Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Media Media The Internet Censorship Television Your Rights Online

FCC Plan Will Result in Freedom Of or From the Press? 132

Posted by Zonk from the keeping-the-airwaves-freeish dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

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

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

Comments Filter:

  • That is freedom OF (Score:3, Insightful)

    by unity100 ( 970058 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @01:21PM (#21044511) Homepage Journal
    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: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by MyLongNickName ( 822545 )
      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.

      • its not "fixing" (Score:3, Insightful)

        by unity100 ( 970058 )
        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: (Score:2)

          by xappax ( 876447 )
          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 [corporations.org]!
          • 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

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Applekid ( 993327 )
          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.

        • 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

      • 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.

        • 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.

          • 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 someth

            • 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.
    • 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 (Score:4, Interesting)

      by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @01:42PM (#21044897) Homepage Journal

      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.

      • but they shouldnt be limited to only radio

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Apu ( 325126 )

        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 printe

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by dgatwood ( 11270 )

          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

          • 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: (Score:3, Informative)

              by dgatwood ( 11270 )

              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 ge

              • 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.

      • 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: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by dgatwood ( 11270 )

          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

          • 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 statio

      • 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
      • 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? Fo

  • Way to read the article (Score:5, Informative)

    by StealthyRoid ( 1019620 ) * on Friday October 19, 2007 @01:22PM (#21044533) Homepage
    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: (Score:3, Informative)

      by geeknado ( 1117395 )
      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

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jellomizer ( 103300 ) *
        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

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by geeknado ( 1117395 )
          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

          • 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

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by geeknado ( 1117395 )
              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

      • 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.
        • 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 increasin

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
      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.
      • 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

    • Re:Way to read the article (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Walt Dismal ( 534799 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @01:45PM (#21044983)
      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 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @01:54PM (#21045167) Homepage Journal

      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.

      • 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
  • 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?

  • Who cares? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by pablo_max ( 626328 )
    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 lo

    • Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by nebaz ( 453974 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @01:37PM (#21044819)
      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by RingDev ( 879105 )
      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 fr

  • how? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Harin_Teb ( 1005123 )
    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: (Score:2, Funny)

      by R2.0 ( 532027 )
      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 com

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by unitron ( 5733 )
        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 (tempor

    • 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

    • 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.

  • Not quite, guys (Score:5, Informative)

    by jtroutman ( 121577 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @01:26PM (#21044627)
    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 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by $RANDOMLUSER ( 804576 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @01:31PM (#21044699)

    "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?
    • 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?
      • 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

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Toonol ( 1057698 )
        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.
    • 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.

    • 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...

  • Ban multiple owndership, period (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Fear the Clam ( 230933 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @01:32PM (#21044711)
    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: (Score:1, Troll)

      by The Good Reverend ( 84440 )
      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 m
      • 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.
    • 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
    • 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 f

  • Pandora's box (Score:2, Insightful)

    by xx01dk ( 191137 )
    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 wi
  • 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??
    • 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 roughl

      • Re:This may be meaningless; we've gone 2 the web (Score:4, Insightful)

        by postbigbang ( 761081 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @02:05PM (#21045377)
        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: (Score:2)

        by kebes ( 861706 )

        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

  • 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

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by unitron ( 5733 )
      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.

  • Bah (Score:2)

    by raddan ( 519638 )

    "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?
    • 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 o

    • 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
    • is the lack of wealthy me.
  • 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.

    Thi
    • 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 unconstitutiona

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jedidiah ( 1196 )
      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.

      • 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.

  • 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 t

  • WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jav1231 ( 539129 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @01:47PM (#21045011)
    ""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."

  • ...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 i

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • ...have been set up like this for a while (see here [aph.gov.au] 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 )).
  • Required reading on this issue: How the gutting of the Fairness Doctrine and the 1996 Telco Act screwed up the media [bsalert.com]. 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 long
    • 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.
      • 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: (Score:2)

          by unitron ( 5733 )

          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.

  • 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?
  • 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 d
  • 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.

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

  • 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 o

Slashdot Top Deals

Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.

Close