Media Companies Still Seeking Double Standard On Consolidation

from the party-line dept

Wed, May 2nd 2007 8:27am — Carlo Longino

The FCC's been doing a series of "town meetings" in various places around the country to discuss media-ownership rules, and they typically provide a nice illustration of how the media industry wants to bend government regulations to suit its purposes and hinder the rest of the market. The FCC held such a meeting (via Orbitcast) in Tampa this week, where people from various media outlets talked about how they should be allowed to consolidate to their heart's content, while members of the public voiced their dissatisfaction with the effects of all that consolidation on local media. In particular, it's worth highlighting this quote from the incoming president of the Florida Association of Broadcasters, the state's trade group of TV and radio stations:

"Anyone with a computer can now compete to serve the local audience," said Bill Carey, general manager of WFTS-TV and incoming president of the Florida Association of Broadcasters, who advocated for looser rules that would allow companies to own more outlets. Those new outlets are serious competitors for news, Carey said, and illustrate how traditional media companies need more flexible rules for how they operate.

By "flexible rules", he means that the companies should be free to buy up any media outlet they wish, with no restrictions on the number controlled in a single market by a single owner. Of course, when XM and Sirius want to merge, it's a different story from traditional broadcasters. This guy's comments highlight the competition old media outlets are facing from upstarts, be it satellite radio companies or, as he puts it, "anyone with a computer". They'd also seem to further undermine the NAB's hypocritical contention that its members don't compete with satellite radio, as well as the industry's double standard in asking the government for the ability to merge at will, while trying to block the XM-Sirius merger.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

10 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

PhysicsGuy, 2 May 2007 @ 9:23am

congratulations
grats techdirt on building the ugliest site on the internet. for producing this vile heap of putrid vomit, we salute you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger, 2 May 2007 @ 9:35am
  
  Re: congratulations
  I agree that the new site design is not pretty but to say they're the "ugliest site on the internet" is a little harsh. Just look at any other news site out there. They're filled with advertisements to the point of being unreadable.
  
  Carlo, Feel free to delete this and the preceding post at will.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John, 2 May 2007 @ 9:36am
  
  Re: congratulations
  PhysicsGuy seems to have issues. Your site is probably bigger then his or something like that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tarky7, 2 May 2007 @ 9:35am

Ugly...
I would have to agree, very clumsy guys. Why don't you push the envelop and make it really really ugly, so it makes some sort of retro statement,

Just a though, right mow it is simple ugly, and the beige or yellow is pretty horrid, if you want me to get specific, that and the layers on the top.

Straight shooting...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
comboman, 2 May 2007 @ 9:38am

huh??
So because they face competition from "anyone with a computer" (i.e. small, local and adaptable) they need to compete by merging and expansion (to becoming big, global and rigid)? That's a bit like saying McDonald's is having trouble competing with small local restaurants that have greater variety and healthier menu choices, so they need to buy out Burger King and Wendy's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ohbitchplease..., 2 May 2007 @ 10:07am

Congradulations Ugly
Wow, seems like some psudo designers got up on the wrong side of the half-caf, extra hot latte this morning.

Tarky7 is the best example of what I like to call 'Idiot Designer Opinion'. They make nasty comments about sites but fail to realize their nasty blog (note the lack of comments: http://www.tarky7.com/) looks like someone whipped their butt on my screen.
Tarky, seriously, you shouldn't comment about anyone site design. Ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Green Grass, 2 May 2007 @ 11:01am

Turning it around
If XM/Sirius are allowed to merge, should all media ownership rules be thrown out as well?

Curious about some thoughts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Beefcake, 2 May 2007 @ 1:33pm
  
  Re: Turning it around
  Thoughts solicited, so here's mine.
  
  No, because they are unrelated. Sirius/XM merger has to clear anti-trust hurdles, but that's not what the FCC media-ownership rules are about. They are about allowing separate voices in each market, not competition.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Steven, 3 May 2007 @ 8:38am
    
    Re: Re: Turning it around
    Is it really a problem that we don't have separate voices anymore?
    
    I don't think we should throw out the anti-trust hurdles (competition is good), but do the current rules reflect reality?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
arbulus, 2 May 2007 @ 11:09am

@comboman
It's actually more like saying McDonalds faces competition from anyone with a stove and skillet, so Mcdonalds needs to own every single restaurant in a market and every single store where you can buy stoves and skillets, in order to be able to effectively compete.

It's bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]