Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiBig Media Myopia at the FCC
Too often in the give-and-take of media policymaking, it's government officials that are giving, corporate giants that are taking, and the public that's left with nothing in the exchange.
This is certainly the case at the Federal Communications Commission, where Republican Chairman Kevin Martin is trying to brush aside mounds of evidence and ignore vast public opposition to hand a sweetheart deal to media owners with whom he seems to share a common agenda.
The decision in question -- allowing one company to own broadcast station and a major daily newspaper in the same market -- is so unpopular and wrong-headed that one wonders what really motivates Martin to defy common sense and the democratic process.
Despite intense pressure to stop his headlong rush for more consolidation, Martin has called for a vote next week the ban on "newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership" and let a few companies swallow up more local media in hundreds of cities and towns.
His rule change is likely to pass with the support of the other two Republican commissioners, Deborah Taylor Tate and Robert McDowell, sources told Reuters today.
Giving 'Short Shrift'
As FCC Commissioner Michael Copps has said, Martin's plan gives "short shrift" to pressing problems such as the sorry state of female and minority media ownership of U.S. media and the decline of quality local news coverage on TV and radio.
When the idea of more media consolidation was put before Americans -- during a series of public hearings and requests for public comment -- more than 99 percent said bigger media were bad for them, bad for their communities and bad for our democracy.
Can you remember the last time 99 percent of Americans agreed on anything?
When the FCC asked for evidence of the impact of consolidation on localism, diversity and competition in media, Free Press and its allies responded with a comprehensive series of reports that found Martin's consolidation plan amounted to little more than corporate welfare for Big Media.
Lifting the cross-ownership ban would unleash a buying spree in the local media markets, making it easier for companies like Gannett Co., News Corp. and Tribune Co. to push out independent, local owners.
Moreover, Free Press used the FCC's own data to show how such local consolidation would result in less local news, less minority control of local news outlets, and less diversity of perspectives and opinion in local media.
The Public Takes Notice
Chairman Martin has never disputed -- or even acknowledged -- this research; he would rather it be swept under the rug in hopes that the rest of us wouldn't notice.
Fortunately, many have noticed.
Right now thousands of people over at StopBigMedia.com are building a virtual "wall" of opposition. Martin, who has spent plenty of time staring across his desk at industry lobbyists, should check out the faces of his real constituents.
Martin's proposal also triggered criticism from the Hill. Rep. John Dingell, (D-Mich.), the powerful head of the House Commerce Committee, last week wrote Martin informing him that the House was launching an investigation into the way the FCC was operating.
And bipartisan legislation, now winding through the Senate, would impose a six-month delay on the Martin's plans to gut ownership limits and mandate that the agency deal with the crisis in minority media ownership before changing any rules.
Big Media's Drive-Thru
In the face of all of this, why is Martin still determined to push through his rule change?
The chairman himself wrote recently in a New York Times op-ed that he's changing the rules to save journalism -- that newspapers and television stations need to join up financially in order to survive editorially. (Never mind the legions of newsroom layoffs that have resulted from similarly merged "economies of scale.")
That Martin is willing to employ blatant illogic to save us from ourselves shows what passes for public service in an agency that's little more than a drive-thru for corporate giveaways.
That people are rising up in numbers to oppose him is a hopeful sign that "business as usual" at the FCC is destined for bankruptcy.
As the Campaign Director for Free Press and SavetheInternet.com, Karr oversees campaigns on public broadcasting and noncommercial media, fake news and propaganda, journalism in crisis, and the future of the Internet.
Copyright © 2007 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
18 Comments so far
Show Allprincipessaflamenco,
So are you saying you want Republicans because the Democrats have so few "liberal" politicians? Or do you also believe there is some third thing that's going to be elected?
One of the biggest urban legends floating around America is that news media outlets, in general, and newspapers, in particular, are losing revenues and thus cannot sustain a viable business without consolidating and taking advantage of an economy of scale. Aren't all the recent layoffs at many newspapers an example of this?
The truth, if you care to look it up, is that newspapers and news media outlets are enjoying some of the largest profit margins they have ever had.
The layoffs, the consolidations and the economies of scale aren't the result of lagging business as much as the investor pressure to produce dividends and create a better market share.
In the end it's not personal, it's business.
Daniel David,
With very few exceptions, there are not liberal politicians among the Democrats
JJ PETER -- I also wonder, and we must have crossed synchronistic wires tonight, as I just responded elsewhere about this. The reason we "progressives" have such a challenge getting down to their level, is that they really do crawl on their bellies.
Often it occurs to me that perhaps it could be that the Bush family "tree" actually hatches out of the sand near a bush, and they are but cold reptiles at their core, hopelessly looking for warmth that they cannot create, while it vaguely reminds them of feeling something once.
Oooohaa, does somebody need a clean diaper now?
I'm guessing most of those reptilian boys were bottle feed, and didn't have a mammalian mother anywhere close, during their formative years.
The egg was kind of just dropped off in the nursery, to propagate the cold-(blue)-blooded family line, with little concern to bring its humanity into focus - quite the opposite was likely.
Warmth, family-tribal connection, altruism, and sincerity are seldom found in reptiles nor political wonks. Sociopaths are excellent leaders with their innate charisma and charm (built up from self defenses covering their unfathomable shame), but do suffer (and thereby make us suffer more) from the serious lack of compassion (or feeling) for anyone else. Reptile_in_Chief, oh cold-hearted fiend.
BTW, the brain stem is even earlier evolutionary-wise (than reptilian cortex portion), and handles the most rudimentary of survival tasks: breathing and swallowing. The brain's layers expand outward toward greater humanity, building on top of the more primative.
Namaste … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … Mahatma Gandhi … … … … … … … … … …
« We must be the change we wish to see in the world »
« There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed »
One wonders;
Why do the Republican tools hate Freedom so much? Why do they hate liberty, free thought, the market place of ideas, fair competition and those who create out of thin air, from the source of inspiration the things that have allowed mankind to progress thus far?
Is it because they are envious? Is it because on a truly level playing field, they would lose? Thus they must fix the game, shift the rules, prey on the fair minded and steal from the creators of progress.
They deserve the deepest scorn available on the human scale of emotion.
They are vacant of ideas, and thus disconnected from the very source that wishes to give them life.
Well written, B Payne Economist
THANK YOU,
efsawyer
How about a massive demonstration at the FCC by thousands of people chanting that great Peter Finch line: " I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!!" It will also help if a significant number of the protesters get beaten up, gassed and arrested. I would like to see another "police riot" over this issue like Chicago in 1968.
Why are there no visible protests agains the routinely lying corporate media. Only by OPENLY CONTESTING THEIR CREDIBILITY can reformers have any leverage. Perhaps there is not a lot of "left" foundation money in this type of work? IT HAS BEEN YEARS AND THE SO CALLED MEDIA REFORM MOVEMENT HAS DONE NOTHING. THE MEDIA HAS GOTTEN EVEN MORE GERBLE BRAINED. I am amazed that nothing visible is going on! That is why my astonishment required caps.
I heard on NPR this morning that 30 years ago, 50 companies owned US media. Today that number is 6. (I think I heard it right... please correct me otherwise).
It is safe to say that the number of media outlets has at least doubled in the past 30 years. In a free market economy, that means there should be 100 media owners out there.
I guess the media market is not "free".
Last sentence from the article:
"That people are rising up in numbers to oppose him is a hopeful sign that "business as usual" at the FCC is destined for bankruptcy."
The definition of "business as usual" at the FCC, or in media, in general, will be defined entirely by the degree to which you have liberal politicians running your government. We're already way, way, way behind any sensible curve on this. (And, yes, I know about the Clintons. And, no, it's not a reason to elect conservatives who hope to put the "conservative" view on every channel and front page.)
"The chairman himself wrote recently in a New York Times op-ed that he's changing the rules to save journalism — that newspapers and television stations need to join up financially in order to survive editorially. (Never mind the legions of newsroom layoffs that have resulted from similarly merged "economies of scale.")"
Note the Catch-22 argument here.
If more concentration is not allowed, journalism "fails" because existing stand-alone entities of media cannot support it financially.
If more concentration is allowed, journalism "succeeds" according to Martin because it provides a financial floor for it to exist - which Karr counters with the reverse - that with concentration, journalism still "fails" via extensive layoffs.
One essential question is whether journalism and whatever else is offered by less concentrated media should be treated economically as competing widgets on a private production line.
Compare, for example, a law that restricts a large supermarket chain from buying a certain number or market share of grocery outlets in a medium size city.
Suppose such a law threatens the financial existence of say, canned tomatoes, because the smaller stores cannot support canned tomatoes and the larger stores can - or in Karr's reverse version, that when the large store takes over, it won't provide canned tomatoes either.
In that case, we might allow the large store to come into the market and buy up some or all of the small stores, to keep the tomatoes flowing.
Why not do the same for journalism?
Because the nature of "competition" in journalism is fundamentally different than that of providing canned tomatoes.
The point of preventing further media concentration is to maintain an open access entrance opportunity for smaller, independent, sources of niche journalism INDEPENDENT OF INFLUENCE, THREAT OR INTIMIDATION in the form of buyouts or other actions by the OWNERS OF OTHER SOURCES OR MEDIA.
More INDEPENDENT voices and diversity in journalism and related commentary are the source of COMPETITION in a free speech context, and that is not going to be accomplished by herding all the journalists under large tents of "scale economies" to engage in "faux competition".
If the ownership restrictions result in declining numbers of journalists or falling profits, let those entities work it out in various combinations necessary for survival that does not result in simply turning them over to the most concentrated companies already in the market.
Conglomeration and centralization equals tyranny.
in my city, all the major dailies newspapers, all the local TV stations ANd all the small weekly papers are owned by one company owned by a rich neocon jewish family. When they tell me it is raining outside I look out the window to make sure.
That is why i only get my news from the internet, and even then cross check the story from a few sources.
We need to limit monopoly media, but more importantly we need to use the internet to create our own media outlets. Get online and get involved. Stop watching monopoly television until there is convergence between the internet and television.
pablonium,
The Left should be working on ABOLISHING the FCC rather than even bother begging them for anything. Oh wait, never mind, the Left still has yet to learn that it cannot rely on a government that is nothing but a sellout government designed to benefit the monied elite ! And where the FUCK are the so-called "libertarians" when you need them the most? Never mind, they're too busy kissing Wall Street's asses who in turn depend on the FCC for their "business" needs and spoonfeeding at the expense of us consumers who would do better to SHUT THEM DOWN WITH OUR WALLETS !!
These media conglomerates can be broken down, just like Standard Oil and the Railroad Trust were broken a hundred years ago, and the rest of the conglomerates likewise. NBC can be broken off from GE, CBS can be broken off from Viacom, and Rupert Murdoch's empire can be pulverized into atoms!
Let's not be so intent on this slight change in the rules that we forget that all the rules of media ownership need to be reformed right down to the ground.
Obvious, isn't it?
But do the Democrats have a plan to break the almost exclusive power that six giant conglomerates have over the media, or are they just marking time until their own partners can grab a bigger slice of the pie?
I don't really see the myopia among the "Big Media". It seems to me that they see very clearly an opportunity for significant consolidation on their markets and they are doing an excellent job of pursuing that objective by "lobbying" the Republican FCC Commissioners. Such consolidation will increase the control and marketing of advertising channels, which is the whole point for Big Media in the first place. That the quality and independence of Big Media reporting will continue to suffer is really beside the point--these efforts aren't in the name of democracy or journalism, they're in the name of capitalism and profits. Duh.
I think articles like this do a disservice to fellow citizens by perpetuating the illusion that the FCC, among others, is anything but a conduit for influence on government by corporate power (see Revolving Door). I mean, seriously, when's the last time the FCC did something that was in the interests of the public and not in the interests or against the interests of Big Media? Like, in the 70's?
There's no mystery as to why Martin avoids the arguments being raised and bypasses all basis for their legitimacy. The guy is an insider, a loyal Bush fool who goes along with the authoritarian command regardless of its impact on citizens, the state of our nation and/its alleged democratic ideals. Look at him! What are his credentials? Another "you're doing a heckuva job, Brownie" creep who will ass kiss his Republican masters for " a career." Probably goes to church and is utterly convinced he's arrived, has secured a nice fiscal future and that he's "saved." A total sell out, like so many aligned with this amoral administration and its me-first values, he has made a bargain with evil. His heart is cold, his soul has vacated, and he's just another paper pusher stealing this nation's legacy and potential out from minds, hearts and souls that care!