $10,500 and $26,000 who thought they'd be seeing the increase in the child tax credit... but aren't. Sucks to be them, huh? Hah-hah!
Ooh, ooh, or those single parents filing as head-of-the-household who won't see a drop in their tax rate. Serves them right for not living like normal God-fearing people!
I say, hand me another Benjamin, Jeeves: I need to light my cigar.
AHHHHHHH! I'm burning with goodness again!
- Reakk, Sluggy Freelance
So, there are going to be two possible things that can come of this: One, the media companies will be effective at giving people what they want. In this case, both consumers and the media companies win.
The other option is that media companies are not effective at giving people what they want. In this case, people will stop listening to them and the media companies will lose. Consumers will lose a little in that the radios in their cars will become pretty much useless. However, they'll be able to branch out into other forms of entertainment -- DVDs, video games, independent music, web surfing, and so on. The real winners will be the companies that figure out how to give consumers what they want.
I think that one can make a pretty good argument that the media ownership rules have outlived their usefulness. When each city only had 4 TV stations, a dozen radio stations and one newspaper, the rules made some sense because it guaranteed a wider variety of information and entertainment. But now, if I don't like what's on my local radio station, I can stream music from some independent station across the country. If I think the news from my local ABC news/newspaper/6 favorite radio stations is biased, there are a thousand options for me on the internet.
I'd argue that local broadcast media (TV/radio) and local newspapers are something of an anachronism anyway, for everything but the local stuff. I don't receive the local paper, because I can go online and read the news (for free). I rarely watch network TV because I have 50 cable stations and I'd rather watch Comedy Central than ABC.
To me, this seems to be equivilant to complaining about how few choices we have in bus and train transportation, while ignoring the fact that we have so many choices in cars, motorcycles, scooters, bicycles, airplanes, taxis, rollerskates, subways and so on.
Just a friendly reminder to try your local national public radio stations. Although these stations aren't typically going to play current new music, often they do indeed run programs which feature new artists in various genres. Their website's music section, which lists upcomming scheduled music radio programs, reviews, and other things, is here.
At NPR's website, one can enter their zip code and your local NPR frequency will be shown to them.
On a side note, Clear Channel. Good Lord. Anyone here from Cleveland or familiar with the once-mighty WMMS? It was, during the late 60's and throughout the 70's and 80's, a great station. After several takovers and a seeming going-off-the-air-forever-stunt, Clear Channel picked them up. Today it is this pop-metal station that is the same format in every city. It is a really sad skeleton of a once-revolutionary radio station.
Loomis
"The television is the retina of the mind's eye" - Videodrome
According to this story at Yahoo, News Corp and Viacom are already in violation of the 35% reach rules as a result of mergers:
News Corp. and Viacom Inc., which owns CBS and UPN, stand to benefit from a higher national TV ownership cap because mergers have left them above the 35 percent level. Those companies, along with NBC, persuaded an appeals court last year to reject that cap and send it back to the FCC for revision.
Basically they merged, never divested some stations to become compliant, and have tying up the courts with appeals.
All this FCC decision does is take it out of the courts and make the mega-media companies happy. They have been breaking the rules all along and instead of punishment, they get rewarded. This decision does nothing good for us, the consumers, who OWN the airwaves.
Let us not forget that airwaves, just like public lands, are owned by all of us, the people.
There was a time that in exchange for having a broadcast license, a radio or television station used to have to file reports to show that they were airing programming in the public interest. Now they simply fill out a postcard for the FCC every 5 years or so. Basically they use OUR airwaves for THEIR profit and we get LESS options as a result.
If you want to make change, get out and vote. Call your senator or representative and let them know you are displeased. Believe it or not, they DO listen. They may not respond to every message, but they do keep a tally on how may letters they receive per a given subject and with enough letters, they will do something.
--Jon
I'm not necessarily talking about the FCC chairman. The vote today was along party lines. It is controlled by the republicans, 3-2.
I don't care who brought the chairman on board. It was still the republicans who voted for this.
Globe199
In a recent interview, Lowry Mays, CEO of Clear Channel, made the following remark: "We're not in the business of providing news and information. We're not in the business of providing well-researched music. We're simply in the business of selling our customers products."
Therefore, whatever you think Clear Channel is today is whatever the consumers wanted.
10,000 radio & TV stations
1,000 channels
100 years of broadcast history
10< owners
And still nothing to watch.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
[...] since they stand for what we are NOT wanting to happen to US media.
Why? As you can see the "free market" thing isn't working that well.
In fact chances are you get a more balanced view of the world by a government funded news agency (that is as long as same is in a "democratic" state) than you will get from commercial news media.
Why? Because the people who work for example at the BBC are very much aware that people think of them as the voice of the government and they will try very hard not to act as a propaganda instrument.
Now private companies like Fox don't have that trouble because everybody seems to think they are independent, when in fact they rely way more on politics than say the BBC, Deutsche Welle or the CBC.
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
Double plus good, that! Looks like news, sounds like news, but there's no news in it.
He who controls the media, controls the people.
The BBC do have the advantage that they're a government-funded public service, rather than a profit-making business. In the worst case, that'd make them as bad as you describe, but they seem to have avoided that.
:-)
(They do have pretty serious competition on mainstream TV from the commercial ITV and Channel 4, although commercial radio is bad enough here that the BBC wins by default)
They're often rather critical of the government, actually, and in many disputes they're accused of being biased by both sides, which might well mean they're uncomfortably close to being balanced.
It's amusing to see the grandparent post commenting on Radio 1's larger playlists though, since some of the Radio 1 DJs have been known to complain (subtly, of course) about the commercial crap they're made to play. I hate to think what Clear Channel must be like if that's an improvement
This has nothing to do with liberalism.
Market consolidation is just a pretty way of saying COMMUNISM.
The whole point of capitalism (for those of not Robber Barons) is the beneficial side effects of competition that arise out of multiple players existing in the marketplace. Eliminate choice and diversity from the marketplace and you are left with the unacceptable choice of either putting up with the crap or stop participating in the market.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
For the record, I believe the poster merely advocated the BBC as a source with wider variety on the entertainment content and reporting of news that is, for one reason or another, neglected in the major US media.
Nonetheless, comparing the BBC to an unregulated corporate convergence in the US media is similarly stupid. The forces involved are just too different. A service that answers to the government (nominally the public) and one that answers only to the bottom line are two entirely different things. The BBC has much more in common with, say, NPR than it does with Viacom or News Corp.
Take the FCC rule changes as a case in point. I have known about it for months because I follow things like slashdot and NPR, but the first mention I heard of it on NBC was a week ago, and on CNN just this past weekend. Gee, I can't imagine why these corporate news sources that stand to benefit most from the rule changes didn't bother to mention them until it was too late for anyone to react and they were just an aside for a foregone conclusion. This above all other things has me thinking these rule changes were a seriously bad idea.
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
Look on the bright side, kids; people in my area can, between two stations, watch The Simpsons four times on the average weekday, and soon maybe six or ten!
I for one, am quite pleased with this decision. It is a great day for Sienfeld re-reuns.
Bored with karma, be a fan/freak
Wow, I didn't realize the FCC just banned anyone from owning a radio station except those five evil corporations. What is the timetable in the FCC regulation for the police and military to storm the independent radio stations, nationalize them and then give them to the "big five?"
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
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?
Don't forget NPR along with National Association of Broadcasters has vehemently opposed community microbroadcasting. That coupled with the advertising is enough to keep me from supporting them ever.
As much as I enjoy (some of) their content I think its sometimes better to let something die to give something else the opportunity to fill the vacuum. Or we continue to limp along with the steady Clear Channelization of public radio.
Quack, quack.
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.
On at least one point...
...this was result of the 2 year anniversary from the last review
The FCC is supposed to review every 2 years, but the last review was actually 8 year ago. In another 8 years things will be pretty awful if the critics are right.
Also, if the media becomes one great big company, who is really going to go up against it? That company would effectively control politics in this country.
I'm keeping my eyes on the boarder for now.
...the Golden Rule. You know...he who has the gold makes the rules.
It's rather sad, really. Here's a good example why: My home state is North Dakota. When Grand Forks and Fargo had a three-day ice storm during the winter of '96-'97, there was a radio station in town which 24-7 covered every single piece of news or announcement related to the event. Even with the phone lines down, our high school speech team was able to use the radio to tell everybody back home that we were alright.
On the other hand, a little more than a year ago, Minot (town of about 38,000 people in central North Dakota) had a train carrying anhydrous ammonia (cheap fertilizer) that derailed in the town early in the morning. Everybody instinctively turned on the radio (either after hearing the crash, seeing a huge white cloud of ammonia coming their way, or feeling the smoke burn their lungs) to find out what was going on, only to hear music. Six of the seven radio stations in Minot are owned by ClearChannel. Afterwards, when asked for a comment, ClearChannel said that they were in the business of playing music and selling advertising, not 24-7 local news coverage.
It's about the money.
All well and good, but no doubt they will be just as open for public comment as they were on the ruling itself. Let's see, most human beings were against the rule change while monsters like Big Corporations were all that mattered.
The FCC will have a massive blindspot for the tremendous deficiencies in the media as long as Bush and buds are in power. They are NOT interested in furthering dissenting voices' (anything other than conservative Republican cheerleaders) access to the airwaves. They are NOT interested in ANYTHING that doesn't further pad the pockets of rich corporate heads in the media. They are NOT interested in anything that might produce news media that isn't 100% behind the current regime.
Unless there is a new Administration in 2 years, the rules will be a priori assumed good regardless of public comment or real evidence to the contrary.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
The Newspapers, TV Stations, and Radio stations will soon have the same parent company.
In reality this will hurt in that Newspapers will be bought by bigger corporations (clear channel), and the content will be dumbed down, local personalities will be "Right-sized" to control profit margins in place of Market researched personalities.
This hurts, and you will notice the difference. Right now newspapers and newsstations keep each other in check by double-checking facts. Soon you will have one person double-checking facts for the radio, newspaper, and television. You get one slant, one idea, and one perspective from all three. That is where the diversity will be lost. I hope you like reading BBC newspapers over the internet, because soon that's where the best news you get will come from.
To make matters worse, the review is anti-consumer.
If you look at the Media Access Page, you will see that the federal courts force the FCC to "re-justify every major ownership rule or strike it from the books" every time there is a review.
The problem here is that the same corporations that want the relaxed rules also are among the largest soft-money donors. They buy the legislators and then demand favors.
The current FCC Chairman was appointed by Bill Clinton.
That means nothing. No FCC commission may have more than three members from any one party. On top of that, Powell was appointed in 1997 when the Senate (which must approve appointees) was controlled by Republicans. So not only was Clinton required to appoint a Republican, but any choice not approved by the rest of the Republican party would have been shot down.
You and all the people who modded you up Insightful are just repeating the same tired, meaningless defense of Powell's ultra-conservative deregulation binge.
Never approach a vast undertaking with a half-vast plan.
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
Except, I don't see the option to put limitations back in. So if it does become a monoculture, there isn't much the FCC could do.
It takes a partisan 3 to 2 FCC vote to relax regulations so the conservative CEO's of Fox and Clearchannel can have yet more power, but it would take a huge (think ma-bell proportion) congressional act to cut them back down if they ever get too big.
I really wish the FCC had to explain (and justify) why they think it's in the public interest to allow mega media companies to expand further. So far their reason is, "well, we couldn't think of any good reason not to!", even though thousands of americans emailed and called in plenty of reasons against deregulation.
$8.95/mo web hosting
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.
Republicans get just a bit more than the Democrats.
Both sums are really sick though.
The Limbot is invited to tell me just what kind of "ultraliberalism" a Fortune 50 company is likely to sponsor. He is also invited to tell me about how liberal Warren Buffet is (owner of Berkshire, owner of whe Washington Post.
The whining about the "ultra-liberal" mass media used to come from conservatives.
The mass media isn't ultra-conservative, they're the same people who promote and broadcast and sell the entertainment content that the Religious Right whine about.
The proper description for the agenda of both PBS and the mass media is corporatist. The agenda is about social control via news management for the benefit of the people who buy advertising, and that isn't your average "progressive" group and that isn't the average limbot.
Tech Public Policy stuff
A few years back, when Murdoch was a Canadian citizen...
You've got your media barons confused. You're thinking of Conrad Black. Rupert Murdoch's an Aussie. Black owns lots of newspapers, whereas Murdoch only owns one (New York Post?). Not sure if Black owns any TV stations.
-- Will quantum computers run imaginary-time operating systems?