Replies

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2004012064_cowned14.html

Media consolidation, still alive and growing

CHANGES to media-ownership rules proposed by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin do nothing to promote a vigorous and free press. Martin’s plan does the opposite by encouraging media conglomerates to augment their substantial holdings through cross-ownership.

The proposal is a crafty piece of policy that tries to masquerade as a compromise. This is no compromise, but rather a path for media giants to own a newspaper, television station and radio station in the same market. Martin cleverly says that cross-ownership can happen only in the 20 largest media markets, and that the television station would have to fall out of the top four in the market to be included.

Any thought that these are only minor changes that do not have a damaging effect on diversity of media voices is blown away by a provision that allows the FCC to consider exceptions. It is probable that these exceptions would allow for FCC approval of cross-ownership in markets outside the top 20, and for dominant stations.

If the proposal were not bad enough, it does not address two issues at the heart of media consolidation: The changes do not touch the idea of localism — how well broadcasters serve their communities through news operations; Martin has also shockingly dropped any consideration about the lack of women- and minority-owned media outlets.

Martin is not only thumbing his nose at good policy, he is trashing the public, which has demonstrated at every FCC hearing during the past year that more media consolidation is not wanted or needed.

snip

FCC Cross-Ownership rules: A corrupt deal between Old Media and government from beginning to end 11/13/07

Posted by Steve Boriss in Cross-ownership, FCC.
trackback

The 1975 FCC rule prohibiting companies from owning both a newspaper and broadcast station in the same local market began for the wrong reasons and may soon end for the wrong reasons. DonÂ’t believe any of the claptrap you may have heard about how such legislation protects the public by keeping the press Â“independent.Â” It is nothing more than a stinky deal between Old Media and the government that has protected both of them at the expense of the people.

For Old Media companies, it provided protection against being acquired or facing tougher competition. For government, it provided protection against any citizenÂ’s voice growing to be more powerful than its own. The very passage of this free speech and free press-abridging rule broke the First AmendmentÂ’s promise that Â“Congress shall make no lawÂ” doing exactly that. Consequently, the public has been artificially stuck for decades with newspapers that are at best mediocre, when they could have benefited from, for instance, successful papers entering from other markets and competing for their business Â– something that would have happened in just about any other, less corrupt industry.

The FCC is now considering loosening this cross-ownership rule just a tad, not for the public good, but only as a favor to Old-Media- member-in-good-standing Los Angeles Times. This paper now faces the real possibility of extinction unless another Old Media company is allowed to buy them (presumably because only an Old Media company would be foolish enough to do such a thing). The FCC could at the same time consider the lifting of other similar regulations that hurt the public, such as those that limit ownership of radio stations, radio networks, TV stations, and TV networks. But then, that would be for the public good, not for the good of a member of Old Media. Guess that’s too much to expect these days in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

FCC's Martin: My Non-Plan To Save Newspapers

Peter Kafka | November 13, 2007 1:01 PM

The NYT gave FCC Chair Kevin Martin the bully pulpit of its op-ed page today. He's used it to take an embarrassing pratfall.

Martin's problem isn't the position he's advocating: He'd like his commission to relax ownership rules that prohibit companies from owning both a newspaper and a tv or radio station in the same market. We have no problem with that. But Martin's tortured justification for the move -- that it will help save local newspapers -- just doesn't fly.

Martin insists that we act now to save local newspapers or we'll end up with "fewer outlets for the expression of independent thinking and a diversity of viewpoints." We like papers ourselves, and we'd like them to stick around. But if they do die, we're not going to have a news or opinion shortfall.

But more to the point, how does Martin suggest we save papers? Allow cross ownership, so they can save on news gathering costs.

If Martin was serious about his proposal, we'd suggest he actually watch a local tv operation in action, where he'd learn that they're already using the local papers to save on news gathering costs: Every morning the assignment editor reads the paper, learns what happened the night before, and plans the day accordingly. True, both outlets deliver news to people, but there's not a lot of redundancy between the staffs of a newspaper and a TV station. Newsroom joint ventures have mostly been a failure, and many have been abandoned since they came into vogue more than a decade ago. TV journalists don't report much and newspaper journalists are generally bad on TV. In terms of cost savings, they can pay for one less A.P. feed, but that's about it.

But Martin's not serious about his justification -- that's why he spends less than one paragraph explaining it. We don't know why, but the Republican FCC chair seems embarrassed to come out and say that cross-ownership has zero impact on what kind of news we see and hear. So we'll do it for him: We've consumed news in three cities where there have been exceptions to the cross-ownership rules (Milwaukee, Chicago, New York). And in every city, we've fared just fine. Surely the rest of country will do ok, too.