Posted on 06/29/2003 7:29:39 AM PDT by paul in cape
If it's allowed to stand, an FCC ruling will feed media merger mania
BY BILL CLINTON
"It's your money," says President Bush when he promotes tax cuts. I disagree with his tax policy but admire his spin. The same argument applies with greater force to whether big media conglomerates should be allowed to control more television and radio stations: "It's your airwaves."
The American people own the bandwidth that broadcast media companies use to deliver programs to our TV and radio sets. Because the space on that bandwidth is limited, the Federal Communications Commission regulates who has access to our eyes and ears.
For more than 60 years, the FCC allowed companies to own a number of local TV stations, provided that no single company owned enough to reach more than 35% of the population of the United States.
But on June 2, by a 3-to-2 vote, the FCC raised the limit to 45%, giving big media firms the chance to gobble up many more local TV stations. In fact, a single giant corporation will be able to control up to three of the television stations in America's nine largest cities.
The FCC also opened the door to local TV-newspaper mergers in many places, so you'll be getting your news and information from the same company regardless of whether you're turning on the TV or opening the newspaper.
Why is this bad? Because more monolithic control over local media will reduce the diversity of information, opinion and entertainment people get. Interesting local coverage will be supplanted by lowest-common-denominator mass-market mush.
But don't cable TV and the Internet give people more sources of information? In theory, yes. In practice, not necessarily. Big media firms own most of the cable networks and supply much of the content for major Internet sites.
Is this another Democrat vs. Republican battle? Is my concern motivated by the growing influence of right-wing voices in the broadcast media?
While it's true the FCC vote split along party lines - Republicans for looser standards, Democrats against - and while I have noticed the conservative slant in more media organizations these days, the debate over media ownership is not a partisan one.
Organizations from the National Organization for Women to the National Rifle Association have spoken out against what the FCC decided to do. More than 750,000 Americans of all political persuasions registered their opinion of the new rules with the FCC, and nearly 100% of them were opposed!
The lack of diversity and independence in the broadcast media may be why you didn't hear much about this big issue on TV or radio in recent months.
But the opposition is truly a grass-roots movement, and it won't go away, even if it's not on the evening news. And the voice of the people is beginning to be heard, at least on Capitol Hill.
The Senate Commerce Committee acted quickly after the FCC vote to approve legislation - on a bipartisan basis - that would reinstate more sensible media ownership rules.
Although Republicans as well as Democrats oppose the FCC decision, it's unclear whether the Commerce Committee legislation can pass in the full Senate - or in the House of Representatives.
The FCC ruling also faces challenges in the courts. But there is no guarantee the commission's error will be corrected anytime soon.
Therefore, Congress is our best hope. Whatever your political philosophy, if you favor competition and diversity in the media, you should call, write or E-mail your senators and representatives.
The stakes are high. "At issue," says FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, "is whether a few corporations will be ceded enhanced gatekeeper control over the civil dialogue of our country; more content control over our music, entertainment and information, and veto power over the majority of what our families watch, hear and read."
People joke about my liking McDonald's, and I do. But actually I prefer to go down to Lange's Deli, a great family establishment, near my house.
In the brave new world being defined by the FCC, there will be more McMedia on our airwaves and far fewer broadcast equivalents of our favorite local diners.
Unlike restaurants, the airwaves belong to us. We shouldn't give up our right to have more choice.
Who cares about airwaves? Even if above-ground broadcast bandwidth is limited, fiber bandwidth is effectively unlimited. Any effort by the government or the telcos to control the "airwaves" is quixotic, at best. Maybe Bill should get some advice from Internet Al.
AND the reason the most outspoken EX-President in history won't keep his mouth shut long enough to fade away! Point being is...Diversity and independence in the broadcast media IS lacking beause of it's extreme slant to the left!!
Media monopolies and media bias aren't his concern. Put some ice on that, Sinky!
The Chicago Tribune's owners also own Channel 2 NBC in Houston. While I may not be a fan of the Tribune, this easing of the ownership rules is what it is going to take to allow one of the other major players to start up a competing newspaper in one of the nation's most populated cities. Hearst owns the Houston Comical.
BUMP
The man cried tears on cue, the man lied on camera and wagged his finger at his critics, the man lied under oath.
Why does he think that we would trust him now?
They want to have these frequencies for cell phone/wireless use though and not radio broadcasting.
The limits on the resource depend on the lobby that is pushing for the airwaves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.