# Should the FCC relax the limit on how many TV and radio stations one can own? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 30, 2003, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-fcc-relax-the-limit-on-how-many-tv-and-radio-stations-one-can-own/178516 "2003-05-30T13:41:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2003, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-fcc-relax-the-limit-on-how-many-tv-and-radio-stations-one-can-own/178516/41 "2003-05-31T23:59:22Z")
G, the point isn’t the School Lunch Program, it’s the fact that giving the government the power to determine who can own media sources indirectly puts media sources under the influence of government. Government’s ability to regulate and/or control purse strings can have an enormous warping effect; why, for instance, is the USA the only Western nation with a drinking age of 21 in every state? Because the federal government controls the purse strings of interstate highway construction. In Canada, we have a fairly heavily regulated media that, to my eyes, is probably WORSE than yours. The quality of radio and television broadcasting is generally poorer; even the much-vaunted CBC produces 95% garbage, with its shining jewel being, ironically, sportscasting, something it excels at (and always has.) Canadian radio licenses are controlled by the CRTC, which is about fifteen years behind the demographic and most disturbingly **is visibly and obviously influenced by the political desires of whomever’s in power in Ottawa** and goes to great lengths to screw the public over in favour of whatever millionaire/billionaire is the Prime Minister’s golfing buddy. Newspapers? Last year the editor of the Ottawa Citizen was fired for running an editorial critical of the Prime Minister, because the owners of the paper are his buddies. You tell me how regulation’s helping. With respect to media I STILL see no evidence presented that there is a positive correlation between media ownership restrictions and the quality of discourse - or, as you rather strangely claimed, “intellectual pursuits.” ---
**Author:** ![Dodeca\_Aww\_Hell\_With\_It](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dodeca\_Aww\_Hell\_With\_It](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dodeca_Aww_Hell_With_It)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2003, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-fcc-relax-the-limit-on-how-many-tv-and-radio-stations-one-can-own/178516/42 "2003-06-01T02:41:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Guinastasia \* > \*\*In what, ways, **december**? What is so bad about the School Lunch Program? \*\* You mean aside from the fact that President Reagan wanted and pushed very hard for_ketchup_ to be classified as a _vegtable_ in the program?:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2003, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-fcc-relax-the-limit-on-how-many-tv-and-radio-stations-one-can-own/178516/43 "2003-06-01T04:06:59Z")
> [@](#): > > You mean aside from the fact that President Reagan wanted and pushed very hard forketchup to be classified as a vegtable in the program? I think that Reagan was a blight on the country, but it should be noted, in the interest of accuracy, that it was some mid-level or low-level appointee in the Department that wanted to change the rules so that ketchup was included as a vegetable–and there was no “hard” push to make the change. It was floated as an idea, leaked by an opponent to the news media, and dropped as a political embarassment. I suspect that **december** is alluding to something more along the lines that **RickJay** indicated, with the Feds threatening to withhold funds for other programs if the appropriate guidelines were not followed for the lunch funds. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2003, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-fcc-relax-the-limit-on-how-many-tv-and-radio-stations-one-can-own/178516/44 "2003-06-01T05:20:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RickJay \* > \*\*…why, for instance, is the USA the only Western nation with a drinking age of 21 in every state? Because the federal government controls the purse strings of interstate highway construction. \*\* I would say that it’s because the USA is the most puritanical Western nation. But whatever the reason, it is ideological rather than systematic. France doesn’t have a nationwide drinking age of 21 because they don’t want one. If their government changed their minds they could simply pass a law. There would be no need for to blackmail/bribe the subordinate political units into going along. The point is, everyone and everything is under the influence of government. And that is as it should be. No one should be above the law. If you wish to bemoan that fact of life that’s your business; I would suggest a better allocation of resources might be to attempt to reform the government. Doing without isn’t an option. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2003, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-fcc-relax-the-limit-on-how-many-tv-and-radio-stations-one-can-own/178516/45 "2003-06-01T22:26:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MsRobyn \* > **There is a difference between offensiveness and controversy. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Dr. Laura may stir up a lot of controversy, but the ratings and demographics keep them on the air. As long as they continue to make money for the stations, there is no incentive to broadcast different viewpoints.** Should there be? More to the point, what is the incentive ever going to be to “broadcast different viewpoints” if there’s no money in it? > [@](#): > > **The prevalence of conservative talk shows is largely because of ratings. These shows consistently do well enough that they attract advertising dollars. Again, as long as they continue to make money for their stations, the stations will not offer different programming.** Okay, so I still don’t see any influence of giant corporations. Stations play what they play because it makes money. Sounds normal. > [@](#): > > **You’d be surprised. It’s not all that difficult to skew music programming to suit a particular political view. A station owned by a conservative company might ignore music with liberal messages in favor of music with conservative messages. The converse is true for liberal stations. (Remember the now-discredited [Clear Channel “banned songs list”](http://www.snopes.com/rumors/radio.htm)? Same idea.)** So, what is Britney’s political view? Most music doesn’t have a political view, unless you get very strange and say that if it mentions sex it’s liberal but if it mentions a pickup truck it’s conservative. > [@](#): > > **Actually, the fewer companies that own broadcast outlets, the more likely we’ll get more “junk food news” like _American Idol_ and less substantive news, again, largely because of the profit motive, but also because these corporations don’t wish to rock the boat and upset the government, and other corporations and institutions who may want to be advertisers.** But small stations can even less afford to piss people off. I haven’t seen any great news outlets around here. Where are they? > [@](#): > > \*\*The Founding Fathers envisioned an independent press that would keep the activities of the government in the light of day. After all, if everyone knows what you’re doing, you’re a lot more likely to play by the rules. If there are relatively few owners of media outlets, there is less incentive to offer any kind of in-depth coverage on the activities of government and other institutions. \*\* Yes, you said that before. I don’t think you’ve proved the case, though. > [@](#): > > \*\*Corporations are by nature cowardly. They exist to make money for shareholders and profits for themselves. Embarrassing the government or an institution can make stockholders and advertisers queasy, and cause loss of revenue. Yes, there is money involved in a locally-owned outlet, but they can afford to be a lot braver than a behemoth like Newscorp or Clear Channel. \*\* Why? They have less legal firepower, less money, and less influence. If people are worried that the corporations will have a political bias, well at least they might talk about _half_ of the politicians in a substantive way. All radio stations being vanilla may be boring, but it isn’t evil. It isn’t evil if all bookstores are Barnes and Noble, either, though it’s boring. People love to talk about the independence of small companies, but I haven’t seen much evidence that locally owned radio stations take any more risks than the megacorporations, or that they can actually _afford_ such risks more than megacorporations. Yes, megacorps have to answer to skittish shareholders, but little companies have to pay the electricity bill–which isn’t going to happen if they piss off the world. (Note: There may be reasons to be against these types of mergers, but I haven’t seen them enumerated yet.) Julie ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2003, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-fcc-relax-the-limit-on-how-many-tv-and-radio-stations-one-can-own/178516/46 "2003-06-02T00:51:31Z")
[Grist for the mill.](http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0602/p11s01-coop.html) ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2003, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-fcc-relax-the-limit-on-how-many-tv-and-radio-stations-one-can-own/178516/47 "2003-06-02T01:07:45Z")
Ted Turner is simply not telling the truth. There is a lot more diversity of programming and ownership of broadcast media outlets then there was 25 years ago when just about everything was owned by either ABC, CBS, or NBC. They and their affiliates effectively controlled the airwaves. The onset of cable was what allowed Ted Turner to grow his empire, and is in large part responsible for the diversity we have today. * * * Unfortunately, in reality this fight is really about Foxnews and Rush Limbaugh, IMO. Diversity on the airwaves and cable stations is very high, and I think the politically motivated attacks against these two groups are without merit. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2003, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-fcc-relax-the-limit-on-how-many-tv-and-radio-stations-one-can-own/178516/48 "2003-06-02T01:54:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > Unfortunately, in reality this fight is really about Foxnews and Rush Limbaugh, IMO […] I think the politically motivated attacks against these two groups are without merit. Agreed, the hypocrisy is papable. What the hell is up with the left-wing attacks on Rush and Fox? The [NRA should stop picking on Fox and Rush.](http://www.rogueimc.org/2003/05/705.shtml) Pinko bastards. And [that ultra-left-winger John “Hanoi” McCain](http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/0514mccain-fcc.html) should shut the hell up about this issue. I’m glad you can see through these folks hypocrisy, **Scylla**. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2003, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-fcc-relax-the-limit-on-how-many-tv-and-radio-stations-one-can-own/178516/49 "2003-06-02T02:36:57Z")
> [@](#): > > I think the government ought not restrict people’s ability to communicate This is such an obvious non-sequitur that I’m surprised that so few people have called you on it. What does restricting ownership in a particular market have to do with restricting speech? It’s absolutely ridiculous to argue this on grounds of free speech: you’re just picking that issue because it sounds good. The principle you should be defending is the free market: the right for people to own things without the government stepping in and saying “no, no, you own too much for OUR tastes.” The fact is, even if people feel like corporations owning certain things is bad for our “culture” then guess what. “Our culture” can do something other than listen to them. The radio and television are not the be-all and end-all of human experience. I think what people are really scared of here is that they think the vast majority of Americans are incredibly stupid, and will believe whatever the media tells them, and only focus on those issues that the media decides are important, and so on. I don’t know whether this is really true or not, but I do know that even if you think they ARE so stupid, they have a RIGHT to be that stupid. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2003, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-fcc-relax-the-limit-on-how-many-tv-and-radio-stations-one-can-own/178516/50 "2003-06-02T02:51:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Apos \* > This is such an obvious non-sequitur that I’m surprised that so few people have called you on it. What does restricting ownership in a particular market have to do with restricting speech? One of the rules slated to be relaxed has to do with restrictions on owning both a newspaper and a TV station in a single market. So, if **Apos** already owns Apos TV in Dopeville, he would be restricted from starting up or buying a newspaper there. That rule limits **Apos’s** freedom to communicate to the public, doesn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2003, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-fcc-relax-the-limit-on-how-many-tv-and-radio-stations-one-can-own/178516/51 "2003-06-02T04:56:51Z")
> [@](#): > > That rule limits Apos’s freedom to communicate to the public, doesn’t it? No. You could say that your refusal to make me lord and master of all United States restricts my freedom to communicate with my loyal subjects, and that’d be just as silly. People have a right to speak and communicate with each other all they want, and nothing in these particular regulations restricts anyone from saying anything (though the FCC does so in other fora, which is bad). But being able to say whatever you want, and being able to own whatever you want, are two entirely different things. There are far far better grounds to make a case for deregulation than sloppily re-interpreting important rights like free speech. ---
**Author:** ![Wake\_up\_call](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/dec6dc/32.png) [@Wake\_up\_call](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wake_up_call)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2003, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-fcc-relax-the-limit-on-how-many-tv-and-radio-stations-one-can-own/178516/52 "2003-06-02T05:13:06Z")
\*\*December, \*\* do the airwaves belong to the public or not? Please state your position on this issue. Does deregulation of airwaves mean that anyone with $250 million cash can take it over? ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2003, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-fcc-relax-the-limit-on-how-many-tv-and-radio-stations-one-can-own/178516/53 "2003-06-02T05:19:11Z")
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head, **Wake up call**. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2003, 10:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-fcc-relax-the-limit-on-how-many-tv-and-radio-stations-one-can-own/178516/54 "2003-06-02T10:17:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Wake up call \* > \*\*December, \*\* do the airwaves belong to the public or not? Please state your position on this issue. Yes. > [@](#): > > Does deregulation of airwaves mean that anyone with $250 million cash can take it over? No. Bear in mind that: 1. Ordinary anti-trust law would prevent a single entity from taking over the airwaves. 2. Fifty years ago, the airwaves were dominated by just three entities: CBS, NBC and ABC. Restrictions on co-ownership may have been needed then. Today the public has dozens and dozens of choices of radio and TV stations. The number is growing, as technology makes more choices available. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2003, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-fcc-relax-the-limit-on-how-many-tv-and-radio-stations-one-can-own/178516/55 "2003-06-02T10:57:38Z")
Property rights are fundamental rights, just as important as free speech. The right to do commerce is vital to a free society. ---
**Author:** ![Wake\_up\_call](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/dec6dc/32.png) [@Wake\_up\_call](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wake_up_call)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2003, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-fcc-relax-the-limit-on-how-many-tv-and-radio-stations-one-can-own/178516/56 "2003-06-02T14:22:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by adaher \* > \*\*Property rights are fundamental rights, just as important as free speech. The right to do commerce is vital to a free society. \*\* yeah **adaher** , it just happens that around the beaches of Long Island, New York, most places are “Private Property”, but try to declare Pacific Beach in California a “Private Property”. Please clarify whether the airwaves have “Property Rights”. Since when the airwaves became a capitalist’s “Real Estate”? I say the airwaves belong to ALL people, not just a select Media Moguls. A free society should not become a slave of a bunch of Media Moguls. We already have too many people turning to Fox as if it was “News”. Do we really want to perpetuate that bullshit? IMHO, if you think Carl Rove sold us Bush, and consequently Bush bullshitted us into invading Iraq – you have seen nothing yet. Just wait and see how today’s FCC ruling will translate into roves of Americans going to the poles in 2004 and re-elect Bush. ---
**Author:** ![initech](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/439d5e/32.png) [@initech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/initech)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2003, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-fcc-relax-the-limit-on-how-many-tv-and-radio-stations-one-can-own/178516/57 "2003-06-02T14:28:37Z")
Does anyone see anything resembling “discourse” on local television NOW? The fact is, local television will only become a slightly worse mess than it already is, once these changes come to pass. Stations today cover national and generic news based on feeds from their affiliated networks (NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN) and wire services (AP). Local content is determined largely by research. Your local station is obsessed with “breaking news” and crime and health reports and weather because their research says that’s what you will watch. Regardless of ownership, local TV will follow that research. The only real change is that centralization will eliminate jobs from the local stations. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2003, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-fcc-relax-the-limit-on-how-many-tv-and-radio-stations-one-can-own/178516/58 "2003-06-02T14:59:50Z")
This [parody article](http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/000949.html#000949) makes more sense than many of the serious ones. > [@](#): > > \*\* FCC: Readerless Papers May Buy Viewerless Stations\*\* > > …“Who cares how many of these properties someone owns?” said Mr. Powell. “It used to be that everyone watched three TV channels, and people actually read the morning paper. Now there are 300 TV channels with about a dozen viewers each, and the local newspaper, if any goes directly from the curb to the recycle bin.”… > > Many Americans, who have been racked with anguish over the FCC decision, will now return to their computers and DVD players to read and watch what they want when they want it. ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2003, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-fcc-relax-the-limit-on-how-many-tv-and-radio-stations-one-can-own/178516/59 "2003-06-02T15:21:20Z")
Viacom owns: CBS Paramount Viacom TV 39 television stations UPN MTV Nickelodian BET TV Land Noggin VHI TNN CMT Showtime TMC Flix Sundance Infinity Broadcasting Disney owns: ABC A list of other outlets longer than Viacom GE owns: NBC Rupert Murdoch owns: print outlets out the whazzo Do you really want these FOUR corporate entities to have MORE control over what you watch, read, listen to? ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2003, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-fcc-relax-the-limit-on-how-many-tv-and-radio-stations-one-can-own/178516/60 "2003-06-02T16:09:33Z")
> [@](#): > > The Republican-led Federal Communications Commission (news - web sites) voted 3-2 to allow the broadcast networks to own television stations that reach a combined 45 percent of the national audience, up from 35 percent… > > Companies could own two television stations in most markets as long as they are not both in the top four based on ratings. Additionally, a company could own three stations in markets where there are at least 18 stations, like Los Angeles. [http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=568&ncid=749&e=1&u=/nm/20030602/bs\_nm/media\_fcc\_vote\_dc](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=568&ncid=749&e=1&u=/nm/20030602/bs_nm/media_fcc_vote_dc) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-fcc-relax-the-limit-on-how-many-tv-and-radio-stations-one-can-own/178516.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-fcc-relax-the-limit-on-how-many-tv-and-radio-stations-one-can-own/178516.md?page=4)