No, it is not. The reality is that Clear Channel has bought multiple stations in many markets (often up to 90% of the broadcast stations in a smaller region) and has changed Country, Classical, Urban, Talk, Sports, and other format stations into Top 40 Pop stations, leaving little or no room for the other formats to fight for a license for the survivng station(s). With overwhelming control of the airwaves, they then remove the news organizations from all but the flagship station in the region (and usually turn that group into nothing more than a wire service reader outlet with no reporters of their own).
Extending that scenario to TV will do nothing to increase “free speech” in this country. It may, however, extend the issues of the Minot, ND train wreck to many more markets:
From the standard Conservative attacks against the “liberal” media everytime it isn’t going down on Bush, the opposite seems more true (at least from the people making the most noise on air)
Whoever is arguing against single market examples is dead wrong, Viacom owns CBS and Paramount networks, so just from that you have someone with two affiliates in the same town. The NBC station in SF (which you can get only on cable) is owned by one of the other local stations (i forget which one, and i am sure they are both owned by some octopus media group)
One of our local Clear Channel affiliates plays Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Before they were owned by Clear Channel, they played Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Laura. I guess Glenn Beck is less offensive than Dr. Laura, but it’s a close call.
I don’t think I understand your point. There are three major types of radio stations: talk radio, music radio, and sports radio. Talk radio is currently dominated by conservative voices/shows, but that’s because of the prevalence of said shows rather than because Clear Channel owns them. And having more than one Clear Channel would at least guarantee that two stations wouldn’t be carrying Limbaugh in the same market.
Music radio doesn’t involve much talk about politics to start with. Sports radio probably involves even less.
So, if more stations are bought up by single corporations, how does that increase the likelihood they’ll be talking about Ruben Studdard?
I heard an interesting story on NPR the other day.
Minot SD has 8 radio stations. ^ are owned by Clear Channel. There was a train derailment in town and ammonia gas was leaking. They wanted to warn the populace as fast as they could. They called all 8 stations. They could not get a live person at the 6 owned by Clear Channel. They were all run by satellite feed. That did the local people of Minot a lot of good.
I watched some parts of a Senate Committee’s meeting on this very issue chaired by John McCain.
Apart from the issue of “to-do-or-not-to-do”, senators from both parties expressed concern over the speed with which the decision to de-regulate is moving. The closing statements of a Republican senator touched upon the fact that the FCC’s decision was made behind closed doors with little public input and/or debate, and their deadline to the Senate (either June/July 1st — I forget) was too soon.
December, please tell us what good things can come of less diverse ownership of media outlets.
Your OP supports media monopolization on an abstract level (“I think the government ought not restrict etc”). Now please address what specific good can come of this, and/or what specific problem is being solved by an FCC rules change, and especially how that serves the public?
Also please address why it’s urgent to change the rules now, apparently at high speed and in closed hearings as the FCC appears to be doing. What’s the urgency?
The specific good that December anticipates from the FCC decision is the development of massive chains of TV stations owned by conservative (read: Republican) megacorporations like Fox that will turn TV news into what talk radio has become. I bet Scaife already has the seed money ready.
I am following up on the issue of the speed with which this decision is being made. Some senators raised this during a hearing. It turns out two commissioners had filed a petition requesting the commission to air the rules publicly and allow for a delay in order for the public to debate the rule changes. This request was denied by Chairman Powell.
Apparently, the Congress has mandated a review every two years. Changing the rules of media cross-ownership was initiated by Powell at the beginning of this review process.
There have been significant changes proposed but I am unable to get a hold of the text of the changes. At the face of it, Powell is claiming that the review is already tardy. Some senators have expressed concern that it is more important to get it right than get it done by June. Senator Snowe et al’s post-hearing request that the rule-changing process be slowed down was denied by Powell and in response to that, they wrote this: http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/powell/chairmans_response/Snowe_April10.pdf
Here, they express puzzlement at the need to rush through these changes.
Glancing at this slew of correspondence, I am getting a sense that something is amiss. Powell is claiming that the review window has already been passed. But, I wonder about the relationship between the review process and implementing changes as a result of said process. I wonder if drastic long-term changes are being made under the guise of a faux deadline.
The issue of lack of openness is also bothering me. Powell notes that the Commission has received 17000 letters from the public. But, Senator Snowe et al in their letter above ask what specific changes the Commission has undertaken in response to the letters.
"It’s not clear exactly what the FCC will be voting on because, incredibly, Commission Chairman Michael Powell has never deigned to make public the 250-page document laying out the plan. "
If you insist. Regulations in general are restrictions on freedom. They should never be established unless there is an overriding public interest. Back when there were only a handful of radio stations and only three major broadcast networks, a case could have been made that ownership restrictions were needed to prevent monopolies(although why anti-trust laws weren’t sufficient I’m not sure). Now there are hundreds of sources to get news. There is no good reason therefore, to deny people the right to buy and sell their property as they please.
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.
**
How many stations carry Rush Limbaugh is irrelevant, since most syndicated programs have a “noncompete” clause that prevents them from being broadcast on more than one station in any given market.
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.
**
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”? Same idea.)
**
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.
Originally posted by me:
**
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.
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.
These are excellent questions, squeegee. I admit that I’m by no means certain about the impact of the rule changes. I support them on general principles, as explained by adaher. However, it’s certainly possible that the rule changes will make things worse.
It’s important to distinguish between laws intended to achieve a certain end as compared with the end itself. In the real world, laws may or may not achieve their goals. Also, laws may have unexpected baneful consequences. Since we don’t know the exact changes to be made by the FCC, it’s impossible to say what their effect will be. But, here are a handful of thoughts:[ol][]Note that the anti-trust laws already apply. It’s not obvious that media need what amounts to their own additional anti-trust laws.[]Whatever the current restrictions are, they haven’t prevented Clear Channel from owning thousands of radio stations. So, if Clear Channel is the problem, we have already failed. The new rules won’t necessarily make it any worse.[]One reason big national groups of stations are prospering is that they give many listeners what they want. There’s a lot to be said for allowing consumers to be free to select what they like (even though I turn my nose up at it.)[]Restrictive laws can sometimes be used to keep specific owners or POVs away. E.g., Fox News’s effort to get a New York City license was held up for several years, depriving NYC watchers of a POV not represented on other stations. I am not certain, but I believe that the immediate beneficiary of the rule change will be Rupert Murdoch.In general, government regulations and control can sometimes allow regulators to use their powers beyond the original intent. E.g., some regulators in Washington use their control of School Lunch Program to force schools to behave in certain ways that have nothing to do with nutrition. However, I cannot say that the FCC has abused their power.[/ol]
In my anecdotal experience, around the time all the local stations started being owned by a single company, Clearchannel, they started to suck.
Of course, it could be that simply today’s music sucks, and Clearchannel has nothing to do with it. I doubt anyone can say for sure there’s a clear cause-and-effect relationship.
And since the new FCC proposals are intended to expand the Clear Channel model from radio to television, I have a real resistance to extending a clear error into new venues.
