FCC To Loosen TV, Newspaper Ownership Rules (reuters.com)

The FCC is planning to vote on rolling back landmark media ownership regulations that prohibit owning a television station and newspaper in the same market and making it easier to acquire additional TV or radio stations. Reuters reports: If approved at the FCC's November meeting, the move would be a win for newspapers and broadcasters that have pushed for the change for decades, but was criticized by Democrats who said it could usher in a new era of media consolidation. The FCC in 1975 banned cross-ownership of a newspaper and broadcast station in the same market, unless it granted a waiver, to ensure a diversity of opinions. The rule was made before the explosion of internet and cable news and Republican President Donald Trump and Pai have vowed to reduce government regulation.

"We must stop the federal government from intervening in the news business," Pai told a congressional panel, noting that many newspapers have closed and many radio and TV stations are struggling. Pai moved earlier this year to make it easier for some companies to own a larger number of local stations. Pai said the marketplace no longer justifies the rules, citing Facebook and Alphabet's dominance of internet advertising. "Online competition for the collection and distribution of news is greater than ever. And just two internet companies claim 100 percent of recent online advertising growth; indeed, their digital ad revenue this year alone will be greater than the market cap of the entire broadcasting industry," Pai said.

Comments

Win?

[TechyImmigrant]

>The move would be a win for newspapers and broadcasters that have pushed for the change for decades,

No, the product will become even more shit and the viewership will continue to decline, undermining their investments in buying up all the local players.

Re:Win?

[TWX]

Yes, but it will probably become more profitable because now operating costs will come down even further. All of the local on-air staff, gone. Local staff that manage programming and other content decisions, almost all gone if not all gone. Engineering staff, no longer need to staff enough to work the studios as there are no studios, probably half or more gone, just limited to staff to maintain a bit of local equipment. Even that might be reduced since it may be possible to outsource that, and multiple stations could end up with the same maintenance partners.

What's funny is that journalism schools already annually graduate more students with journalism or communications degrees than there are jobs in the whole profession. Now that all of your local on-air talent is essentially gone, in my market that could be 50 people, and while my market is a bit larger than most I could reasonably expect any city over 100,000 people to to have at least 25 on-air, with more than 300 metro areas over 100,000, that's 7500 on-air staff losing jobs, plus all of the rest of the support staff.

Frankly it's dangerous for so few people to own all of the press. We're already into an era of Yellow Journalism, and it's only going to get much worse and to polarize people far more. Honestly it could lead to outright civil war when those people that control the media push peoples' buttons in order to drive ratings.

Re:Pai Guy

[viperidaenz]

Bidding would imply only one winner, so only one payment.

Lobbying lets politicians take money from everyone.

Here's why:

[PopeRatzo]

The whole reason for loosening these rules, and the rules on local ownership, is to pave the way for the far-right Sinclair Broadcast Group to buy even more TV stations across the country. Instead of local news, you will only get stories that reflect the Sinclair agenda.

More centralized control over local media.

https://www.salon.com/2017/10/...

Re:Here's why:

[gtall]

"The Sinclair Broadcast Group doesn't own newspapers, you fuckwit." Yet.

I hate to say it

[rmdingler]

There was a time when regional television and newspapers had a large say in shaping the belief set(s) of average Americans, yet now, it seems like that ship has sailed.

People under 50 get their news on the cellphone, and whether that's the Facebook or Twitter or updates, the share of news influenced by old school local news & dead tree papers is bordering on insignificant.

Pai is right, not because of his fealty to the industry, but because the consolidation doesn't impact a significant monopoly of the news market.

Re:I hate to say it

[PoopJuggler]

Except he wouldn't be doing this if he wasn't being paid to. So somebody has an agenda at play, and part of it is media control for mass mind rape.

Re:If so, why does that matter?, continuing...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

(and there it goes again)

Regardless, after the way the media, as a block, savaged Trump, I'd expect his guys to be looking for subtle ways to do them a bad turn. Changing rules to shake up their competitive environment (in a way that, as a bonus, looks like they're just going with their ideology and/or doing them a favor) would fit my expectations nicely.