The FCC has now done the "dirty deed" of eviscerating the long standing Cross Ownership rules. I looked back on something I wrote on the subject over five and a half years ago and decided to "re-issue" it.
The "they" who control the system in this regard who are to serve in the public interest, serve only in the interests of the mega media companies, and lest we forget, the interests of the incumbent administration.
How sad for our country.
The FCC, Mickey Mouse & Media Cross-ownership
July 23, 2002
A former senior FCC staff member told me years ago that virtually all FCC rulings are based on the politics of the issue rather than the merits of the issue. I believe that this is a fair assessment, and I have seen nothing that the FCC does as being in the public interest.
In the late sixties, the FCC delivered to America the Prime-Time Access, Financial Interest, and Syndication rulings. The reasons given by the Commission for the rule change made no sense whatsoever. Nevertheless, the changes in the rules were in fact in the public interest and enabled significant changes to occur in the creative community, and did lead to far greater diversity and competition in the entertainment industry.
These rulings were issued at a time when the networks in general and CBS in particular, were giving President Nixon significant grief by reporting on the war in Vietnam, contrary to Nixon's wishes. It is widely believed that it was Nixon's instructions to the FCC to deliver to the networks a not too subtle message that said, "You continue criticizing my war and I'll continue to reduce the size of your business". Certainly the implementation of these rulings did reduce the networks' business and profitability.
It is hard to believe from prior actions that the FCC is in fact looking out for the best interest of the citizens of our country. They now plan on re-examining their existent rules pertaining to newspaper and broadcast cross-ownership.
There are forces at play in our country that would favor the elimination of cross-ownership restrictions. I have been told that the Internet, cable, satellites, wireless services, etc. render the reasons for cross-ownership restrictions moot. Under those circumstances, I have been asked if I would care if General Electric and NBC owned the NY Times, Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune. I certainly would care.
Is it not axiomatic that cross-ownership restrictions support diversity? "Axioms" and "Postulates" are statements that are accepted as true. Does the FCC need to study the existing rulings to determine if the removal of cross-ownership would increase media diversity in our country?
It's time to introduce another axiom. "Rupert Murdoch has enough influence on how society receives the news, why does he need any additional influence?" Does the FCC need to review this in order to grant Murdoch the right to own and control still more media properties? Whose lobbyists are really behind the FCC's review?
CanWest Global, a significant Canadian media company that owns broadcast properties throughout Canada, acquired Canada's largest newspaper publishing company.
CanWest Global fired a columnist for digging too diligently into the Prime Minister's (Chretien) business affairs and followed up with the termination of the publisher of the Ottowa's Citizen, who was guilty of allowing his staff to do their jobs and report on Chretien's ethics.
What better or more contemporary abuse can be cited in order to retain cross-ownership rules in the Unites States? It's not necessarily true that if Disney purchased the Tribune Company, that Michael Eisner would exercise the right to insist upon certain editorial standards and terminate those people who would dare not follow his orders. Under those circumstances, he most certainly could terminate those people if he wanted to.
After having worked in varying aspects of the media business for over forty years, it is obvious to me that when the opportunity exists for there to be self-serving abuses by companies, individuals seize upon these opportunities and do in fact abuse.
Viacom owns, controls, or participates in the ownership of: Paramount Stations Group (21 stations), UPN, MTV, Nickelodeon, VH1, Comedy Central, Showtime, The Sundance Channel, The Movie Channel, FLIX, BET, TNN, CMT, Paramount Pictures, Paramount TV, Paramount Home Video, Viacom Productions, MTV Films, Nickelodeon Studios & Movies, Wilshire Court Productions, Spelling Entertainment, Republic Entertainment, Big Ticket Television, Worldvision Enterprises, Blockbuster, Paramount Parks, Famous Music, Viacom Publishing (Simon & Schuster, Pocket Books, and Scribner), Paramount Theaters, CBS Television Network, CBS Television Stations (15), Group W Network Services, Infinity Broadcasting (164 radio stations), Westwood One, Metro Networks, TDI Worldwide, CBS Production, EYEMARK, and King World Productions. This listing does not include Viacom's enormous media holdings outside of the United States. I expect that the FCC will examine Viacom's holdings and then determine that the elimination of cross-ownership will not harm diversity in the media.
The Commission has already done significant harm to the interests of the American public while serving the interests of America's media conglomerates. It is certain that the Commission responds to the lobbyists of General Electric/NBC, Viacom/CBS/UPN, NewsCorp/FOX, AOL/TimeWarner/the WB, and Disney/ABC. The interests of our country will be best served by retaining the existing cross-ownership restrictions: a postulate.
Norman Horowitz is a Broadband/media consultant and was president of Columbia Pictures Television Worldwide Distribution Co., Polygram Television and the MGM/UA Telecommunications Co., as well as a CBS/Viacom executive.
Loading comments…
Posted February 25, 2008 | 10:48 AM (EST)