FCC (again) moving to relax media ownership rules

[BrainGlutton]

Story here.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 17 — The head of the Federal Communications Commission has circulated an ambitious plan to relax the decades-old media ownership rules, including repealing a rule that forbids a company to own both a newspaper and a television or radio station in the same city.

Kevin J. Martin, chairman of the commission, wants to repeal the rule in the next two months — a plan that, if successful, would be a big victory for some executives of media conglomerates.

Among them are Samuel Zell, the Chicago investor who is seeking to complete a buyout of the Tribune Company, and Rupert Murdoch, who has lobbied against the rule for years so that he can continue controlling both The New York Post and a Fox television station in New York.

The proposal appears to have the support of a majority of the five commission members, agency officials said, although it is not clear that Mr. Martin would proceed with a sweeping deregulatory approach on a vote of 3 to 2 — something his predecessor tried without success. In interviews on Wednesday, the agency’s two Democratic members raised questions about Mr. Martin’s approach.

Putting this in perspective, FCC dereg efforts have been going on for some time:

Little mass media regulation existed in the United States prior to the creation of the Federal Radio Commission in 1927. The Telecommunications Act of 1934 was a fundamental decision on how broadcast mass media would function from then on. At the time, radio technology had become widespread among the masses, and the electromagnetic spectrum was regarded as public property. The Act reappropriated the spectrum to itself, and claimed the right to assign spectrum ranges to private parties as long as they broadcast in the public interest. This act created the Federal Communications Commission to replace the Federal Radio Commission. Lobbyists from the largest radio broadcasters, ABC and NBC, successfully petitioned to attach a cost to the license required to broadcast, and were thus able to “price out” many amateur broadcasters that had previously existed. Such was the precedent for much of the following regulatory decisions, which have mostly focused on the percentage of a market deemed allowable to a single company.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 set the modern tone of “deregulation,” a relaxing of percentage constrictions that solidified the previous history of privatizing the utility and commodifying the spectrum. The legislation, touted as a step that would foster competition, actually resulted in the subsequent mergers of several large companies, a trend which still continues.[1]

The FCC held one official forum, February 27, 2003, in Richmond, Virginia in response to public pressures to allow for more input on the issue of elimination of media ownership limits. Some complain that more than one forum was needed. [1] [2] On June 2, 2003, The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in a 3-2 vote, approved new media ownership laws that removed many of the restrictions previously imposed to limit ownership of media within a local area.The changes were not, as is customarily done, made available to the public for a comment period. Two commissioners requested this public comment period (the same two who voted against the changes) and their requests were denied without justification. The news coverage of this event in the mainstream press was very low-key.

A few of the points included:

Single-company ownership of media in a given market is now permitted up to 45% (formerly 35%, up from 25% in 1985) of that market.

Restrictions on newspaper and TV station ownership in the same market were removed.

All TV channels, magazines, newspapers, cable, and internet services are now counted, weighted based on people’s average tendency to find news on that medium. At the same time, whether a channel actually contains news is no longer considered in counting the percentage of a medium owned by one owner.
*(Thus it is now possible for two companies to own all of a city’s 2 newspapers, 3 local TV stations, 2 national TV networks, and 8 local radio stations, (up to 45% of the media each) so long as there are other companies owning the shopping channel, the discovery channel, and at least 10% of other non-news outlets.) *

Previous requirements for periodic review of license have been changed. Licenses are no longer reviewed for “public-interest” considerations.

The decision by the FCC was overturned by the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the decision Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC in June, 2004. The Majority ruled 2-1 against the FCC and ordered the Commission to reconfigure how it justified raising ownership limits.

More information on the new consolidation rules is available from the FCC website. In particular, there are press releases from the commissioners who voted for the changes, and from those who voted against them. Those two commissioners independently attend media reform events around the country to listen to the public on this issue.

Look, can anything that helps accelerate the consolidation of media ownership be a good thing? This isn’t a free market in news/information/entertainment we’re creating, it’s a cartelized-oligopolistic market!

[Anaamika]

Yes, and all of our news will come from the same source, and so we will all have to believe (you know what I mean) whatever they say. There won’t be any alternative sources.

[Renob]

What’s the big deal? There are so many channels for news/entertainment/information (the Internet, newspapers, broadcast TV, cable TV, broadcast radio, satellite radio, podcasts, etc.) that the notion that we need to restrict property rights in order to facilitate some sort of diversity requirement is outdated. In fact, allowing large companies to purchase smaller, struggling TV and radio stations will likely mean these stations are able to continue on the air instead of going dark.

[BrainGlutton]

@Renob

In fact, allowing large companies to purchase smaller, struggling TV and radio stations will likely mean these stations are able to continue on the air instead of going dark.

Yes, if by “continue on the air” you mean “be surreptitiously replaced by a pod-grown simulacrum.” (Which is what has happened to every media outlet Rupert Murdoch has acquired, and don’t think the WSJ will be spared.)

[Renob]

@BrainGlutton

Yes, if by “continue on the air” you mean “be surreptitiously replaced by a pod-grown simulacrum.” (Which is what has happened to every media outlet Rupert Murdoch has acquired, and don’t think the WSJ will be spared.)

So? You may not like his political views, but is it really the proper role of the government to deny someone the right to buy a business based on that person’s political views?

[Neidhart]

Why don’t they, just for a change, relax their indecency standards instead?

[RickJay]

Realistically, is there any real evidence this is a problem? It seems to me I have access to a far greater range of news outlets and political viewpoints today than I ever have before. The alleged horror of Rupert Murdoch doesn’t seem to have any effect on the fact that I can find more news and more opinion than ever before, all without leaving my own living room, from throughout the world and from a hundred different viewpoints.

[Voyager]

@Renob

So? You may not like his political views, but is it really the proper role of the government to deny someone the right to buy a business based on that person’s political views?

It has nothing to do with political views - a liberal is not allowed to buy up all the media either. For local news, at least, is it good that the local TV station and the local paper give the news in lockstep? Say there is a crooked Democrat in the mayor’s office. The more diverse the local media, the greater chance he will be exposed.

Just because 99% of crooks today are Pubbies doesn’t mean that it’s always going to be true. You should be against relaxed media rules just like the rest of us.

[Renob]

@Voyager

It has nothing to do with political views - a liberal is not allowed to buy up all the media either. For local news, at least, is it good that the local TV station and the local paper give the news in lockstep? Say there is a crooked Democrat in the mayor’s office. The more diverse the local media, the greater chance he will be exposed.

I was unaware that one local TV station and the local newspaper are the only outlets of local news. I guess in the small town in which I live where we have four TV stations, the daily newspaper, a variety of muckraking bloggers, numerous radio stations, and access to the Internet is somehow an aberration. Other towns only have one radio station and one TV station and people must rely on them for all their news. Thanks for letting me know this. My views are now changed.

[Voyager]

@Renob

I was unaware that one local TV station and the local newspaper are the only outlets of local news. I guess in the small town in which I live where we have four TV stations, the daily newspaper, a variety of muckraking bloggers, numerous radio stations, and access to the Internet is somehow an aberration. Other towns only have one radio station and one TV station and people must rely on them for all their news. Thanks for letting me know this. My views are now changed.

You live in a small town with four TV stations? That’s a bit hard to believe. My town, which is in the Bay Area, has one crappy newspaper, and no TV stations. Yeah, if someone gets murdered the SF stations will send someone out, but they’re not going to give a crap about local politics. I don’t think we have any radio stations also. The town I lived in in Loiuisiana had one paper and one TV station - we got others from other towns 50 miles away.

The radio stations are mostly owned by clear channel, who don’t even have a local DJ, let alone a local news organization. Bloggers are all well and good, but how many have the resources to actually investigate anything?

It’s not like we’re in paradise now. We know the reporter for the paper in the place we used to live, and we know what doesn’t get covered. When our local paper here does something beyond printing the press release from the cops, that’s rare and exciting. But let’s not make it any worse, shall we?

[RTFirefly]

Single-company ownership of media in a given market is now permitted up to 45% (formerly 35%, up from 25% in 1985) of that market.

Your link should have gone back just a bit further. In 1980, IIRC, the ownership limits in one market were one TV and one radio station. (I think one AM and one FM station playing the same stuff counted as one station, but don’t hold me to it.) Total ownership limits were seven of each.

[Sunrazor]

**Renob ** has it right. I’ve been in mass media all my adult life, taught it in college, know the business from the inside out. It’s all entertainment. The new competitor is the Internet. Salon and Slate and other mostly independent news outlets are a response to the corporatization of the news/entertainment industry. There will always be independent media people can turn to for reality checks. And when they become so popular that the media gargantuans swallow them, others will crop up in their stead. There’s always room for an independent voice, and if it is used intelligently, people will find it.

[Evil_One]

Sunrazor is correct. I have twenty five years of radio and TV experience. Times have changed, but one thing has not. It’s still all about the money.

Fox News provides an ideological alternative because it gets the ratings up. They are essentially the only game in town for anyone right of Joe Leiberman. Lots of viewers…lots of cash.

I have produced over a thousand hours of live television news. Not once did I have someone in authority over me demand that a story be added, dropped or changed based on political/ideological reasons. It simply doesn’t happen.

My responsibility as a producer was to create a relevant and compelling newscast. If I were an ideologue or “corporate puppet”, I could not do that.

What does the future hold for mass media? The buzzword is “hyperlocal”. There are literally dozens of sources of national news available to people on television and the internet. However, if you can be the only source available for truly local news, money can be made. That applies to television, radio, newspapers and the internet. All are doing hyperlocal news to some degree.

So in the end media consolidation is irrelevant. Local ad people will still be selling local commercials in the local newscast.