Los Angeles Times

Media Ownership Rules Are So ’70s

Posted by 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 Healey argues that the media ownership rules are outdated.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.

Lights Out At The L.A. Times?

Posted by on October 7, 2006 at 1:59 am. NO Comments :

The turmoil continues at the Los Angeles Times where the Chicago mob (Tribune) is exerting more pressure. Starting with the announcement that the publisher, Jeff Johnson, has been fired and replaced by mob boss, David Hiller. Nikke Finke has the goods on Hiller, whom the Times has soft-peddled as a tough, but charming executive. Finke’s research paints a very different, and partisan, picture:

“Hiller, along with now Supreme Court Judge John Roberts and Clinton/Whitewater special prosecutor Kenneth Starr, helped serve as funnels for the right-wing think tanks to shape Reagan Administration social agenda. Hiller’s role inside the Reagan Justice Department was described to me as one of “legal hatchet man”.

Johnson’s fate was sealed when he and editor, Dean Baquet, refused to go along with Corporate’s budget and staff cuts. Baquet, for the time being, still has a job, but if Hiller pulls off Chicago’s edicts, the Times will be a worthless weed that deserves to wither. I’m starting my search for a new paper now.

Let My Newspapers Go

Posted by 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.

The Los Angeles Times Hears Its Master’s Voice

Posted by on August 27, 2006 at 12:31 pm. 1 Comments :

In an editorial published Friday, August 25, the L. A. Times took a courageous stand in favor of propping up its parent corporation, The Tribune Company. By supporting the latest power-grab being proposed by the FCC, the Times/Tribune are really just supporting their own economic interests at the expense of the public.

In 2003, the FCC attempted to ram through a new set of ownership rules that would allow the already too big media empires to consolidate even more. They did this with little concern for the public’s interest or input. What transpired was an unprecedented uproar from citizens who persuaded their representatives to pass a bill repealing the FCC’s measure. Subsequently, a federal Court of Appeals struck down the rest of the regulation calling it “arbitrary and capricious.” So how does the Times characterize these events?

It starts by portraying the FCC as the embattled servant of goodness, seeking only to liberate the well-meaning media companies from, “unreasonable government restrictions on their activities.” But they are foiled by the sinister court system and the Senate, which was, “prodded by a motley alliance of anti-corporate zealots and conservative activists.” Unmentioned in this mythologizing is that the prodding actually came from a record 3 million complaints from the people to the FCC. The Senate responded, not to some motley alliance, but to their constituents. It’s called Democracy and someone should tell Tribune about it. The editorial goes on to make some shockingly untrue assessments of the modern media landscape:

“…what the FCC tried to do three years ago was too modest. In an age of cable and satellite TV – not to mention an age of YouTube.com – it’s no longer justifiable for the government to impose any limits on how many affiliates broadcast networks can own, given that CBS, NBC and ABC no longer control the distribution of their programming the way they did when American families gathered around their sets to watch “I Love Lucy.”

The Internet itself is at risk of becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of the Media/Telecom Complex…

Too modest? That requires a massive dose of hubris to lay down. Something the Times neglected to mention was that in this age, the cable, satellite, and broadcast networks, to which they refer, are owned largely by the same handful of corporate megaliths. And since they brought up YouTube, it should be noted that the Internet phenom is currently the subject of persistent rumors that it is about to acquired by, you guessed it, a major media corporation. The Internet itself is at risk of becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of the Media/Telecom Complex who oppose Net Neutrality and favor monopolistic convergence. Already, 9 of the top 11 Internet news sites are owned by Big Media.

It is true, though, that the broadcast networks no longer control the distribution of their programming the way they once did. They now have more control. With the repeal of the financial/syndication rules a few years ago, they can now fully own the programming that they broadcast. Now independent producers are getting shut out by the networks who would rather schedule programs that they own because they make more money that way – particularly in syndication.

And then there’s this Orwellian pearl…

“More cities might still have a competitive newspaper market if more broadcasters had been allowed to buy newspapers in the past.”

It’s impossible to fathom how they define competition. If more broadcasters (who are buying each other) were allowed to buy more newspapers (who are buying each other), you eventually end up with little or no competition at all. And that’s exactly the way they like it.

This editorial reveals a self-serving media empire that reflects the industry overall. In the past 25 years, the number of companies that controlled the majority of media output plunged from 50 to 5. If they have their way, they will continue to purge every voice of independence and diversity from the public arena.

Your voice is needed now to persuade Washington’s regulators and legislators that competition is not enhanced by consolidation. Use this form provided by Stop Big Media (a project of FreePress.net) to send your thoughts to the FCC. There is much more information available at that site. And let your representatives know how feel as well.

Burying The Lede

Posted by on November 27, 2005 at 4:03 pm. NO Comments :

The The Los Angeles Times should pay my doctor bills for the heart attack they gave me by publishing an insightful, well-reasoned, and hard-hitting opinion column yesterday. Tim Rutten’s article, Cheney’s History Needs A Revise, is one of the best deconstructions of the Vice President’s hysterical hypocrisy I’ve read to date. In case you missed it, Cheney, after an insincere stab at advocating the right to dissent, immediately blasted dissenters as aiding and abetting the terrorists. He accused critics of the war of lying when they said Bush lied about pre-war intelligence. Even though that has been, in Cheney’s words, “…pretty well confirmed.” He went on to say:

Administration critics were engaging in “…revisionism of the most corrupt and shameless variety.”

“Any suggestion that prewar information was distorted, hyped, fabricated by the leader of the nation is utterly false.”

And that critics were “dishonest” and “reprehensible.”

Rutten mercilessly pounds on Cheney’s own revisionism, hitting him with Curveball, torture, and his own desparation as the only BushCo rep with lower public ratings than Bush. And he wraps it up beautifully with this conclusion:

That’s why Cheney is right about at least one thing: Deliberately falsifying history for mere political advantage is a particularly noxious social perversion. It is, to borrow, his stingingly apt adjective, “reprehensible.”

But candid recollection and sober reflection do not amount to revisionism – unless, of course, you’re already committed to self-deception and determined to convince others to live with your lie.

So how then is the lede buried, as my headline states? You might expect that this thoughtful portrayal of current events by a significant newsmaker would have appeared in the opinion section, or in the news pages properly identified as analysis. You would be wrong. Tim Rutten is a media columnist and his articles appear in the Calendar section that contains the Times’ entertainment reporting.

This means I may have to radically alter my reading habits. Perhaps I should turn first to the Calendar for insight into the news, then pick up the opinion pages for entertainment, where their newest columnist, Jonah Goldberg, is best known for his fiction.

L. A. Times Trades Scheer For Goldberg

Posted by on November 18, 2005 at 7:44 pm. NO Comments :

The Los Angeles Times has announced that they have jettisoned their long-time liberal columnist, Robert Scheer. At the same time, they announced that they will begin carrying conservative hack, Jonah Goldberg. This may be the worst trade since the Red Sox sold Babe Ruth to the Yankees. And we don’t have to look any further than Goldberg’s inaugural column. In it, he takes on the question of Bush’s lying to the country and comes down on the side of lying.

It’s not bad enough that he is outright insulting (calling his opponents deranged moonbats), he is also nearly vaporous substantively. And, ironically, the absurdity of his premise, that lying to the American people is acceptable, is nicely rebutted just a few pages earlier in an article headlined, “Declassified Memo Captures Nixon’s Intention to Obscure the U.S. Campaign in Cambodia”.

In a memo from the meeting, Nixon told his military staff to continue doing what was necessary in Cambodia, but to say for public consumption that the United States was merely providing support to South Vietnamese forces when necessary to protect U.S. troops.

“That is what we will say publicly,” he said. “But now, let’s talk about what we will actually do.”

Funny, Goldberg didn’t bother to cite Nixon’s demonstration of forgivable deceipt. Maybe because his lies are not really forgivable. And neither are Goldberg’s or Bush’s.