Kevin Martin: My New Hero

I was pretty indifferent to the outcome of the FCC's vote on relaxing the cross-ownership ban but I felt strongly that the vote take place on schedule. The inaction that I have witnessed for years has been remarkable. The fact that the FCC voted to repeal the ban on cross ownership in markets meeting certain criteria back in 2003 after many reviews (but was then pushed back by a Federal appeals court) seems to have been lost in the current brawl over whether the vote should proceed or not. I admire that Kevin Martin pushed the vote forward despite the mounting pressure to postpone it. I doubt this is the last we will hear about cross ownership but at least Mr. Martin is taking a stand.

In fact, the proposed changes were so diluted relative to an outright repeal of the ban on cross ownership that it was hard for me to imagine that anyone thought it would materially or even modestly change the landscape. The top 20 markets have an abundance of traditional media outlets as well as a plethora of online voices. Combining a newspaper with a TV station that isn't in the top four could eventually have an impact as the cross promotion between the two outlets could move the station upward in the ratings; however, in prior reviews and related studies, it was well documented that TV stations owned by newspapers do a better job of covering local news. Not surprisingly, most media companies feel the rule change didn't go far enough.

Further, it might have escaped many senators' attention but the newspaper and broadcast industries aren't faring so well right now; it isn't clear that there is any pent-up M&A activity that will be unleashed by the change in cross ownership. There is modest economic upside when combining a newspaper and a television station that occurs mostly on the cost side, as there is some overlap of news gathering costs, e.g. wire services, etc. There are some creative moves that could be made on the ad side but there is likely not much of a revenue pick-up from the combination.

I doubt the rule change will measurably impact the media landscape. Allowing News Corp and Dow Jones to combine will have a much greater impact than allowing a top-20 market newspaper and TV station to combine. Hyper-local web sites and print papers are popping up all over and finding engaged citizens to participate. Newspapers are hardly dominant in their respective markets to the extent they once were; many are struggling to survive financially given the competition for online classifieds, their historic bread and butter. While the intent of the cross ownership ban is to maintain diversity of voice and avoid the consequences of concentration, locally or nationally, the bigger concern should be survival of newspapers. Permitting cross ownership is unlikely to save the industry but there is chance it could help.

Comments

[realnoia]

I wonder what a discussion between you and
Bill Moyers would sound like? He would be
polite and you would lose.

[longnow]

Bless your heart All American Equity Researcher Fine we are all for diversification of opinion
as HuffPo has proved by including yours.

[blamethemedia]

Woooo-boy, do I feel stupid. I kept looking for Ms. Fine's punch line, when the whole parody would reveal itself, like Jonathon Swift's "A Modest Proposal". But it turns out THIS proposal seriously advocates eating the kiddies, so to speak. Personally, Ms. Fine is MY new hero: I have no problem with one media outlet as the source of all news, as long as it's good and profitable. I'll be thrilled when we can be rid of quaint notions like "journalistic standards", and limit ourselves to the only true standard: the Almighty Bottom Line.

[robinhood1]

I am not concerned about concentration of media ownership. Changing technology has made it just as easy to for me to read my hometown newspaper as it is to read a newspaper half way around the world. And the price is certainly right: FREE, in most cases, on the Internet.

I am disappointed that the FCC did not require a la carte pricing by the cable companies. But I'll live with it. Last week, I canceled my cable TV service. The free market has spoken. I've decided that I don't want to pay for broadcasts in Chinese and Spanish or for home shopping channels. The cable company's loss is Netflix's gain. For about $15 a month, I have access to thousands of movies and made-for-TV programing and can request up to 2 DVD's at a time. Perhaps, when the cable company is willing to offer me 10 channels of my choice for $15 a month, I may become a subscriber again. In the meantime, I am happy to save $13 a month. Somewhere in my Netflix queue is the original "Man of Property" series, based on the John Galsworthy novel, which I read in high school. Nearly 40 years have passed since I saw the original series on TV, so it will almost be like seeing an old friend after again after many years. Comcast, eat your heart out.

[January]

The current difficulties of traditional media are just an excuse to allow concentration of ownership. It's like allowing a new CEO to come in and breakup a corporation in order to sell off the loss and hold on to the profit.

Who cares about the consumer? It's bottom line uber alles.

[Producer1]

100 years ago Theodore Roosevelt took daring action and busted the trusts. The only thing that will restore balance to the communications industry is for our new progressive president and congress to break up the corporate stranglehold on the media conglomerates. If a newspaper is failing it's due to poor management and not competition. It's not the responsibility of the FCC to bail out poor management of an industry it doesn't regulate.

Instead of consolidation the FCC should be making more licenses available to a more diverse public.

Ms. Fine, you are way off base and your words have no validity.

[avergejoe]

So your hero is someone wrote his decision BEFORE the public hearings?

who else is on your list?
bush, scooter, krystal, wolfowitz, cheney...

[blackmouth]

You idiots will not be satisfied until there is only one place that we can get information or news from, and the government will tell it what to say. Welcome to 1984.

[EnragedLiberal]

Privileged elite big business cheerleader shamelessly promotes anti-populist Rethuglican restriction of media choices - NO film at eleven.

[Cathexis]

Really, Ms Fine?

You really don't see much problem with consolidated control of information?!?

Ponder the repercussions, if you will. No ... really! Do it now. Go ahead ... we'll wait.

(whistles) (twiddles thumbs)

All through? Good.

Do you really believe that Media owners possess so much integrity and have already demonstrated such responsible stewardship (*cough*FOX*cough*Clear-Channel*) that consolidating that control and power would be a GOOD thing?!?

I am all for looking at ways to make newspapers and other media more viable and successful. Agreed: Continuing the status quo won't suffice. But consolidation, even from a strictly business perspective, merely allows some leveraging of expense costs -- it does nothing to address the underlying causitive factors that contribute to the real problem.

We have had two alternatives proposed: "Do nothing" and "Allow Consolidation." How fortunate, then, that we don't live in a binary world where we are limited to only two choices, neither of which resolves the problem and one of which is disastrous from a societal/ Democracy point of view! ;-)

It's time we looked for some 3rd alternative and stopped condoning short-term fixes that have huge societal costs and only result in power circles gaining more power.

[SD61]

Equity Research Manager. Uh-huh. Right.

Sorry, Ms. Fine, the bigger issue is NOT survival of newspapers. Newspapers have singlehandedly brainwashed our culture, and are currently the monsters behind the incredibly damaging division of America, along invisible political and religious lines.

Just look at Joe Average, eating his lunch and absorbing the daily paper. Now look at the same scene, repeated millions of times across the nation. A perfect scheme for mass brainwashing.

No, Ms. Fine. America no longer needs these despicable sources of propaganda, written and published to purposely incite hatred and discontent, sprinkled with the occasional story about the President's dog and Britney's hair.

Let 'em die, these life-sucking thickets, and let the new seeds (small, independent news sources) flourish.

[vladdrak]

You're completely ignorant to this issue. There is plenty of evidence the ownership of both a television station and a newspaper do not bode well. Do some research on the Chicago Tribune as just one example. Free Press has done a lot of research on this and have come to the same conclusion www.freepress.nett).

85 percent of "newsgathering" is done by the newspaper, not the internet, not radio, not television. The papers across the country are dying. Most of the foreign bureaus are closing. Investigative journalism is pretty much a thing of the past. All of these have been replaced by fluff journalism. Most Americans may know more about Britney Spears than they do of the upcoming presidential election.

So how is consolidating the media and closing out the diversity of voices in this country a good thing? Perhaps the consolidation will help solve the economic issue, but it doesn't solve the fact that we have fewer voices, far less reporting and with the cross-ownership of media this will only make things worse. Murdoch now owns the Wall Street Journal and Fox News. Is that a good thing?

Many of us get our news over the Internet and feel confident it grants us the diversity I'm talking about. But do a google search for a story of interest and you will notice, it may run in many different publications...but it's the same story probably written by the same person.

And ask yourself this, with the Iraq war still at hand...are you happy with the reporting going on? Do you realize most of the reporting comes from foreign sources?

Your blog speaks volumes about the complacency that plagues this country.

[locanicole]

Though I will admit to a great amount of ignorance about high finances,I really dont understand how this move will help newspapers survive (if thats really one of the main concerns). However, I do think this country does need a wider diversity of news outlets, whether print or television. I dont think it's really a good idea to concentrate media in 3 or 4 main business interests. Because business interests says it all. Not concern for a well-informed public but the bottom line.