Powell Is Seeing The Forest, But Forgetting The Trees
I caught a small part of an interview with Michael Powell on the radio this morning, and it led me to believe that he has either changed his argument recently, or people have not been understanding him. I have read over and over how people have characterized Powell's position as (loosely): "Given the increasing presence of cable outlets, a wide variety of views are already available, so rules designed to ensure a diversity of views are no longer needed." After hearing Powell this morning, what I believe he was actually saying is (loosely): "Given the increasing power of cable outlets, smaller stations have no way to compete unless we allow them to band together and compete on more equal terms." Amazingly, this seems at first like my own argument, but I still disagre with Mr Powell on his preferred solution.

The problem is that Powell seems to be considering the market at the macro level. A small station in Tuscaloosa isn't able to compete on equal terms with HBO, there is no question. His proposed solution would enable a company like Clear Channel to buy hundreds of TV stations across the nation and achieve a stature on par with HBO. Nationally, that might even seem like a good idea. But let's say that there are two TV stations in Tuscaloosa. One of them is now part of something huge. The other is still independent. What is there to stop the large conglomerate from stomping all over the small one?

You see, most people don't care about what happens at the national level. I care about what happens right here, in my hometown. And whether Channel 8 is now able to achieve advertising revenues similar to those of CNN doesn't concern me as much as whether Channel 8 just drive Channel 5 out of business. Powell's proposed rules might help some local stations compete with cable outlets, but it would certainly drive other local stations completely out of business. In addition, when the local radio stations, television stations and newpaper are all owned by the same two companies, it's hard to see how that helps the consumer, even if it does mean that the conglomerate can nw compete more directly with TNN or USA.

And The Forest Doesn't Really Need Help Anyway
Besides, if that truly is the crux of his motivation, I think he's missed the boat on an even more basic level than that. After all, Channel 8 doesn't produce many of the shows I see in the listings. In fact, aside from the local news - most local channels' biggest (and almost only) profit center - almost all other shows on the channel are produced by the network, or by independent companies that then sell their show to the network. The network is then very large, hundreds of stations, and is probably able to complete pretty well with CNN and HBO, right? And yet the network manages to do so without actually owning any of the stations in any of the individual markets. Instead, they rely on contractual agreements with independent stations, just like HBO and CNN rely on contractual agreements with cable and satellite service providers.