European Politicians Discuss 'The Blogger Problem'

from the are-you-serious? dept

Apparently this got some discussion a few weeks back, but I was just alerted to the fact that some European politicians have been debating how to handle the new media landscape that makes some odd and totally contradictory suggestions which the possibilities of bloggers becoming a problem by "polluting cyberspace." While some of the argument has been blown way out of proportion, there are some things that are very problematic in the way the paper is written.

The oddest contradiction in the piece is the fact that much of it is concerned about the lack of diversity in media these days, and then it seems to see bloggers as a threat, rather than the solution:

"The cases of unrestricted ownership concentration or of scarce content pluralism in the media are endangering cultural diversity and freedom of expression not only within national markets but also at European level. We need therefore strong European commitment to overcome those challenges especially in view of the new technologies and services in the media sector."

One would think that such politicians would then champion the rise of easy publishing platforms that allows anyone, professional or amateur, to join the game. Yet, that doesn't appear to be the case.

"The blogosphere has so far been a haven of good intentions and relatively honest dealing. However, with blogs becoming commonplace, less principled people will want to use them.... We do not see bloggers as a threat. They are in position, however, to considerably pollute cyberspace. We already have too much spam, misinformation and malicious intent in cyberspace. I think the public is still very trusting towards blogs, it is still seen as sincere. And it should remain sincere. For that we need a quality mark, a disclosure of who is really writing and why."

If I'm reading this right, it appears that these politicians are afraid of media consolidation, because it limits the diversity of voices -- but at the same time, it's afraid of bloggers polluting media, because that diversity of voices might be "bad." Right. In other words, the real fear isn't either the diversity of media or the rise of bad bloggers -- it's just that they're afraid that speech they don't like will become popular, whereas those who agree with them might get drowned out. That would also explain the ridiculous assertion that Europe needs a "right to reply." A sort of cousin of the fairness doctrine, a right to reply is designed to let someone respond if a publication says something about them that they don't like. This isn't the first time this has been proposed in Europe. Way back in 2003, we wrote about plans in Europe to regulate bloggers with a demand for a right to reply.

The thing is, everyone already has a right to reply: your own website. A right to reply makes sense when there isn't a way for you to reply. With the internet, however, that's just not the case any more. And, yes, some people will say "but, if the original report is on a popular publication, and your site doesn't get any traffic, then that's not the same." However, that's inaccurate as well. In this day and age, if the media says something incorrect about you, and you write up your own thoughts, it seems that others are only too eager to hype it up and show the news report was wrong. You just need to let some other folks know that you've responded, and the word spreads pretty quickly.

Filed Under: bloggers, europe, media ownership, regulations, right to reply

ACLU Joins In On Media Ownership Hysteria

from the stick-to-civil-liberties dept

I've said before that I have trouble understanding what all the fuss is about with media consolidation. At a time when there's an unprecedented explosion of new voices on the Internet, it's difficult to get worked up about rule changes that would allow very slight concentration of newspapers and broadcast television, two industries that are declining in importance. Radley Balko notes that the ACLU is jumping into the debate. I don't understand how lobbying for more restrictive media regulations promotes civil liberties. Even worse, the organization -- whose work I normally support and admire -- seems really clueless about the state of the media marketplace. For example, their Washington legislative director says: "Six major companies control most of the media in the country, including the most popular sites on the Internet."

She doesn't say who the six companies are, but I'm going to guess it's the "big six" of Viacom, Disney, Time Warner, GE, Bertelsman, and News Corp. There's just no way you can argue that these six companies own "the most popular sites on the Internet." According to Alexa, most of the top 10 sites are owned by Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft, all independent companies. Only MySpace, recently acquired by News Corp., is in the top 10. But maybe she meant the top 10 media companies? Well, a good source for the sites most discussed in the blogosphere is the Memeorandum Leaderboard. Three of the top 10 are controlled by the "Big Six": CNN at #3, the Wall Street Journal at #9 and MSNBC at #10. Four others -- the Associated Press, New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Atlantic, -- are mainstream media outlets not controlled by the "Big Six." The final three slots are held by the Huffington Post and the Politico (twice), pure Internet publications not owned by the "Big Six."

Indeed, the whole idea that "six major companies" are gaining monopolistic control over the media marketplace doesn't make sense. There are, in fact, a ton of independent media companies. In addition to the New York Times and Washington Post companies, there are other big, independent newspaper chains like the Tribune Company (owner of the LA Times and Chicago Tribune) and Gannett (owner of USA Today and numerous other papers). There are foreign outlets like the BBC and the Guardian. There are magazine publishers like Conde Nast, book publishers like Pearson, and music publishers like EMI. The "Big Six" own a lot of media outlets, to be sure, but it's a big world, and there is no shortage of prominent media outlets that aren't controlled by these major players. And as media critic Ben Compaine has documented, the media marketplace has barely gotten more concentrated at all in the last couple of decades. For example, between the mid-1980s and the late 1990s, the market share of the top ten media companies increased from 38 percent to just 41 percent. More importantly, there's been a lot of turnover. The list of top media companies in 1988 would look very different from today's top ten list. In short, there's no real problem here. Given how many actual civil liberties problems there are in the US, I wish the ACLU would stick to what it knows best.

Filed Under: aclu, media ownership
Companies: aclu

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.

Filed Under: fcc, media ownership, senate
Companies: congress, fcc

FCC Caps Cable Growth, Slightly Relaxes Media Ownership Rules

from the yawn dept

As expected, the FCC agreed today to ever so barely relax media ownership rules. While we rarely find FCC Chair Kevin Martin's arguments convincing, on this one he's correct -- and we still can't figure out why people are so up in arms. The details show that it's an incredibly minor change to the rules. In the top 20 media markets, newspapers can merge with a single radio or TV station -- but not if that TV station is one of the top 4 stations in that market. In other words, newspapers who are struggling to get beyond just being newspapers can finally expand into other media areas. I can't understand why people are freaked out about this. At best, a newspaper can now own a tiny radio or TV station. The fear of only one point of view getting through is totally laughable for a variety of reasons. First, there are more sources of media than ever before in history -- by a long shot. To think that a single TV station or newspaper can dominate the conversation is laughable. Second, since it can't involve a top 4 TV station, it's hard to believe that this new entity will have all that much dominance in the market. There seems to be nothing wrong with this proposal. Of course, don't expect this to go anywhere. Thanks to misleading hysteria over the issue, the Senate quickly stepped in to block the FCC's ruling, at least for the time being.

However, in another decision that doesn't make much sense at all, the FCC did vote to cap cable growth. As we've pointed out in the past, the rationale for this makes almost no sense, and will likely decrease choice of providers in many regions. With media ownership, you're talking about a highly competitive market. With things like cable, you are not -- so it makes very little sense for the FCC to cap cable's growth -- except as a favor to Kevin Martin's friends in the telcos.

Filed Under: cable, fcc, media ownership, regulations
Companies: fcc

People Still Get Their News From Local Newspapers And TV Stations?

from the massive-overreaction dept

I don't understand why people get so worked up about the FCC's various proposals to tweak the rules regarding how many TV stations and newspapers one company can own. The ownership of local newspapers and TV stations was important in the 20th century, when people only had a handful of choices on where to get their news. Local newspaper and broadcast television stations are becoming one small corner of a vastly larger media universe that includes dozens of cable television stations, thousands of news sites, and millions of blogs and podcasts. Nowadays, the real question isn't whether local newspapers and TV stations have too much influence; the question is whether anyone would notice if they disappeared.

Which brings us to FCC chairman Kevin Martin's New York Times op-ed defending his remarkably timid proposal to allow a newspaper in one of the 20 largest cities to purchase a TV or radio station—but not one of the metro area's four largest TV stations. Under his proposal, none of the FCC's other media ownership rules would be changed. In other words, a newspaper would be allowed to buy an also-ran TV station in a cacophonous media market like New York or LA, but the vast majority of cities would see no changes at all. Yet some members of Congress seem to think that even those miniscule changes are too much and have introduced legislation to require the FCC to spend even more time debating the issue, even though, as James Gattuso points out, that the FCC has been debating the issue for 11 years already. On the other hand, as ridiculous as the situation is, it's hard to have too much sympathy for the broadcasters. After all, they were happy to raise bogus fears of media concentration to stop the XM/Sirius merger this spring. Now the broadcasters are getting a taste of their own medicine.

Filed Under: fcc, kevin martin, media ownership, newspaper
Companies: congress, fcc