 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Posted on Tue, Jun. 03, 2003 |   |
|
|
|||
|
Ubiquitous Internet weakens significance of FCC change The Kansas City Star For a good time, go to www.kausfiles.com, the Web log of former New Republic Senior Editor Mickey Kaus, who regularly serves up inside dirt on troubles at The New York Times, as well as other topics on the political and journalistic scene. Kaus' site is great fun, but I didn't sit down to write about him or The Times, at least not directly. Today's subject is what the Federal Communications Commission did Monday on media-ownership rules and why the uproar over the change is overdone. The commission relaxed some of the restrictions that keep companies from owning newspapers, radio outlets and TV stations in the same town, although restrictions would remain for small markets. It also raised a cap preventing companies from owning TV stations that reach more than 35 percent of the national audience. The new cap was set at 45 percent. Backers of the change say that if the cap had not been raised, the courts might have wiped it out altogether. In any case, a lot of people see these changes as frightening. They say the new policy will lead to fewer choices and a watered-down "national conversation." At stake, says FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, who opposed the change, is "who will control the gateways to the media, who will control the content of the media and for what purposes." Copps' focus on existing media "gateways" illustrates an obvious flaw in the opponents' argument. We cannot know today what the media "gateways" of the future will be, and to assume otherwise is to ignore the existence of Kaus and all the other merry bloggers hurling darts at the high and mighty every day. When you combine what's available on the Internet with a media market offering hundreds of TV channels and soon, satellite radio, it's hard to believe that fiddling with conventional-media ownership caps will crimp the flow and variety of information. Today's technology and the human urge to defy received wisdom will always carve a path to an audience. Once let loose in the marketplace, telling facts and valid insights can't be ignored by mainstream media or these media will run the risk of diminished credibility. Some of the opposition was sincerely concerned about the implications of greater media concentration. I think the dangers are exaggerated, but it was a point worthy of debate. (Disclosure: Like a lot of people here at The Star, which was once owned by Disney -- which owns ABC -- I ended up with shares in Disney.) But some groups, such as Common Cause, appeared to be working from a hidden agenda. Common Cause and its allies claimed to be defending competition and diversity of opinion, but in illustrating their point their target was the growth of Rupert Murdoch's Fox Network. That's an odd tactic for those supposedly in favor of diverse views, since Fox is the only broadcast network offering a discernible conservative perspective. Yet in the name of "diversity," these groups took out full-page ads in The New York Times and The Washington Post showing Murdoch in an ominous pose, next to copy that read: "This Man Wants to Control the News in America. The FCC Wants to Help Him." Thanks to an FCC waiver, Fox's share of the national TV audience is already about 38 percent, and under the new policy it could potentially grow by 7 percentage points. But even if Murdoch's holdings expand to meet the new 45 percent cap, in today's larger and more varied market he would have less influence than the average network executive 30 years ago. And who's controlling whom? He won't retain any share if his stations don't draw an audience. This reality seems lost on many of the critics. Last week, groups of protesters in several cities claimed they had been shut out of the airwaves and the new policy will make things worse. In Los Angeles, 60 people marched in front of a radio station, carrying signs saying, "No Choice, No Voice: Reclaim Our Airwaves." One participant said the new policy was aimed at "benefiting conservative voices." Conservative voices rule much of the AM radio band, but that's a relatively small corner of the media-and-popular-arts universe. Anyway, if conservatives have made inroads, it's because their ideas have gained a larger following. Instead of protesting on the street, maybe these activists should develop some ideas capable of drawing a larger audience -- without help from government regulators. To reach E. Thomas McClanahan, call (816) 234-4480 or send e-mail to mcclanahan@kcstar.com. |
|||