The newly proposed rule would allow a single company to own TV stations that reach 45% of U.S. households instead of the current 35% maximum. But stations like Fox and CNN, a unit of AOL Time Warner, are permitted to do that already. Existing "cross-ownership" rules, such as those limiting the ownership of a newspaper and a radio or television station in the same city, would be replaced by a single rule that would lift most of the existing restrictions, which are now often waived anyhow.
....Pundits have hailed the rule change as "the most significant in a generation." Much more important is what has happened during that generation. Since the current regulations came into effect, the world has seen the rise of cable television, satellite television, new broadcast networks and the Internet. There are fewer daily newspapers than there once were, but many more television stations of various stripes. There are probably more magazines than ever, but arguably fewer serious journals of opinion. And anyone can put up a Web site or a Weblog and reach the world, assuming someone out there in the world wishes to be reached.
....those who are interested could use the Internet and dial up Le Monde or Al Jazeera. It's not clear how many Americans exercise this option. By definition, most viewers tend towards middle-of-the-road opinions. Networks seeking a mass audience will try to meet them in the middle. The real problem may be that many Americans simply are not interested in knowing what's going on. That's unfortunate, but there's probably nothing the FCC can do to change it.
....The paradoxical result of this wellspring of choice is a massive traffic jam in the center. But that doesn't mean there aren't other options on either the side of the road.
Paul Krugman, with whom I rarely agree, thinks the media explicitly curry political favor:
- The plan's defects aside - it will further reduce the diversity of news available to most people - what struck me was the horse-trading involved. One media group wrote to Mr. Powell, dropping its opposition to part of his plan "in return for favorable commission action" on another matter. That was indiscreet, but you'd have to be very naïve not to imagine that there are a lot of implicit quid pro quos out there.
Article comments
1 - Steve Rhodes
There still is a chance that this could be stopped if it gets enough coverage.
I listened to part of the Senate hearing this morning and a number of Senators spoke out against the new rules including Republican Olympia Snow. Trent Lott also said he favored keeping the current regulations.
mediareform.net which was started by McChesney has lots of info.
2 - Temple Stark
Yaeh, I listened to pare tof that too - when Frank Blethen from the Seattle Times was on, and the Viacom chair and some guy from Capitol One recording.
The Viacom guy in particualr sounded like a big baby. The rules, he was saying, should limit one company from owning 6 of 6 stations in one market but not 5 of 6.
They also kept on trying to fudge the numbers, not using "how many people" reached when it suited them - when it sounded less. Like saying owning eight of 100 radio stations in a market only amounted to 8 percent of the number of stations. this ignores the fact that those eight may have 90 percent of the audience - and may have before Company WHRE decided to buy them up.
If I could get to where I can upload to my Web site I'd post something more elaboratly presented there. But I can't., so ...
Something about government-mandated less choice has always made me squirm. It's the wrong direction.
3 - Steve Rhodes
Yeah, I heard Mel from Viacom (with a friend who had been laid off from MTV's online news staff). Poor baby, he can only ruin 8 radio stations in NYC - he wants more, Infinity perhaps?
It was interesting to hear the local owner of some stations including a CBS affiliate sound like McChesney (or even Chomsky at points) and totally contradicting Viacom.
I lost access to the audio feed before Frank Blethen came on.
CBS Marketwatch has a story on the hearing.
There also is a wire story on the two Democrats requesting a delay and that the proposed rules be made public.
That is one of the most amazing things about this. Powell doesn't want the rules released before the vote, and Copps said that it wouldn't even become public until two to six weeks after June 2nd if it is approved.
4 - Eric Olsen
I fear that mathematics - 5 commissioners, 3 Repub, 2 Dem - have long since sealed this vote. The administration is behind this move and none of the Repubs are going to buck that force.
5 - Temple Stark
I wonder why it has seemingly split up along such party lines? I have known many Republicans to quite enjoy more than one paper and/or TV station and/or more than one POV.
6 - Steve Rhodes
It probably will be a 3-2 vote, but Kevin Martin did buck Powell on a telco vote. It is reported that he is backing this, but there might be a chance he could be moved if there is more public outcry. Though for that to happen, there needs to be more coverage.
As I mentioned, there are some Republicans who are against this. There is a slight chance it could be blocked in congress. It will also be challenged in the courts.
7 - Steve Rhodes
FCC COMMISSIONERS ADELSTEIN AND COPPS CALL FOR PUBLIC AIRING OF MEDIA CONCENTRATION PROPOSALS
Seek Additional Time to Examine Public Interest Implications
Washington – Commissioners Jonathan S. Adelstein and Michael J. Copps have requested that the Commission postpone the announced June 2nd consideration of changes to the Commission’s media concentration protections. Under long-standing Commission practices, such requests from Commissioners are traditionally honored.
In addition, Commissioners Adelstein and Copps reiterated a request for a public airing of the proposed rule changes. “We believe a full notice and comment period on the specific proposals is warranted. Sound policymaking, perhaps even the law, requires no less. At a minimum, we believe Commissioner Adelstein’s request for a public airing in an open forum would benefit the overall process. Such a public airing could be held in the very near future which would alleviate any concerns about the timely conclusion of the proceeding.”
“As we have held our own field hearings and attended forums across this country, we have come to understand how important this issue is to our fellow citizens and to our democracy. When the Commission is considering significant changes that could unalterably remake our media landscape for years to come, we believe it is prudent to have a transparent process that ensures we understand the full implications of our decisions. Such an open forum is especially critical for issues of this magnitude when the Notice to the public asked broad, general questions, and did not set forth specific proposed rule changes.”
“A public airing would make for better policies. It would make for better buy-in from the American people. And it would enhance the sustainability of any Commission decision in court. Revealing the outlines of the proposals to the public would allow us to obtain concrete input that would not only help avoid unintended consequences, but would also provide a sounder basis for defending the specific proposals against the inevitable court challenges.”
STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER KATHLEEN Q. ABERNATHY
OPPOSING DELAY OF THE BROADCAST OWERNSHIP BIENNIAL REVIEW
Washington, D.C. ― Today, Commissioners Copps and Adelstein requested a delay of the June 2nd meeting on broadcast ownership. While appreciating their concerns, I must respectfully oppose their request. I conclude that for both legal and policy reasons we should move forward with the June 2nd meeting. The Commission has a statutory obligation to review our broadcast ownership rules every two years. We are already behind schedule, as June 2003 is past the date by which our 2002 biennial review should have been completed. Furthermore, we are fast approaching the time in which we need to begin our 2004 biennial review. If we don’t act, the courts may step in themselves.
We have compiled a thorough and comprehensive record in this proceeding, which includes over 18,000 comments, 12 studies and testimony from a number of broadcast ownership hearings. We have provided notice of the rules we are reviewing, and the comments in the record reflect an understanding of these issues. I am satisfied that we have the information and the input we need to make a sound, judicially sustainable decision that will benefit the public interest. Although we are resolving very important and difficult issues, this task will not become any easier a week from now, a month from now, or even a year from now.
8 - Thomas
If we "let the Clear Channel-ization of the media continue unabated" what is the likelihood that political discourse in the United States will be increasingly dominated by one party? What is the historical record of nations dominated by one party?
Saddam Hussein's regime--which we were recently forced to depose--was propped up by a media machine filled with propagandists and cheerleaders. Does Michael Powell truly see the potential consequences of this decision, or is he only concerned with short-term personal gain?
9 - Mark Saleski
political discourse already is dominated by one party.
despite the republicans' claim of liberal media bias, most left-leaning public statements are quickly shouted down with "LIBERAL!!"
...followed by said liberal skulking off into the fog.