Saturday, December 8, 2007

FCC and Newspaper/Broadcast Deregulation

Ok kids. Here's the deal: FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is working to have a revision passed that would remove the ban on ownership of multiple media outlets in a local area by one company; in this case, the ban which prevents newspaper companies from owning local radio and television stations as well. The revision would only apply to newspapers in the top 20 markets, excluding the top 4. You can read Martin's proposal in pdf form here.

I've attempted to collect some articles and arguments here as resources for everyone to form their own opinion on the matter and take action. The vote is set for December 18th, but the FCC is only hearing out comments until December 11th, so the time for action is now!


Arguments for the Revision:
  • These local newspapers are "withering and dying" and need to have access to broadcast markets in order to stay afloat and still deliver quality local news (from Martin's NY Times article)
    • "Newspapers in financial difficulty often have little choice but to scale back news gathering to cut costs. Allowing cross-ownership may help to forestall the erosion in local news coverage by enabling companies that own both newspapers and broadcast stations to share some costs" - Martin
  • "Proposal is backed by research, public hearings and court guidance." (from ajax.com)
  • The alleged loophole for big media does not exist (from ajax.com)
  • Media has changed due to internet, cable tv, and satellite radio, meaning broadcast tv and radio no longer need the same restrictions as they did in the past. (from E&P article, Martin's NY Times article)
  • Those who are listed under the top 20 can apply for a waiver, decided on case-by-case basis (from B&C article)
  • Mergers/acquisitions will be made including several considerations, such as whether the combined entity will actually increase the amount of local news, whether the entity will continue to exercise "independent news judgement," and also the actual financial need of the newspaper in question (Martin's official proposal (pdf) )
  • Future of Tribune at stake due to previous waivers and ongoing acquisitions (from LA Times article)

Oppositions and Concerns:
  • Although hearings were held for several months, the proposal was not released until November, giving citizens about a month's notice and one remaining hearing (the Seattle hearing) to become informed about the revision and give their input (from reclaimthemedia.com article)
  • Chairman Martin called final Seattle hearing with only one week's notice (from Moyers article)
  • Newspapers on average aren't exactly struggling financially (from Bill Moyers video)
  • Chairman Martin moving ahead with Dec. 18th vote despite requests for a delay.
  • Struggling newspaper companies can't afford to buy radio and television broadcast stations in the first place, especially not one in the top 20 media markets (from Paly Voice article)
  • Letting bigger corporations own local news stations lessens diversity and hurts local news (from Seminal consolidation article, E&P article)
  • Waivers for non-top 20 business would likely take too long to be effective (from B&C article)
  • Ownership by big media corporations, not the internet and new media, are what's causing newspapers to struggle. An FCC study showed these findings, but was never released to the public. (from Klinenberg article)

I haven't found any sites for supporting Martin's cause, but here's a few resources for those opposed:

My opinion:
This is a blog after all, so here's the opinion I've formed on the matter. I haven't fully investigated the FCC's "missing" report on big media's real influence on local media to know whether or not this revision would truly harm or help America's newspapers. My gut feeling says that newspapers in the top 20 markets aren't the ones who would be needing help, but then again in small towns everyone tends to subscribe to the local newspaper, and maybe a national newspaper, so mid-market papers might be in less demand. More media consolidation feels bad no matter what the situation, but this time it's being presented as a way to help preserve and improve local news which might not be able to spend the money on quality investigations. Then again, big media certainly doesn't seem to spend it's extra money on quality investigation..

So basically, I'm not sure I have a solid opinion on whether this revision is good or bad since I've only known about it for about three days.

The thing that rubs me the wrong way most about this proposal is the shady way it's all been introduced. Public hearings announced on such short notice that nobody can attend, the proposal being officially announced only a month before the vote date, "missing" reports which contradict Martin's argument, the FCC giving themselves just one week to review the public's comments. All of these factors make me wanna say no, stop, give us some more time. For that reason, if for no other reason, I'm going to be adding my name to the petitions and contacting the FCC through those sites up there to make sure this thing doesn't just go straight on through without the citizens really getting a chance to make their decisions.

I highly recommend the Bill Moyers video, cause I like that guy and it gives you a look into how things went down at the Seattle hearing. It's nice to see citizens standing up against big media for something and not just being passive and submissive like we're often assumed to be.

Media studies students: this is it, this is what we're studying. Let's get out there and make our voices heard. Only two days left to do so.

If anyone has any other articles/info they'd like me to add, leave a comment. I also encourage the discourse of this issue in the comments, just try to stay away from vulgarity or I might delete your comment.

Thanks for reading.
Posted by at
Labels: , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)