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

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

[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

[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.

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

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?

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

[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: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: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.

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."

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.