Who is this nut?
- kired
- "You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?" T. Pratchett
30.4.07
File Under: NO NO NO NO
This NPR story on the FCC's attempts to loosen media ownership caps burns my bacon. I can not reiterate this enough. There were good reasons for the media ownership caps, that is why we had them. Consolidation of information into the hands of fewer and fewer corporations allows for more manipulation of politics and ideas. The argument of increased venues due to technology is flawed, in that much of nation still receives it's news from traditional media. The likes of Rupert Murdoch and his ilk are throwing tons of money at this issue to facilitate their desired result. This is nothing more than a play for more money and power. Isn't it always.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I understand your frustration but the fact is the ownership rules haven't been updated in decades. Given the rather sizable developments and changes in the media industry in this time, the rules need to be addressed and updated.
I work with the NAB on this issue in advocating for our local broadcasters. In today's regulatory environment individual broadcasters cannot compete against the large online companies for advertising revenue they need to survive and provide free local programing. Only broadcasters are faced with these antiquated rules placing them at a severe competitive disadvantage.
The tremendous growth online and in cable and satellite TV gives us more options than ever to get our news and information, we are merely asking for the FCC to consider the realities of the current situation.
I am more concerned with the loss of difference in the news and opinion based content when multiple media outlets with multiple owners are merged in to a conglomerate with one owner. In my trade area we have gone from four for profit FM channels owned by multiple ownership, mostly local, to three of those channels under the ownership of one large national corporation. In my opinion the quality of local news and information from these channels is sub par, with absolutely no deviance in message, most often a regurgitation of a newspaper story. Luckily we have one local station left which provides a better service, utilizing local reporters and an actual editorial perspective.
One could argue that if that corporation decided to push a message relating to a story with a political bent, they would have undue influence in the area, as they have three avenues through which to push. That one local station my have an alternate perspective but will have to fight an uphill battle to get equal penetration. This is not paranoid delusion but simple flight and frequency concepts known to anyone with a passing acquaintance with marketing.
By the way, the broadcast media have those rules in place because they use the public airwaves in the generation of their revenue and therefore are required to meet certain criteria to the betterment of the communities in which they operate. It was the feeling, of those that put those rules in place, that a community was best served by media that answer to multiple masters. I tend to agree.
Thank you for reading CMP.
kired, glad to have found CMP.
I understand that broadcasters are under certain obligations that don't apply to online media. However, that doesn't change the fact that the rules haven't been updated in decades. I'm not advocating for the ownership rules to be abolished merely for the FCC to consider the dramatic changes that have occurred, particularly in the past few years.
IMO, the consolidation trend is completely exaggerated and we are actually seeing a move towards deconsolidation. Adam Thierer, a senior fellow at the Progress and Freedom Foundation and frequent contributor to Technology Liberation Front, has an interesting piece entitled, "The Media Cornucopia" that provides one perspective on this debate. While you may disagree it may of interest.
"According to FCC data and various private reports, America boasts close to 14,000 radio stations today, double the number that existed in 1970. Satellite radio—an industry that didn’t even exist before 2001—claimed roughly 13 million subscribers nationwide by 2007. Eighty-six percent of households subscribe to cable or satellite TV today, receiving an average of 102 channels of the more than 500 available to them. There were 18,267 magazines produced in 2005, up from 14,302 in 1993. The only declining media sector is the newspaper business, which has seen circulation erode for many years now. But that’s largely a result of the competition that it faces from other outlets.
Throw the Internet into the mix and you get dizzy. The Internet Systems Consortium reports that the number of Internet host computers—computers or servers that allow people to post content on the Web—has grown from just 235 in 1982 to 1.3 million in 1993 to roughly 400 million in 2006. At the beginning of 2007, the blog-tracking service Technorati counted over 66 million blogs, with more than 175,000 new ones created daily. Bloggers update their sites “to the tune of over 1.6 million posts per day, or over 18 updates a second,” according to Technorati."
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_media.html
Thanks.
Chris, I have no problem with the issues facing modern broadcasters being addressed. I believe in the notion that consolidation of media in to fewer hands is not in the best interest of a Democratic society.
Also, the number of outlets isn't nearly as important to me as who owns them. We may have 100's of channels on Cable or DBS, but most of them are owned by a few corporations. Besides, the proliferation of new outlets, especially magazines, has a lot to do with the ever narrowing niche markets that advertisers want to reach out and touch. I am not begrudging this aspect of the market, I am saying that it has little or nothing to do with a need to inform us and just about everything to do with delivering a product. I also understand this is how bills get paid.
As to your point of Blogs providing many more outlets for information, that is true. Unfortunately those avenues are not available to the poor and disenfranchised who probably need the information the most. Also, if the ideas of Net Neutrality are thrown out the window, and ISP's get to decide what is important on the net; your point will be nullified and we are back to needing diversity in our other media.
kired, I understand your focus on the who vs. numbers but either way the consolidation argument is overblown. Adam Thierer, whom I referenced previously, posted a new entry yesterday on Clear Channel's recent sell-off of both TV and radio stations.
http://www.techliberation.com/archives/042338.php
Also, regarding your advertising point, when one company owns multiple stations in a market, it allows for greater experimentation and diversity. Bear with me here, instead of several stations utilizing the same format in competition for the "money" demographic audience, one owners with multiple stations can use different formats to reach a larger audience. This in turn increases diversity.
I'm glad you understand the need to address the concerns of local broadcasters as I said with the pace of change in the business, this review is much needed. Thanks.
Post a Comment