FCC Plan Will Result in Freedom Of or From the Press?

macduffman writes "Kevin Martin, Chairman of the FCC, has fired a volley in the war against media moguls ... or is it in the war against freedom of the press? An article in the Editor and Publisher describes the plan to ban cross-ownership in the same market (i.e., owning a newspaper and a broadcast station in the same city). Several waivers exist for some current ownerships, but would not be passed on to new owners. The plan calls for public comment beginning in mid-November, and the FCC would vote on it a month later." This follows an unpopular 2003 decision by the FCC that was eventually invalidated by the courts. At issue is the speed at which this complex decision is being carried out: "Media consolidation opponents said Wednesday that the chairman may be moving too fast. Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., said that one month for the public to consider the rule is not enough time. 'If that's his intention, it's going to subvert the public interest,' he said. 'The FCC needs to learn a lesson here from what happened previously.'" Update: 10/19 17:58 GMT by Z :Rewritten for clarity.

Comments

That is freedom OF

[unity100]

plain and neat. It is for ensuring nobody gets the nation in their grip by grabbing them on all fronts of media. Like hearst and so on in the past.

Re:That is freedom OF

[MyLongNickName]

While I understand your position, I am always very skeptial when the gov't steps in to "fix" the media. While there is precedent for this type of behavior, my concern is that the law will be applied in an inequitable manor. Is "more minorities" a code word for more liberal points of view? If so, then we should not be having the government step in to enforce so called quotas.

Re:That is freedom OF

[Reader X]

I think that this is more of an attempt to get the horse back in the barn, which should be interesting, conisdering how prevalent the massive media conglomerates are, at least in the USA.

Re:That is freedom OF

[dgatwood]

The problem is this: print is dying. A lot of what keeps print media and news radio and other niche services alive is the cross-promotion on other media outlets in the same market. Were it not for that, we'd have even fewer newspapers than the already vanishingly small number that we have today. At this point, I think web publishing is quickly emerging as a replacement for what the print media used to be, and there's only so much we should do to force the independence of what amounts to a dying medium.

Even as someone who generally supports laws to limit ownership of large numbers of media outlets in a single market, I find myself against the cross-ownership rules. That's not the right way to ensure freedom of the press. What we need are laws that undo the consolidation of the radio industry that we've already seen (and the continuation of the laws we have that protect TV from the same fate).. We need to:

• Limit the number of radio stations in a single market by any single entity to three sets of call letters (which might each include one FM and one AM station with the same call letters).
• Require that Clear Channel and Infinity Broadcasting (and any other conglomerates that violate the rule) divest themselves of those interests within 12 months after these laws go into effect or lose the licenses.
• Mandate local ownership by setting a maximum of 50% of the radio stations in a market that may be owned by any company or individual not headquartered within the station's reception range.

That is how you ensure freedom of the press---not by preventing one individual from being able to control a single stack of local media (a TV station, a radio station, and a newspaper), but by ensuring that for any given medium, there are multiple independent outlets through which different voices can be heard.

Re:That is freedom OF

[Apu]

Mandate local ownership by setting a maximum of 50% of the radio stations in a market that may be owned by any company or individual not headquartered within the station's reception range. Not that I'm disagreeing with the spirit of your suggestions but the devil is in the details...

• Clear Channel NYC, Inc. will own stations in New York and Clear Channel LA, Inc. will own stations in Los Angeles, whether or not they are subsidies of Clear Channel (based in Texas) or independent licensees of the Clear Channel brand or whatever other paper structure you want.
• I can watch Superstation TBS anywhere in the country so its all in reception range.
• I can buy a copy of today's Washington Post printed in some Seattle suburb. Which Washington is it local too?

Its only because of those details and the need to digest them that I think one-month from public comments to vote is too short a period of time.

Re:That is freedom OF

[mrchaotica]

Limit the number of radio stations in a single market by any single entity to three sets of call letters (which might each include one FM and one AM station with the same call letters).

Why three? Why not one?

Re:That is freedom OF

[Gr8Apes]

Actually, I'd say no corporation can own more than 20% or 3 stations, whichever is lower, in any given market (not call letter, but actual broadcasting entities). Furthermore, while ownership of TV and Radio stations isn't as big a deal, given the number of each, newspapers probably should be separated, as there usually is only a single paper in a city.

The rest I agree with.

I can personally attest to what happens when a single corporation comes rolling in and buys up, say, 7 stations in a single location. No one here that I know listens to radio anymore, because all 7 stations now play from 3 lists, and you can switch stations and hear the same song, esp during rush hour (that just plays to the payola contingent). ClearChannel basically came in and bought all the rock/pop and CW stations in the area, and we now have Jack-FM and an independent as the only alternatives to the CC drivel.

Re:That is freedom OF

[Anonymous Coward]

Is "more minorities" a code word for more liberal points of view? Afraid people who don't look and think like you might get to be heard?

Re:That is freedom OF

[dgatwood]

If each conglomerate is limited to three FM stations in a market, you'd still have about 33 companies in any market instead of the average of 2 companies we have today in most major markets even if you didn't do anything more than that rule.

With regards to your second point, satellite channels should not be limited, as satellite bandwidth really isn't a highly constrained resource. The Washington Post would be irrelevant if this rule gets killed, so I'm not sure why you mentioned it.

As for needing more than a month, I doubt they'll get more than a few hundred comments nationwide, and that's a very generous estimate. Not that many people care who owns print media outlets, and that's really all that this proposed rulemaking affects.

Re:That is freedom OF

[epee1221]

If each conglomerate is limited to three FM stations in a market, you'd still have about 33 companies in any market instead of the average of 2 companies we have today in most major markets even if you didn't do anything more than that rule.

I'm curious as to where you're getting these numbers. Most places I've been, the "three stations per company" would mean there are about two companies broadcasting.

Re:That is freedom OF

[dgatwood]

Why not one? Because there are a hundred and one usable frequencies in the FM band... fifty-one if you throw away all the first adjacents (which is commonly done on either side of higher power stations). If you really had fifty-one stations all competing independently, you'd have to have an extremely large market area to support anything approaching that level of competition effectively. Most stations would probably just shut down if you limited it to a single station per market.

Also, some markets are fairly large geographically. Limiting it to a single station in a market would likely mean that some areas of the population would not have any radio stations that are less than an hour away. Far from promoting local station ownership, that would actively discourage local station operations.

For example, take a look at the Tennessee TV market map. In particular, look at the Nashville, TN market. It's that light green area that covers roughly a third of the state. For TV, a limit of one station in a market that size is okay, as most TV stations are in significant metro areas (Nashville, Knoxville, Chattanooga, Memphis, Jackson, and the tri-cities area). For radio, though, it's insane. At last count, there were 406 radio stations in Tennessee, many of which are in smaller areas.

For example, my home town of 8,000 people had radio stations. The most significant grouping of independent stations was the Thunderbolt Broadcasting family of stations, which consisted of four FM and one AM. That didn't seem too far out. They had one country, one oldies, one adult contemporary, and one classic hits. Going much beyond that number of stations in a single market, however, would be too much. They were, IMHO, a really good example of what radio broadcasting should be. They had an AM talk/news station associated with it, they regularly covered local events (high school athletics, band supper, etc.), and pumped money back into the community, sponsoring college scholarships, etc. I don't want to see the desire to regulate radio conglomerates result in laws that hurt folks like Paul.

Re:That is freedom OF

[dgatwood]

I'm just not seeing the desire of radio or TV station conglomerates to control a bunch of newspapers. With TV and radio, there are obvious benefits to being in a conglomerate. You can pretty much publish the same story. WIth newspapers, apart from a few papers with broad appeal, most people buy them for local news. That means that it has to be collected locally by local people. You can't realistically consolidate it and expect to keep your readers. As a result, the advantage of owning lots of newspapers just isn't there.

However, there is an advantage to owning a newspaper and a radio station or TV station that provides news coverage: the radio/TV news coverage would improve because they would have a staff of reporters who generate enough content for a regular newspaper to help provide content instead of just the radio/TV folks who merely have to get enough information to fill four or five three-minute packages. The result is that people would be better informed than they are now (since most people don't actually read the newspaper, as I mentioned).

In effect, eliminating this rule has the potential to take a news outlet that is largely ignored and bring some portion of its content to the foreground. It's hard to see that as a bad thing, considering the abysmal state of radio/TV news. :-)

Re:That is freedom OF

[dgatwood]

Most larger markets have pretty much clogged spectrum. You have 101 FM radio slots (20 MHz band, one station every .2 MHz, plus one for the other endpoint of the range), so divide by three. Actually, though, that's off by a factor of about 1.5 because you can't realistically use first adjacents for higher power commercial stations, so it's probably more on the order of twenty. In any case, it would be way more than two.

Bear in mind that I'm talking about per market. Markets are generally pretty big geographically. A market is generally defined as being a metro area plus the surrounding areas up to a geographical barrier or up to the typical range of an average station, though there are exceptions (San Jose, CA and San Francisco, CA are two separate markets, for example, and probably should not be, since they are so heavily overlapping). The next ones over are, I believe, Monterey-Salinas-Santa Cruz (geographically separated by mountains to a large degree) and Sacramento (separated by a pretty good distance).

Re:That is freedom OF

[mabhatter654]

Ownership rules are already in place. But a few years ago, they started allowing them to buy cross platform.. TV/radio/newspapers when they didn't used to. The market immediately consolidated as the big players simply put local shops out of business. Media collusion is also part of the problem. Mandatory payments that ASCAP/BMI and the TV networks demand pretty much rules out local ownership. The media use rules are so steep only big players can follow them all and pay the fees. Even if you could afford to buy the equipment with cash from your piggybank, unless you get "kickbacks" for running the media and required advertisements, it's almost impossible to make a radio/TV station make money because even if you produce 100% of your own media you still have royalty issues to deal with, it's that crazy. Why do you think even places like NPR have very little music and PBS rarely shows non-member funded productions? This rule is a step to roll back the problem, or at least change the scope a little bit. There has been a 35% ownership rule (expanded from 25%) for years, but then the media companies just bought up cross-media in it's place. As many stations in "out state" America serve large geographic areas, it's easy to lock up nearly all of the market.

Re:That is freedom OF

[WheelDweller]

Right, and Soros and the Democratic party in the present.

It should send shivers down your spine with 13 different news outlets describe the same political news using the same catch-phrase...but if you don't listen, for example, to Limbaugh where he plays them, you'll never notice the programming taking place...

Like with Harriet Myer (who was a bad choice, btw) "Chronyism" from CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, and on and on.

Like "Phony soldiers" repeated lock-step, amplifying *even more* something that never happened. It's like all the so-called 'leaders' in the media are all on IRC, just before the decide to publish. Everyone but Fox News. (Not to mention all the cable news shows, The View, and every other place the programming can take hold.) Spooky.

Re:That is freedom OF

[epee1221]

Ok, I didn't realize the reach of a "market" was all that large. Back home (near Chicago), there's only a dozen stations I can hear, though "what I can hear" probably doesn't even touch most of the collar counties.

Re:That is freedom OF

[PopeRatzo]

I am always very skeptial when the gov't steps in to "fix" the media.

Why is that?

I'm always skeptical when people in the US are skeptical of their own government, since when it's working right, the government is us.

I'm skeptical to the extent that corporations have increasingly become the government. We need to go back to the public running the government instead of private interests owning it.

Most of this "skepticism" of the government is a canard that's been propagated by the authoritarian Right Wing. For some reason, it seems like whenever someone is elected who wants to have "smaller government" it ends up being "smaller" in the sense of fewer people running things and "smaller" in the sense of "small-minded".

And before you start giving us the example of the DMV, saying "would you want the media run by the DMV" (or, "would you want health care run by the DMV" or "would you want schools run by the DMV"), let me ask you: Would you want the media run by your cable company? ..or your telecom? ..or your credit card company? ..or how 'bout your insurance company?

I can ask the same question about health care, schools, etc. And by the way, the last time I got my driver's license renewed, the DMV was very efficient and well-run. I was in and out in less than 15 minutes. What happened the last time you tried to get something done with your cable company, or an insurance company, or a telecom?

People who say that private industry does everything better than government has been listening to too much "conservative" radio. This is one of those areas where "conventional wisdom" is a bill of goods sold to us by people who do not have our interests in mind.

Re:That is freedom OF

[MyLongNickName]

Most of this "skepticism" of the government is a canard that's been propagated by the authoritarian Right Wing.

Most of this skepticism was started by our founding fathers. You might want to read some history books.

Re:That is freedom OF

[Foobar of Borg]

Most of this "skepticism" of the government is a canard that's been propagated by the authoritarian Right Wing.

Most of this skepticism was started by our founding fathers. You might want to read some history books.

Well, you are certainly right as far as you mean it, but I believe the GP poster was referring to the modern American Right Wing notion that government cannot be the solution (or at least the vehicle of the solution) for any of our problems. For example, Ronald Reagan (in)famously said something like "Government is not the solution to the problem. Government *is* the problem."

Re:That is freedom OF

[Garrett Fox]

I find it odd that "freedom of the press" means heavily regulating the press, especially whenever the "Fairness Doctrine" comes up. Wouldn't actual press freedom mean allowing people to own, operate and start whatever media outlets they chose, not subject to censorship by the FCC? I can understand the desire to make sure multiple voices get heard and not just a conglomerate like AOL/ Time/Warner/Newsweek/Etc., but isn't the next logical step beyond controlling ownership, controlling content more heavily? For instance, if we say there ought to be a law mandating local ownership, why not also force stations to show local programming or hire local hosts?

With modern technology, it should be possible to have an arbitrary number of channels available for various media, such that it's not physically possible to own all outlets. This is already true for newspapers, since there's always the possibility of a new one opening.

Re:That is freedom OF

[Anonymous Coward]

99% of time government is not a solution to our problems.

Re:That is freedom OF

[PopeRatzo]

Thank you for clarifying for me.

We have to also remember that our Founding Fathers used that skepticism to write our Constitution and start a government by, of and for the people.

Re:That is freedom OF

[mrchaotica]

If you really had fifty-one stations all competing independently, you'd have to have an extremely large market area to support anything approaching that level of competition effectively.

I don't believe it. No, you'd instead have stations lowering their costs by running more esoteric programming, sort of like NPR or college radio.

Also, some markets are fairly large geographically. Limiting it to a single station in a market would likely mean that some areas of the population would not have any radio stations that are less than an hour away.

That's a manufactured problem, an artifact of the status quo. Instead of fretting about stations requiring too much power, you just break up the "market" into smaller chunks! Then you solve the "station too far away" problem and "equipment cost (for high-power broadcasts) too high" problem all at once!

Besides, your statement doesn't make sense anyway -- we're talking about single stations per owner, not single stations per market, and I already rejected your assertion that stations would go out of business.

For example, my home town of 8,000 people had radio stations. The most significant grouping of independent stations was the Thunderbolt Broadcasting family of stations, which consisted of four FM and one AM. That didn't seem too far out. They had one country, one oldies, one adult contemporary, and one classic hits. Going much beyond that number of stations in a single market, however, would be too much.

You're not making any sense. If my idea were implemented, you'd still have four FM and one AM stations; they'd just be owned by five different companies! And they wouldn't have any national conglomerates to compete with In fact, far from destroying your favorite stations, it would make every station more like your favorites!

Way to read the article

[StealthyRoid]

The lede doesn't match the article at all. What's actually going on is this:

Currently, there's an FCC rule preventing multiple media channel ownership by teh same company in the same city/region. You can get waivers for this, but it's kind of a pain in the ass. What the current FCC chair wants to do is abolish that rule, allowing companies to own as many media channels (ie, a newspaper, a TV, and a radio station) as they'd like. In general, the Republican appointees support this plan, the Democrat appointees oppose it. Regardless, however, the post states the exact OPPOSITE of what's really happening.

Re:Way to read the article

[geeknado]

Right-- and the real concern here is what was stated by the Consumers Union representative...That a few companies could rapidly gain total ownership of all media outlets in a given area, driving out both competition and differing opinions in the local press. Your region might have a single 'voice' in the media, which is not a positive thing.

All that said, the relevance of radio and newspapers has diminished greatly over time. There're few truly independent radio stations in most cities, and most independent newspapers are struggling financially...This is not necessarily due to monopolistic practices, but rather the viability of their business models since so much of their potential consumer base is absorbed by television and internet media sources. While I am not in favor of abolishing the rule on general principle, I am not sure if this would be the same sort of catastrophe that it would have been 25 years ago.

Re:Way to read the article

[LWATCDR]

Depending on how hard it is to get the waiver I would current system is better than getting ride of them.
For example in a small town I could see one company owning both a Spanish radio station and newspaper.
I would worry about one company owning ALL the TV or Radio stations that serve and area.
I would like to see the public service requirements brought back as well but hey that is just me.

Re:Way to read the article

[Walt Dismal]

Indeed, the post does not truly spell things out. A critical problem with the FCC proposal is that any media conglomerate that comes to dominate the media outlets in an area then has an inordinate ability to shape political contests to its own will.

For example, let's say Rupert Murdoch comes to dominate Smallville, USA. He could then elect to minimize coverage of certain local candidates in favor of ones who would reciprocate his favors if elected. Clearly this drives special interests over public interests. Such a monopoly is the antithesis of a free market.

Imagine if Microsoft controlled all news media in a town, and you objected to schools buying Microsoft products over using open source. Or Wal-Mart owned the media outlets in a town and supported candidates for office who did not object to destruction of local merchants by the big box. A fair system would have some amount of healthy competition between media, and their coverage, thus helping guard against such domination.

Re:Way to read the article

[jellomizer]

Well this is the problem with Press.

a. If it is not interesting people wont pay attention to it.
b. Going to much in depth looses people interest in the topic
c. less people interested means loss of revenue.
d. Loss of revenue means you can loose you job.

e. if you make it interesting you need to cut the depth and trigger emotions
f. to trigger emotions you need to make a Good guy who has been harmed and a Bad guy causing the harm.
g. The person being portrait as a bad guy doesn't like being a bad guy so he shows how the good guy isn't that good.
h. the previous good guy does the same in retaliation.
i. creating interest boosting sales and company gets stronger.

Option for this problem is to create Government controled media. Which has its problems too.
a. If you are paid by the government and the person controlling your purse strings does something wrong you will turn a blind eye to it.
b. Government can control what is shown and what isn't, even if it isn't an official rule.
c. Failure to do so will cost jobs.

Re:Way to read the article

[dgatwood]

You need to clarify your comment a bit. I suspect you understand the issue, but your wording could confuse people into thinking that this rule is about something that it is not really about.

This is not about wanting to own an unlimited number of media outlets. Most people want limitations on that. This is about owning an arbitrary number of types of media outlets---that is, if you own any number of radio or TV stations in a given market, you cannot also own a newspaper. There really is not a good reason for that sort of limit, and I support tearing down that limitation. It really isn't important to have such a restriction for print anymore, as print really isn't that important anyway in the grand scheme of things.

At this point, all this law is really doing is A. preventing newspaper companies from easily diversifying into more viable media like radio and TV, and B. making it harder to sell off print properties, thus encouraging less profitable print properties to be shut down entirely. Thus, I think it would be a great idea to shoot it in the head. I've thought the law was a bit silly since I first learned about it a decade ago. While this might seem counterintuitive to those folks who remember print back in its heyday, killing this law off is likely to significantly increase freedom of the press by allowing print publishers to expand into TV and radio, thus helping to reduce the current radio duopoly that we are seeing between Clear Channel and Infinity.

The law made sense when print was king, but in this day and age, it is an anachronism that only serves to hasten print's demise.

Re:Way to read the article

[geeknado]

I agree with many of your points, although I'd suggest there're other ways to 'make it happen' beyond government control-- consider NPR as an example. NPR has a combination of grants, listener, and corporate contributions that make it viable...That said, it's not clearly beholden to anybody in particular, so you get an interesting mix of perspectives and coverage of events that most of our other media outlets ignore.

On the downside, NPR tends to be extremely esoteric, and thus mostly captures the attention of a subset of our culture that /desires/ depth in media. I don't think it's hard to make a case that that's not the majority right now. Now, he news is all about making money. That wasn't always the case...There was definitely a time where the TV news in particular was sort of like an art competition between outlets-- who could do the 'best' news, relative to the competition. There seemed to be a sort of honor in the whole thing that kept it going...That's long gone now, I'm afraid(and has been for most of my lifetime).

Re:Way to read the article

[jellomizer]

Well NPR falls into the same problems. They will do what their listeners want. The Local Public Radio in my Area is Extremely Liberal (Like Fox news for democrats) Why because the people want to listen to Liberal Extremism and hear how the democrats are the good guys over the Evil Republicans. Because everyone likes their side to be the good guys. They tend to get a little more normal shortly after the fund drive and start getting more liberal around fund drive time. It is the same thing, they just think they are more noble about it.

Re:Way to read the article

[geeknado]

I believe that NPR does have something of a liberal bias but, in terms of coverage, they seem to work extremely hard to describe both sides of the equation. There are fewer talking heads and more on-site reporting/interviews with people.

This is more akin to old-school reporting, where biases are secondary to substantive programming. I can't speak to your local station's programming, obviously, but this seems to be true of the national programs such as "All Things Considered", where I'd challenge you to find someone actually portraying any figure anywhere as "evil". Fox News, by contrast, penetrates every story with subjective statements, and applies a much more obvious filter in terms of what they actually bother to report. I'm not basing that on NPR(hopefully obviously), I'm basing it on observations derived from my own consumption patterns, which involve media from many sources, some of which are international.

Re:Way to read the article

[rickb928]

In case you were wondering how important print really is, consider:

- Many of the 'print' media are still the source for other media outlets. Reuters, AP, et al.

- Print is coming to the Internet in a big way. Yes, it's been here for a while, but now they are getting serious.

- And print is still relevant even to /.'rs, cause you are reading it NOW. This is print. Video and audio, a.k.a. Television and Radio, are different.

Preventing conglomerates from owning all three of the major media types in a market is not a bad thing. Imagine the joy of finding out that the radio report you just heard is merely the soundtrack of the video report everyone else is screaming about, which is merely a regurgitation of the print report nobody read in the first place except the blaggers and wackos.

And you were hoping for the least bit of variety, depth, or integrity in U.S. journalism? Keep reducing the sources, the actual 'creators' of stories, and we will get less of everything.

Especially the truth.

I'm in favor of more restriction, in a way that serves the public interest. Especially in the broadcast media, where they use a public resource, the airways, to disseminate their product. At least in 'print', there isn't much restriction on buying presses, paper, ink, and/or a server.

Re:Way to read the article

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, NPR's liberal tendencies are more restricted to their commentary/talk shows than in their actual news reporting (e.g. compare Day to Day with All Things Considered).

Re:Way to read the article

[bendodge]

The rule smacks of "Fairness Doctrine", which is "fix" for something the free market didn't get right. Apparently all those commuters listen to Limbaugh on accident. Or, better for us tinfoil hatters, those nasty conservatives put magnets in all the radio dials!

I for one applaud efforts to deregulate the free market. Supply and demand tends to work pretty well.

Re:Way to read the article

[geeknado]

Generally, I am a free market capitalist. I think that the problem here is that the news isn't necessarily best governed by either governments or markets. Where either has full sway, the useful purpose of the news-- conveyance of meaningful facts to the public-- is lost. If the government regulates news agencies, censorship is likely to occur. Where the market dictates what is newsworthy, things skew strongly towards sensationalism. Where news monopolies appear due to consolidation, biases become increasingly exaggerated.

All in all, I think you just have to watch the nightly news on any major network and compare it to a tape of the same from, say, 15 years ago to see where monetizing news programs too extremely gets you. Fear sells; depth does not. This used to not be so problematic, as networks actually used news as a sort of 'badge of honor', seemingly not particularly concerned about direct capital returns.

Honestly? I have to wonder how much CNN's emergence is responsible for this shift...By presenting news literally 24-7 with a clearly ad-driven model, suddenly the 'competition' angle wasn't sufficient to drive network news. In essence, stockholders knew what they were missing. Fox News, particularly, takes this whole idea to an extreme, since they for years managed to make the majority concerns feel like a minority by contrasting with the "liberal bias" of the rest of the media. My own feelings about the network aside, it was brilliant marketing strategy-- establish a clear market by openly defining your own bias, presenting that as a good that 'corrected' an imbalance...Just such wonderfully effective playing to a particular crowd.

I digress. The point is, the media ideally serves as a check to government /and/ corporate interests. A free press allows the people to hold each accountable. A marginalized, commercialized press fails at this most basic function and is, in essence, useless. It has become about entertainment. That's a huge problem that needs a solution.

Re:Way to read the article

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. The rules allowing media consolidation that you are promoting are the reason there is a radio duopoly. Allowing for more media consolidation is only going to (duh!) increase consolidation and decrease the voices available to the public.

Re:Way to read the article

[Hyperspite]

I don't think it's fair to equate this rule to the fairness doctrine which I also disagree with. The fairness doctrine made sure each side had equal time. What this rule tries to do is create more voices, regardless of their opinion. Media is not a business like others as their primary purpose is to get many opinions out. Media consolidation defeats the point of having a free press as the government can get into bed with just a few big players.

radio and newspapers seem to be dieing, cannot a

[Anonymous Coward]

Radio and newspapers seem to be dieing. Cannot different skin
color folks, women, and pets now own and run a website?

Or are they only referring to the old media that I can barely
tolerate reading/listening to? (I like AM talk shows tho).

I wonder if the generations that count on the old media will
simply fade away and this will all become a moot point.

random thoughts while i wait for php-extensions to compile.
have a nice day.

If no one else will....

[Anonymous Coward]

So how does the statement about women and people of color fit in here? Sounds more like breaking up monopolies which would in turn allow greater diversity of ownership. Is politics this retarded? To throw in some comment like that just to stir up controversy between ideologies??? What... The... Hell... Also, how would this promote that media outlets are consolidated under one company? Isn't this the opposite??

-AC FOR LIFE

But it only applies to new ownership?

[gethoht]

If it's the case that it only applies to new ownership, then it doesn't really change things that much as the current set of media moguls is really what needs to be broken up. All this bill would effectively do is prevent serious competition to the current media empire, no?

This is good

[Anonymous Coward]

Media monopolies are good for no one except the companies that own them.

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

This slashdot story shows the sort of functional illiteracy we've come to expect.

Who cares?

[pablo_max]

I mean really. Who the hell cares about this? Do you honestly trust these mega media giants to bring you the "real" news anyhow? I mean for the guy that turns on FOX news for his "no spin" news show is still going to get the program served up to him in the way he is used to while the rest of us who want to know whats really going on in our country and the world will do like we always to and turn to BBC or even spiegel.de to here about it. Lets face it, the news in this country has not been real news in a long long long time and this new stance from the FCC is not going to change anything. Americans will continue to get there spoon fed candy covered news....just the way they like it ;)

Re:Who cares?

[nebaz]

Uhhh...has it ever occurred to you that the reason we have these huge mega media giants in the first place is because the FCC has been relaxing ownership rules for media for years, allowing there to be fewer and fewer owners of media? Requiring smaller media ownership provides diversity of viewpoint much more easily than not. My grandfather was upset about newspaper conglomeration back in the 70's, and he warned of a day when there would be two or three huge media companies. It's because of apathy that this has been allowed to happen. News of all things should not be oligarchical.

Re:Who cares?

[RingDev]

Just remember that when Clear Channel buys out your local PBS station and starts broad casting "Barney, the created by God Dinosaur" children's show which features Barney and his friend Stegie giving a very white skinned couple named Adam and Eve taxi services around their over-sized garden.

Also, there are 3 stations in my broadcast area that carry the BBC broadcasts, headlines, and a number of other world news sources. I can learn more from a 3 minute BBC blurb in an extended commercial break than I can from an hour of Fox news.

-Rick

Re:Who cares?

[zippthorne]

Yeah, we had much more diversity when it was just CBS, NBC, and ABC.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your an ass, with your lambasting of Fox your claiming the BBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC as purveyors of truth, your on fucking crack and your gonna lose the next election...again despite liberal and anti-american sheer market dominance in both national and global markets.

      You assholes have the market tied up, receive taxpayer dollars for that other fucking waste of time NPR, the National Propaganda Resource which is a taxpayer subsidized slant machine. Your Airhead America failed and so are the others I have mentioned and all to FOX. One media mogul and his empire is running all of you ragged. 1 little old mogul against a world filled with you and your ilk.

      You just dont get it do you along with Olberman, Rather or Mathews, your fucking clueless, you dope.

      God Help Us from the likes of you, yeah God bitch

Re:Who cares?

[nebaz]

Think newspapers. Also, how many independently owned local TV stations still exist?

Re:Who cares?

[unitron]

Don't you just love the eloquence, grammatical elegance, and calm even-handedness with which the Limbaugh worshippers express themselves?

Re:Who cares?

[danbeck]

Who cares indeed. It's garbage news suited to a template that only applies to the left leaning in the country.

For example, Limbaugh just sold the Reid censorship letter on eBay's charity division for $2,100,100 and for more than any item has *ever* been sold before on eBay. The 2nd largest auction was Jay Leno's motorcycle auction that went for $800,000. As of 5pm today, search CNN, search NBC news, ABC, CBS, what do you find? Nothing. MSNBC does have a single story, but it's a rant on some editorial blog. The only major news outlet to even acknowledge the fact was Foxnews. Go on, I dare you to search. The truth is scary.

It's jaw dropping that there are so many ignorant sheep in this country that bleat about media corporations and bias, but their own champions of journalism don't even hide the fact that they only see one side of every story.

What are you people so scared of? You moan and whine about diversity and skin color, but people who think different than you have to be silenced? You are all Stalinists and fascists. The American people exist to be free and to think freely, not to blindly follow your liberal moral code.

how?

[Harin_Teb]

Out of curiosity...

How does one address the lack of ownership by minorities and women? It seems to me that it would not be possible to "force" minorities and women to buy media outlets, nor would it be possible to force people to sell to them...

well, ok, maybe you could force people to sell to them, but how are you going to compensate them for the price difference that they would have gotten from someone else? And wouldn't a forced sale implicate the takings clause?

Re:how?

[R2.0]

Allow me to answer your questions from the standpoint of the far left"

"How does one address the lack of ownership by minorities and women?"
Decree it.

"It seems to me that it would not be possible to "force" minorities and women to buy media outlets, nor would it be possible to force people to sell to them..."
Why not? Just pass a law requiring the sale and transfer of new or existing licenses to women and minorities. Done."

"well, ok, maybe you could force people to sell to them, but how are you going to compensate them for the price difference that they would have gotten from someone else?"
Compensate? Fair Value? those terms only have meaning in a capitalist exploitative framework. This is about social justice - the current owners, being white males, are owed nothing. Indeed, they owe everyone else for past actions of their ancestors. As a matter of fact, all white males should not only be compelled under the law to forfeit their properties without compensation, they should also pay reparations to the new owners for depriving them of the potential profits for the past years. Great idea - Thanks!

"And wouldn't a forced sale implicate the takings clause?"
That's not the correct interpretation of that clause - protection from "takings" is a group right, for the benefit of society. There really is no right to keep your property on an individual basis, regardless of the language in the constitution.

Please reverse for opinions from the far right.

Re:how?

[UncleTogie]

How does one address the lack of ownership by minorities and women? It seems to me that it would not be possible to "force" minorities and women to buy media outlets, nor would it be possible to force people to sell to them...

Consider that women/minority-owned businesses get some financial breaks, and those groups STILL won't really touch broadcast media. Mayhaps everyone but the media CEOs sees the writing on the wall.

Heck, I'm deaf, and wouldn't get anywhere NEAR media as it stands now; pandering to the lowest denominator to stay afloat just doesn't do anyone {but the stockholders} any favors. I bet we could name a few channels whose educational value has dropped due to sensationalistic "Sharks Gone Wild"-like fluff that is bloody, inaccurate, and just there to draw the 18-34s.

With that said, who in their right mind would go into broadcast?

Re:how?

[SIIHP]

Too subtle, but still nicely done.

Re:how?

[Ruprecht the Monkeyb]

And in the end, it wouldn't matter. I work in DC and probably 75% of the companies I deal with are 'minority owned'. In probably 90% of those, it's a polite fiction. Some of them are in a wife's name, etc. but the actual workings and policies of the company are no different.

Re:how?

[DeepHurtn!]

"Subtle"? This is the whole goddamn problem with American politics, people have *no* understanding of people they disagree with and make no *attempt* to understand. It's much easier to attack and think of them in terms of incredibly broad cariciatures. That was one of the least accurate strawmen I've ever seen and you call it subtle. Unbelievable.

Re:how?

[SIIHP]

Or perhaps you didn't get it and still don't realize it.

Re:how?

[unitron]

Broadcast licenses are something granted, on a temporary basis, by the federal government in its role as steward of the public's airwaves, i.e., "spectrum". Just because you own a tower and a transmitter does not automatically entitle you to be granted one or to have it renewed, nor, if you sell the physical assets of your broadcast operation, is the government required to transfer the license to the buyer, nor is the new (temporary)licensee obligated to purchase the physical assets of the previous (temporary) holder of the license. Anyone who finds this unacceptable should be in some business other than broadcasting.

Not quite, guys

[jtroutman]

FTFP:

An article in the Editor and Publisher describes the plan to ban cross-ownership in the same market

FTFA:
Among the rules that are potentially on the chopping block is a ban on one company owning a newspaper and broadcast station in the same market.

So the post should have read:

An article in the Editor and Publisher describes the plan to no longer ban cross-ownership in the same market

Re:Not quite, guys

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the sort of misinformation we've come to expect though, isn't it?

Oh fer chrissake

[$RANDOMLUSER]

"We should first address the appalling lack of ownership of media outlets by women and people of color."

How about you guys portion out the spectrum, keep your noses out of content and (the color or reproductive organs of) ownership, and let the market work itself out?

Re:Oh fer chrissake

[Watson Ladd]

Not every market can be made into a perfectly competitive market with perfect information as is required for a market to find a Pareto optimal solution. And they are trying to portion out the spectrum so that all viewpoints are accessible. Do you really want one person controlling what you see and hear even if they bought the rights to do so?

Re:Oh fer chrissake

[Reader X]

Because free markets do not necessarily serve the public interest, which is blindingly obvious to anyone paying attention to the continuously declining quality of mass media news coverage in the USA.

Re:Oh fer chrissake

[$RANDOMLUSER]

I'm saying that the FCC is supposed to regulate the use of the airwaves - not formulate policy about ownership or content. The fact that a media company (I live in Chicago, so the Tribune Company springs to mind (Chicago Tribune paper, WGN TV and WGN radio) owns a newspaper and a television station in the same market is none of the FCC's business. If Congress doesn't like owners having multiple outlets in the same market, then they should legislate that, but again, that's not what the FCC is supposed to be for.

Re:Oh fer chrissake

[Toonol]

Do you really want one person controlling what you see and hear even if they bought the rights to do so?

If the only alternative is federal legislation mandating what alternative views will be provided to us... well, we're pretty much screwed either way.

But I think the only way somebody can truly monopolize communication is with the full cooperation of a corrupt government. Therefore, minimalizing the government's ability to influence communications is probably the safer route.

Re:Oh fer chrissake

[Reader X]

The FCC is a Congressional agency and empowered by Congress to make these sort of policies in accordance with relevant legislation. It precisely is the FCC's business, presumably because Congress actually *has* legislated it. The FCC site has links to all sorts of laws, which it is probably safe to assume cover the issues you mention.

Re:Oh fer chrissake

[Anonymous Coward]

US media is MUCH more diverse than anything you can get in EU, which is basically different shades of liberal.

Just because you LIKE their spin it doesn't mean it is objective - for me it was actually eye opening when I finally ended up in US and actually saw all the diverse views.

Fuck the BBC they have their own biases just like everybody else, the sole difference being they are not open about it.

Ban multiple owndership, period

[Fear the Clam]

I would like to see a ban on owning more than one newspaper or broadcast station at all. Imagine how interesting life would be if radio stations weren't all the same damn thing run out of a conglomerate office, running the same ads at the same time, and offering everything geared to the most popular, dumbest, lowest common denominator?

I know, I know, I'm talking about a time before everyone got merger fever, back when the American (and beyond) experience was very different from place to place. But now that the Internet can ensure that everyone can get the same experience (news, music, television) if they really want, wouldn't it be a interesting thing to ban the unified voice of corporate broadcasting?

Re:Ban multiple owndership, period

[Anonymous Coward]

My sister works for a radio station, and when I visited her workplace, I was absolutely astonished by the layout. Every single radio station in the city was simply a different set of cubicles in the same mega-office. All the stations were owned by the same parent company. The differentiation between one station and another is merely the demographic they are targeting with ads. The ownership, management, and bias are otherwise entirely uniform.

My point with this anecdote? The fact is that the situation is too far-gone to implement a rule like "no multiple ownership." Forcing all these mega-corps to split up would be difficult. As agglomerates, they have cut costs and staff and consolidated their operation. To split them up would effectively bankrupt them. Or, rather, the parent company would simply consolidate into a single station, leaving the other stations empty (or just duplicates). In principle, smaller companies could then fill those niches, but in practice the barrier to entry is now so high that this wouldn't happen.

I'm not trying to be pessimistic, but I think that forcing de-mergers at this point is unrealistic. We should indeed focus on at least preserving the limited diversity in the media today that the current bans enforce.

Re:Ban multiple owndership, period

[The Good Reverend]

Would you ban all franchises, then, on the same basis? Or perhaps a company that owns a hardware store on one end of town and a home decor store on the other?

I understand your point about music and commercials (though I honestly think you're not looking hard enough), and there's something to be said for one company having a monopoly on public opinion in a region. But it's quite another to say that no company should be able to own multiple smaller companies. It makes zero business sense, either in media or most any other industry.

Re:Ban multiple owndership, period

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a nice idea but then each company would just contract out their content to giant entities like AP... and they'd have 'exclusive contracts' where they couldn't add or remove anything. The market wants to consolidate media companies, so if the roadblock put in its way are too large it'll just go around them somehow. The market will find a way to consolidate.

A real solution is to not treat the companies as 'limited persons'. The stations can literally get on the air during their morning 'news' programs and say all kinds of shit that is demonstrably false with no repercussions at all. They can slander people, or tell only half the story, or whatever. Sure, the affected can sue for damages in court, but it won't do anything since the people making decisions at the company are not affected by it at all. Worst case they might be 'forced out'. Instead if you could sue the person actually responsible for making the decision to tell only have the story or to slander somebody or to intensionally inflict emotional distress and that person would suffer the consequences then the problem would be mostly solved.

In other words, it's not the consolidation that is the major problem it is the fact that they are not responsible for what they say or do. So in the past we've tried to avoid consolidation on the theory that lots of people owning stations that are biased and unfair 'probably' cancel each other out, but it would be much better if we could solve the problem of them being biased and unfair in the first place (and that's what the civil courts are there for, so if we can make civil suits actually do this then we're golden)

Re:Ban multiple owndership, period

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure when you think merger fever started, but William Randolph Hearst might be able to give you a pointer. He owned 30 newspapers at one point. He is also believed to have push the US into the Spanish/US war via articles in his papers. BTW, he passed away in 1951.

Re:Ban multiple owndership, period

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point. How about this as a solution - Allow pirate stations. You can broadcast anything you want, you just can't use a transmitter over "x" watts of power. It's be almost like the web, anyone (pretty much) could broadcast to their own small group.

Re:Ban multiple owndership, period

[mrchaotica]

To split them up would effectively bankrupt them.

And the problem is...?

Hell, I think we ought to not only break up ownership of the individual stations, but also bar the original conglomerate from maintaining ownership of even a single one, by revoking its business license!

Re:Ban multiple owndership, period

[fireboy1919]

Would you ban all franchises, then, on the same basis? Or perhaps a company that owns a hardware store on one end of town and a home decor store on the other?

This is defintely a straw man. Unlike the case of most franchises, radio stations, and newspapers are a limited public resource (newspapers are a limited resource only because of the government bureaucracy that must be waded through in order to have one). Further, unlike a hardware store, they both naturally affect public opinion about them because they're media sources - so they're natural monopolies. Monopolies do bad things when they're confined to a region, but they get really bad when the get bigger.

It makes zero business sense, either in media or most any other industry.

This is where your argument falls apart. I'd go so far as to say that it profitability and productivity actually goes down when you go beyond a certain size in almost every industry because the people "running the show" become necessarily less detached from their target market and the people doing the work become detached from a profit-motive (because income isn't really tied to profitability and/or doing what they love). The only thing it does is make a few people very, very rich most of the time. The exception to this is commodities that everyone wants exactly the same way, like milk, gasoline, eggs, internet access, etc.

I think this is especially true of radio stations - which have local community listeners. The local operators are the ones who should be making the decisions because they're the ones who know their audience. Further, every area needs pretty much the same equipment. It's not like corporations get a big boost in efficiency because they're a corporation.

Re:Ban multiple owndership, period

[Cantus]

Why not charging monopolies higher taxes? Get them where it hurts most.

Pandora's box

[xx01dk]

Doesn't it depend on the definition of "single market"? For example, Clearchannel owns radio stations all over the country. Would a single market be defined as the number of stations they own in:

a) a specific city or county or region or
b) the number of stations of a specific genre or
c) the number of stations of a specific genre in a specific area?

How are the media market sectors defined? In addition to those categories I mentioned above, you also have ethno-centric programming and demographics to contend with. This is akin to opening pandora's box imho.

This also worries me: "We should first address the appalling lack of ownership of media outlets by women and people of color." Does this mean that congress will be asked to pass affirmative action laws against media corporations? That's just silly, and also might be an ominous inroad towards state-controlled media. *shudder*

What motives prompted this, i.e.: Is Kevin Martin in somebody's pocket, or does he have a personal stake in it? Why else propose something so ludicrous? I'm all for ensuring against monopolies but isn't it a little too late and/or drastic to propose something like this?

This may be meaningless; we've gone 2 the web

[postbigbang]

There's so much propaganda and quid pro quo, that newspapers are barely believable. And with formula media content, most radio stations sound the same, and have little news content (save NPR & BBC).

So we don't care. Sir Rupert can put better money in his web properties. And Clear Channel and Emmis clearly suck in their radio markets. TV? Does it matter? The FCC hasn't reflected popular choice in years. Why should they start now??

Re:This may be meaningless; we've gone 2 the web

[schnikies79]

The web is more reliable? My ass! Between trying to track down the real sources and the fact that there is basically zero accountability with posting, I call BS.

Show me the last time someone got fired for posting lies on the web, not fired from the real job, but in a way that prevents them from posting anymore. It doesn't happen. Dan Rather got booted from CBS, show me the equivalent on the internet.

Oh yea, we also have this lack of local news on the internet. My county has one newspaper and roughly 10% of their news makes it onto the net, with maybe 75% of that coming from their website. Where am I supposed get the other 90%?

Re:This may be meaningless; we've gone 2 the web

[postbigbang]

Call BS if you like. Your option.

Go to Media Matters, or one of the right-wing websites and get a load of what accuracy means today. If you're looking to bloggers for news, you're hosed. These are opinions, not journalism. My RSS/Atom reader gets 50 different sites every eight minutes. Local content in my 'major' market has been a monopoly for years. Heaven help you if you're a suburb, or a rural community. But this ruling doesn't affect them-- it's about major market competition.

You have to take EVERYTHING with a grain of salt these days; the integrity of print media and daily news are at a formulaic all-time low. You trust these guys? I don't.

In major markets, there are lots of the same bubble-headed bleached-blonds on TV (thank you, Don Henley) spouting the same foo at 6pm and 11pm. Then there are the morning shows. The rest are network fillers and commercials. This, this is quality? I can watch 900+ cable channels, and it's still a wasteland.

If you're a suburb of a major market, you're screwed for local news. Where are you going to get the news on a local level? The FCC's decision doesn't affect you, it only dries up competition in major markets-- that's where the money is.

TV 'anchors' are stars now. They don't get the news. They get make-up jobs and Lexus rides, and show up, looking pretty, when the mayor turns a shovel some place. Parts of the community? Nope. Entertainment. And it's been that way for two decades now.

Re:This may be meaningless; we've gone 2 the web

[kebes]

The web is more reliable? My ass! Between trying to track down the real sources and the fact that there is basically zero accountability with posting, I call BS.

The web is not reliable if you take an average of every page out there (nor is print media if you average respected newspapers with tabloids)... but on the web there is at least a greater diversity of opinion and sources. Real experts have blogs on the web (whereas they would get perhaps a few seconds of air time in a year of mainstream media), and the audience can then decide what they think is credible, and pay more attention to the worthwhile sources. With mainstream conventional media (radio, TV, newspapers), the distribution channels are owned by a small number of rich and powerful people with largely similar interests. It thus becomes very difficult to get real information from knowledgeable people.

With regard to tracking down sources: it has always been the case that this is necessary if you want to confidently know what's really going on. It is true for web stories and those from conventional sources. I would argue that tracking down sources online is much easier than it is in conventional sources. The web inherently has a cross-referencing system that print and TV do not. The good online sources will provide links to other sources that support their position, or to the original material in question, so that the audience can judge for themselves whether the author is correctly interpreting the facts.

Show me the last time someone got fired for posting lies on the web, not fired from the real job, but in a way that prevents them from posting anymore. It doesn't happen. Dan Rather got booted from CBS, show me the equivalent on the internet.

Journalists in mainstream media print routinely commit errors in their reporting. Sometimes their analysis is misleading, other times it is flat-out wrong. Your CBS example notwithstanding, they rarely suffer any serious consequence (nor even print a retraction). So the "do they get fired?" question is a red herring. The fact that bloggers don't "get fired" for mistakes they make is irrelevant. The accountability when it comes to reporting has always been reputation. Sources become respected and trusted if they consistently deliver quality analysis, and become ignored if they do not. Again the difference is the that plurality of sources on the web gives one the opportunity to seek out the best analyst on a given topic (rather than merely settle for the "least bad" source in mainstream channels).

I'm not suggesting that mainstream sources are useless, or that there are not many competent, trustworthy mainstream journalists. What I am suggesting is that the Internet provides access to more information, which can only be a good thing for an interested party who wishes to seek for true, balanced answers on a given topic.

This is a good example of Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

This article is a case of too little editing and too much publishing.

Maybe Slashdot needs to break the monopoly of editing and open up the process to the users.

Could they possibly do a worse job? I doubt it.

Adelstein's Comment + FCC Abilities

[Pantero Blanco]

Democratic Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein did not object specifically to the Dec. 18 date, but did say the commission has a lot of work yet to do before it should make its decision.

"We need to deal with some long-neglected issues before we tackle the media ownership rules," he said. "We should first address the appalling lack of ownership of media outlets by women and people of color. And we need to implement improvements in how outlets handle issues of concern to local communities."

Can someone explain how the FCC is related to either of these issues...? Or how newspapers fall under FCC jurisdiction? Aren't they supposed to be limited to regulating telecommunication channels and maintaining "decency"?

Also, the ban the summary mentions is already in place according to the article. They're discussing whether to keep it there or remove it.

Re:Adelstein's Comment + FCC Abilities

[unitron]

The FCC has no jurisdiction over newspapers. It does have jurisdiction over who does or does not get a (temporary) broadcast license, i.e., use of something (spectrum) which is owned by the public, and, if Congress so directs, or seems to, can deny a license to someone who also owns a newspaper so as to avoid too much concentration of ownership of communication outlets. Having been denied a broadcast license, the owner of the newspaper is prefectly free to continue owning the newspaper.

Re:Adelstein's Comment + FCC Abilities

[unitron]

Uh, make that "...perfectly free to continue owning the newspaper."

Bah

[raddan]

"We should first address the appalling lack of ownership of media outlets by women and people of color." Who else here thinks he just said that to deflect people from the real issues? Wouldn't you first have to address the appalling lack of wealthy women and people of color?

Re:Bah

[Pantero Blanco]

That's exactly what it sounds like. If you look at the full quote in the article*, he seems to be saying "Hey, let's not talk about that. Let's talk about this other "long-neglected" issue (that we have no business getting involved in)."

"We need to deal with some long-neglected issues before we tackle the media ownership rules," he said. "We should first address the appalling lack of ownership of media outlets by women and people of color. And we need to implement improvements in how outlets handle issues of concern to local communities."

How would they even go about "fixing" that without doing something blatantly illegal like offering one race or gender better deals than another?

Once again government prepares to muck up...

[PortHaven]

Haven't we ever learned that whenever the government gets involved they almost always seem to muck things up?

Really, I don't see this as a problem. And I think it's stupid, so what you're saying is you can own a TV station but not a newspaper or radio station. That's just dumb.

Why doesn't the government do something really useful to us? Like put an end to the forced purchasing of packaged content. And enact legislation that allows consumers to purchase ala cart specific channels from Sat/Cable companies.

This way, if all I want to watch is the Sci-Fi Channel, Discovery Channel, & The History Channel. I should be able to just buy those channels. I should not have to buy another 50 channels.

- Saj

Re:Once again government prepares to muck up...

[PortHaven]

How is this flamebait....

Really, I guess the whole "FCC deregulation of cable" and our nice $80 cable bills. And having to pay $20 extra for cable internet if you don't want cable TV service. Or $20 extra for DSL to have a phone line you never use.

That's all flamebait too....

Yeah...well it may be flamebait. But it doesn't mean it's any less true of a statement.

***

This idea to prevent and restrict ownership of different type of media is one of the DUMBEST IDEAS ever proposed. (And is probably unconstitutional to boot.)

Re:Once again government prepares to muck up...

[jedidiah]

Um... The current sorry state of affairs in media ownership is a DIRECT RESULT of the sort of hands off approach you're advocating. The old rules preventing media consolidation were either thrown out or ignored.

Are you seriously claiming that the "free market" approach has been better.

Puleeezee.

Re:Once again government prepares to muck up...

[Just Another Poster]

Um... The current sorry state of affairs in media ownership is a DIRECT RESULT of the sort of hands off approach you're advocating.

Government creating an artificial scarcity and controlling content and ownership through licensing is a "hands off approach"?

Re:Once again government prepares to muck up...

[PortHaven]

No, but that regulation should be effective. I actually support regulation. But all this will do is strengthen conglomerates and force them to only be "radio" or "tv" or "print" conglomerates.

And yet, after all this we've got next to nill approvals of "LPFM" radio stations being granted license.

Wait a minute...

[Kwesadilo]

From TFA:

We need to deal with some long-neglected issues before we tackle the media ownership rules," [Democratic Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein] said. "We should first address the appalling lack of ownership of media outlets by women and people of color. And we need to implement improvements in how outlets handle issues of concern to local communities.

First of all, how is the (potential) suppression of freedom of the press by consolidated media less important or pressing than the race or gender of the owners (or possibly owner) of said media? Secondly, how is changing that within the jurisdiction of the FCC or any government body? The person who buys something should be the person who made a deal with the person selling it, not a person chosen based on their race or gender by some third party.

I don't really know what it means to "implement improvement in how outlets handle issues of concern to local communities." Would the FCC send out their own reporters to do a better job than the news station? I don't understand what this guy is talking about?

WTF?

[jav1231]

""We should first address the appalling lack of ownership of media outlets by women and people of color."
Why is there an inherent idea that women and people of color have an interest in ownership in every segment of society? How many people of color own companies in the tanning market? How many women own companies in the aftershave market? I realize this isn't a perfect comparison but could it be that women and "people of color" simply haven't attempted such ownership? The idea that equality means equal distribution is socialistic in nature. Equal treatment doesn't equate to equal distribution. Rather, it should mean equal access. If someone decides they have no interest in the access it's not "an appalling lack of ownership" it's an "appalling lack of interest."

I see his point, but...

[beef curtains]

...couldn't this result in less-lucrative media (newspapers, for one) getting neglected or severely declining (more so than they are now) in quality?

I keep hearing about how newspapers are losing money left & right these days, so I would think that being owned by an entity that can make their money elsewhere to offset any losses might help buoy up the newspaper...at least the company can look at it as a "halo product".

If a company has to choose between owning a newspaper and owning a TV station, I'd imagine they would dump the newspaper in a heartbeat...and the paper's new buyer would likely fill it to the bursting point with ads just to make ends meet.

I dig this idea in theory, but I just don't see a good outcome if it's implemented.

old since the 1960s

[swschrad]

when media cross-ownership was formally banned by the FCC.

now, you still have cross-owners, but they're historic ones preceding that time.

the industry was hoping to get the ban overturned, for the benefit of the "media convergence" gurus who think that if you bundle a losing newspaper, losing TV and radio businesses, and a marginal web site, you become a genius and make millions of dollars a minute.

while there are synergies, they ain't taht big.

Re:old since the 1960s

[Anonymous Coward]

But simply by using the word synergy, they will be successful.

Is Slashdot considered a newspaper?

[Nymz]

Would online newspapers be subject to the legal restrictions, of paper newspapers?
Should tech websites be forced to address their lack of ownership, by woman and people of color?
Could newspapers one day be considered a method of Free Speech, and gain 1st Amendment protections?

Will we do anything but... would-a, should-a, could-a? How about a vote-a.

The Australian Media Rules

[Alicat1194]

...have been set up like this for a while (see here for more info).

It doesn't seem to affect the freedom of the press at all, in fact, it tends to make it a bit more balanced (Though there have been moves to change it (that obviously have nothing at all to do with Rupert Murdoch or the Packer family )).

its not "fixing"

[unity100]

its anti-monopoly regulation and it is necessary. if such regulations werent around, united states would be controlled by around 4-5 big robber barons as of now. up to now there was not a regulation for individual media channels for this. this new thing is good.

Re:its not "fixing"

[xappax]

if such regulations werent around, united states would be controlled by around 4-5 big robber barons as of now.

Whew! Good thing that's not the case!

Re:its not "fixing"

[Applekid]

Quote:

its anti-monopoly regulation and it is necessary. if such regulations werent around, united states would be controlled by around 4-5 big robber barons as of now. up to now there was not a regulation for individual media channels for this. this new thing is good. It already pretty much is.

TFS:

Several waivers exist for some current ownerships, but would not be passed on to new owners. And so, will also get worse since it will effectively lock the barons in place forevermore. If they were really serious, they'd bust up some of them up now.

Clearly both politicians and established corporations love this bill.

Re:its not "fixing"

[Applekid]

(plan, not bill)

Re:its not "fixing"

[Kyrka]

4-5 big robber barons... like the six or so that own all media _currently_ ?

Re:its not "fixing"

[krotkruton]

But you have to consider that some already-established corporations will get waivers so they will remain strong. If a new company tries to move into the city, it will have trouble competing with the big media that already exists. The big media companies will be able to consolidate their resources; they don't need a reporter for each medium because one reporter can send news to the newspaper, television, radio, and internet branches of the office. Small companies who only work with one medium will have a harder time combating this advantage.

sensible

[unity100]

but they shouldnt be limited to only radio

It's the Fairness Doctrine...

[humankind]

Required reading on this issue: How the gutting of the Fairness Doctrine and the 1996 Telco Act screwed up the media. This gives you a good introduction into what happened to our system of media and regulation.

It's been going on for awhile, but the two-tiered attack began with Reagan eradicating the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 which paved the way for partisan talk radio which were basically paid mouthpieces for various corporate interests who could sway public opinion on key issues, and also stations no longer being obligated via the FCC rules to report news of critical interest to the public, so they could sneak all sorts of legislation, including relaxed ownership rules which were stuffed into the 1996 telco act. Check out the link above for all the gory details.

Re:It's the Fairness Doctrine...

[Bryansix]

The fairness doctrine was a load of crap from the beginning. It stifled free speech. I support people being mouthpeices for the Republican Party and I also support Air America and it's take no matter how much I think what they say is dumb. You should not prevent people from being able to voice an opinion.

Re:It's the Fairness Doctrine...

[Dachannien]

Exactly. Regulating who can own how many media outlets within a market is questionable, yes, but regulating what they can say in those channels clearly trods on the First Amendment.

BTW, where did the FCC gain the authority to regulate newspapers?

Re:It's the Fairness Doctrine...

[unitron]

BTW, where did the FCC gain the authority to regulate newspapers?

As I point out elsewhere:

The FCC has no jurisdiction over newspapers. It does have jurisdiction over who does or does not get a (temporary) broadcast license, i.e., use of something (spectrum) which is owned by the public, and, if Congress so directs, or seems to, can deny a license to someone who also owns a newspaper so as to avoid too much concentration of ownership of communication outlets. Having been denied a broadcast license, the owner of the newspaper is prefectly (sic) free to continue owning the newspaper.

...regulating what they can say in those channels clearly trods on the First Amendment.

Regulating what they can say in the newspapers would be in violation of the First Amendment, but regulating what can be said over broadcast channels is merely regulating, on behalf of the public, how the (temporary) holder of the broadcast license gets to use the public's property, the airwaves.

Opposite of campaign contributions?

[DoofusOfDeath]

I thought that we couldn't prevent corporations from giving huge dollops of cash to candidates, because $$$ == speech.

But I'd have to say that (media outlets) == speech is a much *more* reasonable claim. So how is limiting the number of presses / stations one owns permissible, when limiting one's campaign contributions is not?

Funny you mention that...

[Moryath]

In Houston, 2 of the main four AM stations and the only major newspaper are owned by Clear Channel.

The day after the head of CC had a "meeting" with Shrub, suddenly all their talk hosts stopped talking about his treasonous Illegal Immigration Amnesty plans and his treasonous plan to sell the US down the "North American Union" river.

Coincidence? I think not. Multiple callers have been cut off since then. I think the head of CC got marching orders from Shrub to squelch it, and the talk hosts were given their marching orders and threats of firing if they didn't obey.

Re:Funny you mention that...

[NiceGeek]

This will get modded as flamebait I'm sure...but I thought all the NAU nutters were on Digg

Re:Funny you mention that...

[mazarin5]

Damn right. Here at /. we prefer the more enlightened "Super Canada."

Sounds good and bad

[OrangeTide]

It may weaken the press, making individual broadcasters more susceptible to corporate and government influence. That could be bad for towns that only have one or two broadcast news sources available to them. You could really rig local elections by buying off a handful of weak and struggling stations.

My other problem with it, is that it is an arbitrary limitation on free enterprise. I'm not even sure the FCC fits in with a democracy, because nobody elected the people who are running the show and making the decision. Decisions that can have a huge impact on people's jobs and businesses.

Mostly it sounds like a way to bust up FOX. Maybe a better solution would be to hold broadcasters liable for reporting that is so biased that it is misleading to the viewer/listener. If you do an expose on the dangers of sippie-cups or something in a highly misleading way, perhaps the FCC should slap you with a fine. That would solve more problems than trying to bust up media conglomerates.

What the FCC is scared of is as these big media outlets merge, the FCC will be relatively weak in comparison. Possibly too weak to even regulate them. While I admit this is possible, I find it unlikely and not a valid justification for the elimination of free enterprise in broadcasting. (Why not apply those same rules to cell phone towers, nobody can own more than one tower in the same city)

The stupid thing about this, is that many small radio stations just buy feeds from FOX, CNN, etc. for their national and world news segments. Not unlike how newspapers pull articles off the newswire from the associated press and other news agencies. I don't see how this ban can stop the encroachment of media moguls into our lives, when FOX and others are just using the small time broadcasters are a proxy for their message. And charging them for the privilege!

(finally my sig is relevant)

You have the power to free yourself

[Thaelon]

Media outlets like newspaper, radio and TV are notoriously inaccurate, skewed to one political persuation or another or outright wrong. CNN and Fox news in particular should have warning banners 24/7 that read: "For entertainment purposes only."

I don't read newspapers. I watch very little tv (I don't have cable tv, just internet access). I don't listen to the radio. I find it's a blissful existence. Far less bullshit, and far, far fewer advertisements reach me. Especially with Firefox and Adblock.

When I do watch TV at the gym I'm disgusted at how awful it is. Three minute strings of commercials every eight minutes and typically 30 minutes of build up to the one interesting thing they have to show, and it lasts less than a minute.

The engaging content to filler ratio is MUCH better on youtube. The news is much more trustworthy and newsworthy on Google news. Craigslist is perfect for want/sell ads. If some local news event matters enough, I'll hear about it from coworkers and friends.

Divest yourselves of banal, ad-ridden, politically swayed media folks. It's not hard, and it's not ignorance, but it is bliss.

Not bad

[thatblackguy]

It'll probably break monopolies, not the press in general. Seems like a Good Thing.

Alternative proposal

[Reziac]

Well, how about this as an alternative:

Let any one entity own no more than a certain *percentage* of the *total* media outlets for a given broadcast and circulation area. That way if there is only one newspaper and one radio station, the same entity can't own both, but if there are several of each, then anyone might own more than one type of media.

At a guess, 1/3rd of the total media outlets would be a reasonable max under a single ownership, with waivers down to 1/2 in markets that are too small to support multiple media outlets.

There should also be a waiver (possibly approved on a case-by-case basis) to allow owners in single-media markets to bring in a NEW outlet in a different medium -- say if you owned the paper but there is no local TV station, you could also start a TV station. But you couldn't start a 2nd TV station or newspaper until some competiting entity entered your market.

Thoughts anyone?

Then all you'll have is ClearChannel

[crovira]

and you can kiss local news goodbye.

That's EXACTLY what happened in New Orleans.

In fact, the moment your market can't generate income, like after a hurricane, a tornado, an eruption or a tsunami, it gets dropped and further rolled up into a larger conglomeration.

Do you WANT your town wiped off the metaphorical map?

'cause that's what'll happen...

Re:Then all you'll have is ClearChannel

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you WANT your town wiped off the metaphorical map?

then build it mostly below sealevel like we did!!

I can imagine it and I don't want it.

[Shivetya]

Because suddenly there would not be as many channels that I would be able to choose from. With newspapers it no longer matters as most cities have seen the smaller papers taken over or just gone out of business. In some cities the take over was the only way for the staff an opinions they held to survive. They would have had to find jobs elsewhere if they could from an ever dwindling supply of jobs.

I know its currently the belief of many that media conglomerates are destroying radio but in my city we have more choices than ever because these same conglomerates are trying to cover all the bases. So instead of the number of stations on my dial decreasing with the recent buyouts I have many many more. Hell I don't have enough buttons on my car radio (18) to get them all now.

We have multiple top40 stations; which format seems to bring angst here; where we had only two real ones before, we got our album rock station back as the conglomerate who bought it already had a station or two of the format it had before. We have too many easy listening stations but funny thing is, they are mostly independant or owned by small media companies and they took the same bet for income.

No, restricting ownership is just as bad as unrestricted ownership. I think cross ownership is warranted as some industries are drying up and they should have new means of getting their particular view out.

For the most part I have seen only two reasons given to restrict ownership, first because so many here hate top40 and prefer off the wall bands that don't get much play outside of college stations - if there, and talk radio. Any attempt to limit something you don't like that isn't illegal is just wrong.

No, it's freedom FROM

[Just Another Poster]

plain and neat. It is for ensuring nobody gets the nation in their grip by grabbing them on all fronts of media. Like hearst and so on in the past.

Nobody prevents you from starting your own newspaper, and the only reason it's hard for the average person to broadcast over-the-air is because the government created an artificial scarcity by regulating and licensing access to the airwaves.

Laws that ban people from owning different types of media outlets serve to suppress freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

There is a lot of wealth controlled by minorities

[Shivetya]

the problem for the elites who like to rain down proclamations on us ignorant people its not where they want it to be focused. small business drives America and that is where a lot of this wealth is concentrated. Also, how do you consider ownership of companies that are publically traded? Perhaps we should check then who owns what stock in what station or paper? Many were owned by families as their ancestors started them, worked hard to sustain them.

the thing they miss is that even if minorities (women and non-whites) owned something like one of these media outlets does not mean the focus of said outlet would change. No, if they were in it to make money they would cater to the largest audience they could find. Some will go the route of catering but the majority would aim for the big pie. We have many many small newspapers that cater to groups, some very limited geographically and others who cover regions.

We don't need the government to engineer media, we need to let it evolve. The controlling factor will be OUR choosing who we get our information from. The internet opened so many possibilities that restricting the old media will only sink them quicker for the current generations

All For Profit media is the same.

[iamstan]

The big advertisers call the shots and control the content, so what difference does it make which company gets the profits? If you want a free press, remove the advertising.

The real apalling act

[geekoid]

is the lack of wealthy me.

Re:The real apalling act

[raddan]

I'm with you on that. Of course, we're talking about the same me, here: me.

Its not starting, its growing

[unity100]

Nobody prevents you from starting anything, but they dont let you grow to be a threat to their easy monopolized market.

What lack of ownership by minorities???

[Anonymous Coward]

Lack of ownership by minorities? That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. Every major media outlet is owned by a minority.

Let the market decide

[bill_mcgonigle]

Imagine how interesting life would be if radio stations weren't all the same damn thing run out of a conglomerate office, running the same ads at the same time, and offering everything geared to the most popular, dumbest, lowest common denominator?

What's preventing those stations from operating now? That the conglomerates have lower overhead? All that means is that the competition isn't interesting enough to attract higher advertising rates.

I liked FreeFM, but not enough other people did. I didn't care for Air America, and neither did anybody else, it seems.

The problem with your suggestion is that most people like big media. Try fixing that first.

FCC article is misleading

[ncstockguy]

The FCC chairman is actually proposing to make it easier for big companies to own more media outlets, including newspapers and TV stations in the same markets. Folks need to email the congressmen about this and stop it.
More info here:
http://www.freepress.net/

Those of you who think it's a good idea for Rupert Murdoch to own twice as many TV stations and more newspapers in the country, should do nothing.

Drop the cross-ownership ban

[Percy_Blakeney]

I'm surprised at how resistant some people are to dropping the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership ban.

First of all, everyone should want the FCC to get a ruling out the door quickly. Why? Because this thing is going to end up in court no matter what the actual ruling is; I would anticipate it eventually being appealed up to the Supreme Court, which is where the final say is going to take place. After all, something very similar happened to the cable/broadcast cross-ownership rule, which was tossed out by a court (though not the SCOTUS). The sooner the FCC moves on this, the sooner we'll have a final ruling on it.

Second, newspapers are dying. Many if not most papers are losing money year after year and the problem appears to be getting worse. By merging with other TV and radio news organizations, papers may be able to cut some costs. It's ironic, but it may be that the FCC ends up saving some newspapers by dropping the cross-ownership ban.