Senate Tries To Roll Back FCC Ownership Rules; Apparently Still Hasn't Heard Of The Internet
from the media-options dept
Late last year, the FCC decided to relax media ownership rules in a really minor way. Basically, with the FCC ruling, a newspaper could purchase an also-ran TV station. It could only buy a station that wasn't in the top 4 in the market. Yet, this got people up in arms over some nefarious "media consolidation" claims. Yet, these claims make no sense. There are more media outlets than ever before in history, and there are more ways and more sources to get your news from than ever before in history. Yes, many of them are online, but that doesn't change the fact that they exist. But apparently, the Senate is unaware of that. It has started a process to invalidate the FCC's changes, claiming that it's "not healthy for this country" to only have a few major media outlets. That might be a point worth debating if it were true, but it's not. Meanwhile, no one's explained what's so problematic about a newspaper company owning a TV station at the same time. Considering that it only applies to 5th ranked or beyond TV stations, it's not as if it will somehow block out the voices from other stations.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
Filed Under: fcc, media ownership, senate
Companies: congress, fcc
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
clearly...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I don't know
Decentralized vs. Centralized media (much like BT, should allow for more choice and better options for the consumer)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Senate Tries To Rick Roll FCC Ownership Rules; Apparently Still Hasn't Heard Of The Internet
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Excuse
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yes and No...
However, i think that in the interest of democracy (in every country) this should be pushed in time for 10 years (at least). The fact is that a large part of the population does not use the internet. The net is still not as widespread in use as we (regular and avid users) like to thing. Keeping in place some limits to enhance chances of non-internet users seems like a good thing to me (at present time).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's a good thing...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
5th ranked isn't relevant
That said, you're right that the internet makes the old rule at least somewhat obsolete.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
whether or not you LIKE it, the internet is not the end-all-beat-all of competition. get your head out of the internet-koolaid and quit glorifying what is to date a MINOR source of news and information. i WISH it were true that the internet was just as relevant as the over the air sources, but it just is not. people in the US just don't have the desire to do any WORK to get alternate points of view, they would rather just sit on thier ever-expanding asses on their overstuffed couches and just push the remote control over to the next mindless entertainment show.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
media access
then there is a speech issue of course, as in, a large company is allowed a station broadcast to spill out whatever messages it wants but i'm not allowed to but i've been thrown the internet bone so its ok? well as the slogans go..
MICRO-POWER TO THE PEOPLE
TAKE BACK YOUR AIRWAVES
RADIO IS MY BOMB
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The monopolization of media, much like the centralization and increased bureaucratization of the central government or the decreasing of civil liberties, always comes in the form of relatively minor but consistent incremental changes.
So while the FCC rule, according to your black and white portrayal that is not very accurate (yes, IAAL) permits a newspaper to "buy a station that wasn't in the top 4 in the market," I would point to the recent trends of said subject matter and predict it would not take long before the rule is evicerated completely. Also, just FYI, according to this rule, it is very possible that the sole newspaper in a small town also owns the sole television news affiliate/subsidiary (keep in mind that because this is a small town, neither outlet is top 4 in the broader "market").
"[N]o one's explained what's so problematic about a newspaper company owning a TV station at the same time."
I don't have the time to go over the reasons, but if you're genuinely interested in finding an answer, you can begin your research by looking at the "free" media in Russia.
A true problem, as hinted above, is also present when a population/town/whatever only receives news from one outlet. While the internet might be useful, the people who probably need access to it most do not even know how to turn on a computer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Actually, that appears to RAPIDLY becoming not the case:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=282
Look how fast local TV and local newspapers are dropping as a major source of news.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Excuse
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I don't know
Great, just what I want. Now I can get all my Britney gossip from many viewpoints instead of just one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who Shepherds The Flock?
Of course, these distinctions are not absolute, but I think we have are more 'ignant' and controllable citizens mostly creating their views as they watch the 'great' content presented to them by mainstream media.
Rupert and Clear Channel have far too great an influence on those that can be influenced. In a winner-take-all electoral system, shifting a few easily manipulated swing votes makes the difference between winning and losing executive power. That means that media control can quickly mean policy control.
A few voices of reason in the blogoshpere, mixed with a million other voices and wackos, does not level the playing field.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rankings
> or beyond TV stations, it's not as if it will
> somehow block out the voices from other stations.
I wonder what happens if a newspaper buys a TV station that's ranked 6th in the market when they make the purchase but after a year or so, moves up in market share to the point where it's now 4th or 3rd?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Internet
> to do any WORK to get alternate points of view
That's their choice and if that's what they choose, that's on them. Their laziness certainly isn't a justification for ever more government intrusion into the private sphere.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not true
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
senate and reality
--Glenn
[ link to this | view in thread ]
plenty of reliable sources?
We still need those ownership rules. Hopefully not for too much longer, but for now, we definitely do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Couldn't agree with you more if I put it on a t-shirt
What's happened to radio is a crying shame, and it's exactly this sort of program that has caused it to happen. Just imagine if your local news were delivered by someone in Miami or your local coverage went away because it's not cost-effective. That's what happened with radio.
Also, consider the hidden "synergies" that come into play here.
If you advertise on Channel A, you get a slot on Channel A. If you advertise on Channel B, why they'll throw in a free radio spot on one of their stations. Boom, less revenue for Channel A. Eventually, Channel A goes under and now there's only one source for news in your town and they are beholden more to the bottom line than your city or town.
I don't often support government interference, but in this instance, I do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Consolidation of TV news in Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
Say what you want, but without any caps, big media corporations keep hoarding the pie for themselves, which leaves the viewer stuck with no alternatives.
[ link to this | view in thread ]