The FCC’s Ownership Quandry

Posted by Mark NC on December 7, 2006 at 8:46 pm. NO Comments :

The Federal Communications Commission is getting it from both sides.

A consortium of broadcasters and publishers wrote to Chairman Kevin Martin, to complain that they still don’t have as much of a stranglehold on the public’s attention as they would like. The letter was signed by all of the broadcast networks as well as radio giant Clear Channel, newspaper conglomerates Gannett and Tribune, and others. Here is a taste of their finely aged whine:

“…television and radio broadcasters are experiencing unprecedented challenges in maintaining their audience shares and the advertising revenues essential to the survival of non-subscription media.”

This complaint is based on the emergence of a vast array of new outlets available to today’s news and entertainment consumer. What they conveniently fail to mention is that they also own most of the new outlets that they accuse of taking their business away. They go on to implore the Commission to amend ownership rules…

“…to ensure that local television and radio broadcasters, as well as daily newspapers, are not unfairly hampered in their ability to serve the public.”

That request would be easier to take seriously if they were presently serving the public. That opinion is shared by a group of senators that sent a letter to Chairman Martin on the same day. Senator Byron Dorgan wrote the letter that was signed by eight other members of the Commerce committee.

“The FCC must first establish that there are sufficient mechanisms in place to ensure that broadcasters are serving their local communities before considering any changes to the ownership rules.”

So what will the FCC do? Will they bend to the will of their corporate overlords? Or will they accept the fact that, come January, the Democrats will be running Congress and chairing the committees that oversee the agency? My guess is they punt. There is an unfinished report on localism that they can use as an excuse to delay making a decision. When we see the conclusions in that report, we’ll know which way they intend to vote on new ownership rules.

For anybody handicapping the outcome, I wouldn’t bet on the FCC weighing in against the business crowd. So that means that we, the people, will have to stay vigilant and make sure they remember for whom they work.

The Shame Of The L. A. Times

Posted by Mark NC on November 22, 2006 at 5:03 pm. NO Comments :

An editorial in today’s Los Angeles Times argues that the O. J. Simpson mock-fession calamity is proof that media companies should be allowed to grow ever larger, unregulated, and unimpeded by the public interest. While this may be the most perversely distorted logic of the century, it is also appallingly insensitive and overtly self-serving.

The editors at the Times are so obsessed with securing for themselves the ability to buy more TV stations and newspapers, and to expand their monopolistic ambitions, that they would exploit the controversy surrounding this double murderer to make their case. Their argument is based on the contention that when independent affiliates exercise discretion with regard to which network programs they will carry, they are engaging in censorship. That may be true in some cases, but the Times can’t recognize which is which:

“…most times when local TV stations pass on network programming it is not for high-minded, public-interest reasons. More typically, they do so out of economic interest (to sell more local ads) or because they want to avoid putting on programs they consider offensive.”

The truth is that when stations pass on programming it is never for high-minded reasons, it is always out of economic interest (the same motivations as the networks). They only avoid offensive programming because of its potential impact on ad revenue. That is, in fact, the reason for the cancellation of the Simpson program. Fox made a calculated decision that airing the show would cost them too much money as they were unable to get advertisers to sponsor it. There was nothing high-minded about it.

But isn’t that what a free market is all about? That’s precisely the reason that local stations ought to have discretion in what they choose to air. The Times correctly points out that many local stations are not managed locally, but by station groups with distant headquarters. However, instead of advocating more local ownership, the Times suggests regulatory relief to give the networks greater clout. However, the networks will only exacerbate the problem and localism will suffer accordingly.

This is not the first time that the Times has used its own pages to promote the economic interests of its parent, The Tribune Company, but it is the first time it has used such convoluted logic that feeds on the scandalous exploitation of such lurid tabloid fare. This is a repulsive attempt at persuasion via negative association and the Times editors should be ashamed.

The Times’ readers should join the Subscriber Revolt.

And The Winner Is…The Media

Posted by Mark NC on November 5, 2006 at 12:19 pm. NO Comments :

So long as we have corporate media monopolies married to political powerbrokers in government and on K Street, we will never have truly free elections.

As the American electorate’s chest heaves with exhaustion, gasping for that second wind to propel it across the finish line of this year’s electoral marathon, the handicappers are already setting up shop to declare victories or to justify whatever it is they decide to call non-victories. There will be celebrations and wakes and scores of prognosticators heralding their prescience no matter how far from reality their predictions actually fall.

But there is one contestant in this game that can pump its mighty fist in the air regardless of polling outcomes.

When all is said and done, The Media will have banked over $2 Billion. Of course, the final numbers are not in and this estimate doesn’t even include spot cable buys, not to mention last minute surges that are expected on all sides.

If a campaign can be analogized to a war, then the media are the war profiteers. Fox is the Halliburton of the press corps – GE (owner of NBC/Universal) is the…well, the GE. They benefit no matter who wins or loses. In fact, it is in their interest to incite division and to escalate the conflict.

They have been doing this in some obvious ways. The hype surrounding the Mark Foley and John Kerry events was purposefully orchestrated to fuel controversy and to roil the electoral landscape. Partisans on both sides help to propel these tangents, but despite their varying levels of significance, none of these issues have parity with Iraq, the economy, health care, global warming, etc. Yet they are given prominence due to their tabloid appeal.

As the prospects for each candidate and party fluctuate, the players need to react, and this is generally done by purchasing more ad time. The media doesn’t particularly like a blowout because it results in the failing candidate either abandoning the air war or the candidate’s supporters abandoning the candidate, leaving no budget for the battle. So the press chips in keep the race close.

Meanwhile the public suffers the fate of all civilians in wartime. They are beaten and battered and left in a heap along with the other victims of collateral damage. It is never the people’s interest that is served in war, but the interests of the war mongers and their powerful benefactors. The people suffer through these air wars and become disgusted and demoralized. That is actually part of the media’s wartime stategery. A little known fact about negative ads is that they are not intended to tarnish an opponent (that’s just gravy). Their purpose is to suppress turnout so that campaign strategerists are left with a smaller, more manageable, voter population to influence and get to the polls.

So long as we have corporate media monopolies married to political powerbrokers in government and on K Street, we will never have truly free elections. They just feed off of each other and enrich each other at the expense of democracy. The media needs to be corralled into a role wherein it educates and informs citizens. And public financing of campaigns is imperative if we want to remove the influence of corporations from politics.

This is the paramount battle of our generation and we are presently losing. The media will grow stronger as a result of the massive infusion of campaign spending it is enjoying this year. But it isn’t invincible and the fight is worth fighting. I do not consider it hyperbole to say that the future of our country rests on the outcome and if that isn’t motivation, then I guess I’ll just have to buy some more airtime to convince you.

Bigger Media Is Not Better Media

Posted by Mark NC on October 24, 2006 at 1:25 pm. 1 Comments :

DUH! And now we have (more) proof. I’ll let the press release speak for itself:

Today, the Benton Foundation and the Social Science Research Council released four independent academic studies (PDF) on the impact of media consolidation in the United States. The new research focuses on how the concentration of media ownership affects media content, from local news reporting to radio music programming, and how minority groups have fared – as both media outlet owners and as historically undeserved audiences — in an increasingly deregulated media environment.

These studies make clear that media consolidation does not create better, more local or more diverse media content. To the contrary, they strongly suggest that media ownership rules should be tightened not relaxed.

Each study addresses an important relationship that the media has with culture and community. The individual titles reveal the scope of their coverage:

Media Ownership Matters.
Questioning Media Access.
Do Radio Companies Offer More Variety When They Exceed The Local Ownership Cap?
Newspaper/Television Cross-Ownership Local News And Public Affairs Programming On Television Stations.

The study concludes what to many was already obvious:

“…cross-ownership is not associated with any meaningful improvement (in terms of program quantity) in station performance, relative to comparable stations, in the local news and public affairs arenas.”

This is a conclusion that directly contradicts a controversial report released by the FCC in 2003, under the chairmanship of Michael Powell. But it concurs with a report that was buried, and ordered destroyed, by the very same Chairman Powell who needs to learn that, indeed, facts are stubborn things.

Media Ownership Rules Are So ’70s

Posted by Mark NC on October 15, 2006 at 4:33 pm. NO Comments :

Jon Healey, in an editorial for the Los Angeles Times, devotes the first 5 paragraphs of his October 14th column to a rambling conjecture that a vengeful Richard Nixon conspired with the FCC to bar newspapers from owning TV and radio stations in the same market. After this 250 word conspiracy theory on the inception of cross-ownership rules, Healey admits that…

“Most of the evidence suggests, however, that the rule was not political skullduggery but merely a product of its time. An independent agency, the FCC has historically been more sensitive to pressure from Congress than the White House. And the cross-ownership ban was not just backed by the administration; it was supported by Republicans and Democrats alike on the commission and Capitol Hill.”

So why did Healey waste so much ink on the Nixon connivance? Perhaps it was to prejudice the reader with a negative association before dishing out the rest of his love note to Big Media. Healey argues that the media ownership rules are outdated. I agree, but I don’t share his reasons, or his solutions.

Healey serves up the typical canard that fuels the deregulation advocates. He asserts that technology and new media have produced a more competitive landscape for both television and newspapers. But he is misrepresenting the facts when he says that…

“The number of TV stations and radio broadcasters has increased by more than 50%, as has the number of TV broadcast networks. With most households receiving scores of channels via cable or satellite TV, the four largest networks now draw less than 50% of the prime-time audience.”

It depends on how you count. First of all, his reference to broadcast networks increasing 50% can only be true if you don’t count this year’s collapse of UPN and the WB into the CW network. If you do count it (and why wouldn’t you unless you intend to ignore events that contradict your bias), the number of broadcast networks has declined 16% this year.

Secondly, the contention that the number of TV stations and radio broadcasters has increased by more than 50% only speaks to the number of outlets, not the number of owners. There may be more outlets, but there are far fewer owners. In the past 25 years, the number of companies that controlled the majority of media output plunged from 50 to 5. And since the owners control the outlet’s administration and programming, that is a more significant measure in terms of both competitiveness and diversity.

Thirdly, Healey contends that cable television’s success has drained viewers from broadcast networks, leaving broadcasters with less than 50% of the prime-time audience. But can broadcasters really be said to have lost these viewers when the cable networks to which these viewers have migrated are largely owned by the very same broadcasters or the same parent corporations?

Finally, the flimsiest of all of the examples of alleged competition, is that the Internet has introduced a myriad of new voices that have broken the old media’s stranglehold on mass communication. The Internet is indeed a revolutionary platform for the distribution of information and ideas. But a realistic appraisal recognizes that most of these new voices are heard by only a handful of close friends and family. The truth is that 9 of the 11 most visited Internet news destinations are owned or controlled by the same familiar big media names.

Yes, media ownership rules are so ’70s. They are not keeping pace with the rapid concentration of media voices into such a small group of powerful, multinational corporations whose loyalties are bound to owners and shareholders, rather than consumers and citizens. To paraphrase the Times’ own Tim Rutten…

“What this moment in the life of the [media] requires is recognition that the [media]’s social, intellectual and political value to [the public] needs to be unlocked and not just its monetary value to investors.”

Amen. And that will only be accomplished with sensible regulations that preserve independence and diversity.

The FCC Weapons of Mass Comminication Tour 2006

Posted by Mark NC on October 4, 2006 at 1:30 am. NO Comments :

The people do not want bigger media monopolies stuffing homogenized content from corporate headquarters down the throats of local consumers.

In the first of six public meetings on new rules for media ownership, members of the Federal Communications Commission brought their dog and pony show to Los Angeles. All five commissioners were present before a standing room only crowd of over 500.

The opening statements foreshadowed the predictably fixed predispositions of the commissioners.

The Dogs:
Chairman Kevin Martin and Commissioner Robert McDowell gave lip service to the importance of public input, but their remarks were typical Washington pablum that offered no substance. Commissioner Deborah Tate provided even less, but she had the excuse of having a throat ailment and was unable to speak.

The Ponies:
Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathon Adelstein, on the other hand, delivered detailed and passionate speeches that stirred the audience. Representative of their views were remarks from Adelstein that called for a media that would pursue the public interest, not the interest of those who seek profit from public airwaves. He discussed how program creators used to worry about the story content, and characters, but that now they worry about getting Coca-Cola in the scene. And he lamented the fact that, on many stations, real investigative reporting had been replaced by video news releases.

Congresswoman Maxine Waters was there to take on the Tribune Company and it’s request for a permanent waiver that would allow it to own both the Los Angeles Times and KTLA-TV. That arrangement is in violation of FCC rules, for which they currently have a temporary waiver. After itemizing Tribune’s failures to operate in the public interest, she insisted that the permanent waiver be denied by stating flatly that, “They don’t deserve it.”

The Rev. Jesse Jackson pointed out that too few companies owned too much media at the expense of the people. Marshall Herskovitz, president of the Producers Guild, observed that the media is a huge industry and that they would make money even if they were broken up into 100,000 pieces. Mike Mills of R.E.M. brought the perspective of musicians that are held hostage to the radio conglomerates that dictate playlists and eliminate local programming. And Martin Kaplan, associate dean of the USC Annenberg School for Communication, confronted Chairman Martin with the hypocrisy of the FCC’s policy on publishing research. Read his statement here.

The Show:
After commentaries by the commissioners and the panelists, the public was invited to speak. Of the approximately 30 citizens that rose to address the panel, all but one advocated an end to the ever more permissive policy of consolidated ownership. Some of their stories were broadly stated views of the industry and its impact on independent business and localism. Some were deeply personal stories of how concentrated ownership damaged or ended careers.

The sole dissenter from these views was a representative of the conservative astroturfers, FreedomWorks. The firm is headed by former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey and lobbies for the kind of deregulation of media companies that would allow them to own as many properties as they want in any market. Their representative was roundly booed, but defiantly delivered his pro-monopoly message anyway.

If the commissioners were listening to the citizens at this meeting, they surely received an unmistakable and unified message. The people do not want more media consolidation. They do not want bigger media monopolies stuffing homogenized content from corporate headquarters down the throats of local consumers. They want the commission to restore opportunities for small, independent artists, producers, and businesses. This may have been just the first of the series of meetings to be held, but if the others follow suit, then we must expect and demand progressive reform from the commission.

It’s not too late to have your say. The FCC is accepting public comments until December 21, 2006. The last time these rules were revised, the FCC’s attempt to rush through its business friendly regs was derailed by over 3 million citizens voicing their disapproval. We have that power and we have to use it again. Visit Stop Big Media and use their forms to submit your comments. No, really…Do It! The effect is real and it’s a long ways to 3 million. Every comment counts.

Let My Newspapers Go

Posted by Mark NC on October 2, 2006 at 10:41 pm. NO Comments :

“American newspapers are passing through an era… in which a corporate ownership model seems increasingly unworkable.”
Tim Rutten

The Tribune Company is emblematic of the pitfalls of corporate ownership of media. It’s portfolio includes 11 daily newspapers, 25 television stations, and cable superstation WGN, as well as WGN-AM radio, the Chicago Cubs, and news, information and entertainment websites.

One of its newspapers, the Los Angeles Times, is at the cornerstone of a conflict that encompasses disgruntled shareholders, rebellious executives and underserved customers. Through all of this turmoil, some insight and inspiration has come from Tim Rutten, the paper’s Associate Editor of Features. Rutten has taken a hard line position on the question of corporate ownership. How often do you see a reporter give his employer an ultimatum like this:

“American newspapers are passing through an era not only of technological change but also one in which a corporate ownership model seems increasingly unworkable. If the Tribune Co. does not feel able or willing to resist its investors’ unreasonable demands on behalf of the public’s interest, then it should put The Times into the hands of somebody who will.”

And a couple of weeks later:

“No one can argue that Tribune or anyone who owns The Times is obliged to lose money. On the other hand, no one should argue that a newspaper’s proprietor has no obligation except to make as much money as it can. Somewhere between those two extremes is a fulcrum called responsibility on which a balance must be struck. Doing so requires the recognition that, although stockholders certainly are stakeholders in this process, so – and just as surely – are a paper’s readers.

What this moment in the life of the Los Angeles Times requires is recognition that the paper’s social, intellectual and political value to readers needs to be unlocked and not just its monetary value to investors.”

While these comments were directed specifically to the affairs at The Times, they could apply generally to almost any media conglomerate. The notion that a newspaper’s responsibility to its readers is at least equivalent to its fiduciary obligation to shareholders is one that should gain more acceptance in the journalism world. The more local the control, the more likely that outcome can be achieved. The Times deserves some credit for publishing Rutten’s provocative views. And Rutten deserves even more for having and expressing them.

Ted Turner’s Smackdown

Posted by Mark NC on September 22, 2006 at 2:43 am. NO Comments :

The former CNN founder and reformed media mogul, Ted Turner, made some interesting remarks in a recent interview:

“[The decision to invade Iraq] will go down in history — it already is going down in history — as one of the dumbest moves that was ever made by anybody,” Turner said, citing the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor and the German invasion of Russia during the Second World War as other “dumb” moves.

“We lost so much,” he said of the U.S. invasion. “It literally broke my heart, it was so dumb. … If you started wars with everyone you don’t like, well good God, we would all be at war with everybody.”

That kind of honesty is all too rare from Turner’s social set. And as welcome as it is to hear, I like even better his statement that he has no interest in being at war with anyone — even Rupert Murdoch:

“I’d fight [Murdoch] in the ring, with gloves on, but I wouldn’t bomb News Corp.”

Well I guess that’s one less imaginary threat Bill O’Reilly has to worry about. The funny thing is, if Turner and Murdoch met in the ring, Murdoch’s network would probably snap up the broadcast license for the match. Turner would kick Murdoch’s ass, and then Fox would go back to celebrating the war that Turner so insightfully dubbed as stupid. Turner has also said that ceding control of CNN was one of the stupidest things that he’s ever done. On that I’m going to have to agree with him again.

This seems like a good time to remind everyone to read Turner’s inspired essay, “My Beef With Big Media.” If you’ve never read it, then drop everything and read it now. If you have read it, you’d be surprised how stimulating it is to read again. I make a point to read it at least annually.

FCC Censors Itself On Local Ownership

Posted by Mark NC on September 15, 2006 at 9:28 am. 1 Comments :

A report written in 2004 by researchers at the Federal Communications Commission found that local ownership of broadcasters enhanced coverage of community issues. That conclusion directly contradicts prior arguments made by the Commission that claimed consolidation aided localism. The research analyzed over 4,000 hours of news programming and was conducted by veteran media professionals. Michael Powell, Bush crony and corporate media lackey, was the FCC Chairman, at the time the report was produced.

So what happened to this report? According to an FCC attorney, an order was issued that “every last piece” of the report be destroyed. This document, produced at taxpayer expense, was anathema to an agency that has been mightily striving to accommodate the monopolistic interests of Big Media. It could not be allowed to survive.

However, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) obtained a stray copy of the report and questioned current FCC Chair Kevin Martin about it during committee hearings. He claimed never to have seen the report or to have received the letter Boxer had previously sent inquiring as to its status. Either the Powell administration at the FCC effectively erased any evidence of the report from the agency’s files, or Martin is lying. But the stone-walling by the agency is continuing and it remains to be seen if Martin will eventually provide a satisfactory response. If he does not, Boxer has promised to request an investigation by the FCC Inspector General.

Let’s hope this process can conclude before the FCC succeeds in passing new regulations that will allow the expanded consolidation that this report proves will be harmful to the public’s interest.

Update: Former FCC chief, Michael Powell, emerged to plead ignorance, saying through his assistant that…

“he never saw the report, he never heard of the report until yesterday and he certainly never ordered anything destroyed or stopped.”

Also, Sen. Boxer has fulfilled her promise and formally requested an investigation by the FCC Inspector General.

The Internet's Chronicle of Media Decay

Big Media

The FCC’s Ownership Quandry

The Shame Of The L. A. Times

And The Winner Is…The Media

Bigger Media Is Not Better Media

Media Ownership Rules Are So ’70s

The FCC Weapons of Mass Comminication Tour 2006

Let My Newspapers Go

Ted Turner’s Smackdown

Top 25 Censored News Stories Of 2007

FCC Censors Itself On Local Ownership

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: