Michael Powell wrote an op-ed piece for The New York Times defending his intended FCC plan [announced June 2, 2003] to liberalize ownership rules for media. The big bitch most critics have had has been specifically the proposed change to allow one company to own broadcast stations reaching up to 45 percent of the national market, an increase from the current cap of 35 percent.
The move has drawn sharp criticism and massive resistance from both parties in congress, as well as the opposition of many and diverse interest groups, including the NRA to NOW. Despite backing from President Bush, it appears that congress will absolutely block this loosening of restrictions.
The typical argument for opposing media de-regulation is that letting one company own more tv or radio stations will somehow stifle diversity of viewpoints. This argument seems less convincing by the day, however. From three tv networks we've gone to approximately two million cable channels, plus the internet giving us access to more viewpoints than you can shake a stick at. This dizzying increase in diversity only promises to accelerate.
Powell edged gingerly up to the real point, but he has to be diplomatic. Let me say it directly: all these groups and congressmen and other media types in opposition want to control content. Why else would the NRA give a rat's ass about media ownership?
Let's pick a critic to make an example of. Disingenuous conservative crapweasel Brent Bozell has a column Arrogant Michael Powell in which he as much as called Powell a "scoundrel" for suggesting that critics had some wish to control content.
Those are the words of a scoundrel. C-E-N-S-O-R-S-H-I-P. The inference is all over that statement, and one wonders why Powell didn't just come out and say it. But we know why he didn't say it. This Clintonian scare tactic has no basis in fact.
Article comments
1 - Steve Rhodes
Picking a bozo like Bozell and saying because his arguments are weak, that all of the critics want to control content is wrong. If you've been reading this site for any length of time, you've read far better cases against the new FCC rules.
These groups haven't been able to control content under the current rules and all they hope for is the status quo.
There are legit concerns there is already too much concentration of media ownership. The 96 radio dereg has been a disaster. There should far more public debate should occur before there is more tv and cross-ownership deregulation.
2 - Al Barger
"96 radio dereg has been a disaster" Really? Have I missed a flood of refugees, starvation, mass graves or something?
I can't tell the difference between radio '96 and radio '03, but presumably you don't like the content. What else would be your beef?
Saying that all they hope for is the "status quo" does not mean that you don't want to control content. It just means that you don't feel like you'll be very successful in that attempt; you'll settle for maintaining whatever bit of control you've got now.
"There should far more public debate should occur before there is more tv and cross-ownership deregulation." What you mean is really that there just flat shouldn't be more deregulation.
I operate on the basis of a presumption in favor of private property, unless there are really exceptional circumstances. If I own a radio station, I pay for the towers, the microphones, the salary of staff- therefore the station is MINE. Why should I need YOUR permission to dispose of my own property? None of your goddam business.
I have read pretty much everything published on Blogcritics, but I haven't seen any arguments against de-regulation that have struck me as worthwhile.
Again, someone might state them better than Bozell, but pretty much ALL of the arguments are at some point arguments about controlling the content of media. I don't think it is my business or yours to control what Clear Channel puts on their stations, or how many they want to buy.
The MediaReform Network argues of course from exactly that point.
"We are barraged with advertising." Then change the frickin' dial, or put on a CD. That you don't like the content does not give you the right to run someone else's business.
Again from their opening statement, "The range of news analysis and debate is shrinking". This statement is simply utterly untrue. There are more and more outlets of opinion, ie Blogcritics, hundreds of tv channels, and far greater access to already existing outlets via the net.
If Clear Channel takes over a zillion stations, they're doing the consumers will still. If they don't, the consumers will TURN THE F'ING DIAL, and the dreaded corporate owner will go broke.
3 - Steve Rhodes
Radio in the Bay Area has changed quite a bit since 96. Clear Channel bought a bunch of stations which now have less news & public affairs, fewer songs on their playlists (and more songs which suck), and they also own many of the concert venues in area. I'd call that disasterous (and I wouldn't want to rely on clear channel stations on my wind-up emergency radio if there is a earthquake or other disaster).
The agument that Clear Channel is doing what the consumers want is bullshit. I read through raw Abritron diaries at the NAB radio convention a few years ago. The comments said they wanted more local programs and music, less ads, and a great variety of songs.
If there were competing stations to choose from that provided it, they would listen to it. But they don't have that choice.
4 - Al Barger
So the local Clear Channel stations don't play what you want, so you wish to use the power of government (ie force of arms) to make them do your bidding.
But it's not about wanting to control content, right?
5 - mike
Al, you're nothing but a "liberventionist." I cracked up as soon as I saw this today, and thought of you immediately:
http://www.antiwar.com/stromberg/s041302.html
6 - JR
“I operate on the basis of a presumption in favor of private property, unless there are really exceptional circumstances. If I own a radio station, I pay for the towers, the microphones, the salary of staff- therefore the station is MINE. Why should I need YOUR permission to dispose of my own property? None of your goddam business.”
This argument neatly sidesteps the issue completely. The fact is nobody cares what you do with your towers or your microphones. It’s all about the wave lengths. By broadcasting at a certain wave length, you effectively prevent anyone else in your vicinity from using it. And since there is a limit to the number of useful wave lengths, you and/or a small group of others can potentially prevent everyone else from broadcasting at all.
When the rest of us are prevented from using something it becomes our business. By what right do you “own” your wave length? You certainly didn’t create it. Nor can you buy one from someone who did. So how did that become your wave length to use exclusively?
“Again from their opening statement, 'The range of news analysis and debate is shrinking'. This statement is simply utterly untrue. There are more and more outlets of opinion, ie Blogcritics, hundreds of tv channels, and far greater access to already existing outlets via the net.”
None of which does me much good when I’m driving, for example.
7 - Al Barger
It's kind of mucked up now, but ideally "By what right do you “own” your wave length?" would be answered by saying that I started using it first, just as you would with a piece of land. It became yours because you cleared off a piece of woods and started planting crops.
If you want to approach it a little differently, then have a nice fat auction of current wavelengths and be done with it.
"When the rest of us are prevented from using something it becomes our business." You are likewise prevented from doing something when someone owns anything. You are, for example, prevented from wandering onto the grounds of Microsoft and planting a crop of corn in their yard. Hey, Bill Gates didn't CREATE that ground.
You claim the right to socialize radio stations because you can't get anything but the broadcast channels while you're driving. Why would that give you some special right to someone else's property? Would you then concede you have no right to control TV, since that does have cable and satellite options?
Besides which, you can get satellite radio for the car now, with a zillion channels to choose from. Soon enough, you'll have internet access from the car, at which point you will be getting close to being able to have everyone so interested programming their own "radio stations" from the PC at home to share with anyone who'll listen.
Bandwidth is becoming LESS rather than more rare, in an accelerating manner.
8 - Steve Rhodes
Then I guess you must be in favor of allowing low-power FM stations to operate without being busted by the FCC?
But people have to pay for satellite and cable. In a democracy, there should be a minimum level of information and culture available for free.
Before the 96 radio dereg, radio wasn't great but it has gotten worse while Clear Channel and othe companies are making more profit by using the public airwaves.
Read McChesney's Rich Media, Poor Democracy for a history of how the the current regulator landscape evolved.
9 - Al Barger
Yes, I would tend to favor low power FM broadcasts, though I don't know enough about the technical issues to comment extensively.
"In a democracy, there should be a minimum level of information and culture available for free." Says who? In the famous words of Robert Heinlein, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."
On the other hand, there is already a great deal of free and very cheap information readily available. You got public libraries, for starters. Free TV and radio. Lots of stuff available very cheaply on the net.
Again, scarcity arguments for regulating tv and radio lose ground every day, with more outlets working cheaper.
10 - JR
“It's kind of mucked up now, but ideally ‘By what right do you “own” your wave length?’ would be answered by saying that I started using it first, just as you would with a piece of land. It became yours because you cleared off a piece of woods and started planting crops.”
It’s so “mucked up” that I don’t think “first come, first served” works even as an idea. But that’s another argument…
“If you want to approach it a little differently, then have a nice fat auction of current wavelengths and be done with it.”
I’d prefer a lottery, if only so we don’t discriminate based on wealth. Money is not a proxy for quality when it comes to art and ideas, which is what we’re trying to promote on radio. (Aren’t we?)
I seem to recall the FCC has indeed held lotteries or auctions to dole out airspace. Can't remember the specifics.
"When the rest of us are prevented from using something it becomes our business." You are likewise prevented from doing something when someone owns anything. You are, for example, prevented from wandering onto the grounds of Microsoft and planting a crop of corn in their yard. Hey, Bill Gates didn't CREATE that ground."
Which I don’t have a problem with until Bill Gates buys up all the ground, or even a significant portion of it. Look, I don’t believe civilization as we know it would exist without property rights. But those rights are nonetheless limited by the needs of the society they helped create. If we decided that Bill Gates had settled a piece of land that was needed to build a highway or an airport; he would be induced to move, hopefully with fair compensation. But like it or not, he would leave.
“You claim the right to socialize radio stations because you can't get anything but the broadcast channels while you're driving. Why would that give you some special right to someone else's property? Would you then concede you have no right to control TV, since that does have cable and satellite options?”
If taxpayers haven’t subsidized the cable or the satellite, I have nothing to say about what goes out over it. However, for broadcast TV I would make the same argument as for radio.
Your point that this debate is over content is well taken " if we didn’t care what goes out over the airwaves, why should we care who puts it out? But I don’t agree that this is about controlling specific programming, or at least it shouldn’t be. In the interest of promoting diversity of content, the FCC had previously decided to mandate diversity of ownership. I agree with giving them the authority to do that. That it will work is not obvious; but short of actually dictating content, have you got a better idea?
“Besides which, you can get satellite radio for the car now, with a zillion channels to choose from. Soon enough, you'll have internet access from the car, at which point you will be getting close to being able to have everyone so interested programming their own ‘radio stations’ from the PC at home to share with anyone who'll listen.
“Bandwidth is becoming LESS rather than more rare, in an accelerating manner.”
I’ll concede that bandwidth is increasing faster than our ability to (mis)use it; and that’s a good thing.
By why should we surrender traditional radio to media monopolies? If Clear Channel wants to hog bandwidth, let them do it by putting up their own satellite. Radio has a long and at times glorious history, and no individual or company around today can claim to have played a dominant part in that history. Furthermore, we are already universally equipped to receive radio. Why shouldn’t the public retain control over it, particularly since there are plenty of alternatives now?
Think of radio as our electromagnetic National Park " sure we can grant concessions to private companies or individuals to put things on it, but overall it belongs to the people.
11 - excitableboy
Al, your claim that critics of deregulation just want to control the airwaves is a red herring. Even if that were true of all critics (and it isn't), it doesn't mean that deregulation is a good idea. The "dizzying increase in diversity" you crow about is more apparent than real. Broadcast television has grown from three broadcast networks to six, but most of the Fox, WB, and UPN outlets are once independent stations that gave up much of their programming independence when they became network affiliates. Radio is dominated by Clear Channel, which owns 10 percent of all U.S. stations (and controls the programming of even more), and receives 20 percent of all radio advertising revenues. As for the "approximately two million cable channels," HBO2 and the Biography Channel are not more diversity, just more of the same.
When a few large corporations own so much of the nation's broadcast media, you are not likely to hear anything on the TV or radio that the owners don't want you to hear. A perfect example is the deregulation story itself, which was effectively blacked out until bloggers started writing about it and an astonished Congress was flooded with e-mails protesting the decision.
When these same corporations are allowed to own, and thereby control the content of, even more stations, there will be even less diversity of expression on the air than there is now.
I mean, they won't play Captain Beefheart no matter how often I phone them on their All-Request Weekends, man!
12 - Phillip Winn
I hate spam!