Actually, I Support Yesterday's FCC's Cross-Ownership Decision

I know the position I take in this post varies from liberal orthodoxy, but I'm not upset at all with yesterday's 3-2 FCC decision to relax FCC cross-ownership rules.

In fact, I endorse this decision.

First, I believe the argumentation that cross-ownership opponents present is underpinned by overgeneralized or false assumptions; that we are a nation full of metro areas with only five or six media companies, all presenting the corporate view on everything from social causes to Iraq; that most U.S. metro areas have only one newspaper, that dissenting voices are stifled by their lack of financing from an evil corporate structure, that if only we had more competition, there would be less news about Britney (and her preggo sister), and more investigations about "stolen elections," guys back from Iraq with bad PTSD, revelations about the superior efficacy alternative medical treatments, etc.

Well, bullshit.

The fact is that in most metro areas - especially the 20 largest metro areas where these relaxed restrictions would apply - we have lots of diverse voices. There's public radio, college radio, free citizen-oriented radio, cable access, weekly alternative papers with powerful voices and investigatory budgets, daily college papers that cover the surrounding community as well, local web sites on a mission to dig up the truth, etc.

Oh, and there are plenty of national websites where you can learn the truth. You're here, right?

All of these outlets are robust sources for stories and viewpoints that ain't getting out.

In fact, the mainstream media sometimes kicks in as well. Shady auto mechanics? Families snared by the sub-prime mortgage crisis? Look at your nightly news or daily newspaper.

Another fact the media monopolists overlook is that in many U.S. cities, there are now more daily voices than you might expect. In New York City, there's not only the Times, Post and Daily News but a.m. New York, the New York City edition of Newsday, Metro, the New York Sun, as well as two dailies in Brooklyn and one in Staten Island. Boston? Not only the Globe and Herald, but two free daily tabs. Same in Philly. D.C. now has three daily papers for the first time in 40 years.

At the same time, major daily newspaper readership is declining as production costs rise. Ever wonder how much more it costs newspaper publishers to fuel up those delivery trucks, or to pay for the health insurance of their staff? While those costs point to the need to fix our energy and healthcare systems, that's not the point of my post.

In quite a few cases, the financial viability of the newspapers that you read is an open question. Would you rather see your local paper benefit from the financial stability of a deep-pocketed cross-platform owner (such as a broadcast group), or watch your newspaper die or become rail-thin?

One other thing about the FCC's relaxation of cross-ownership rules. In all the hysteria surrounding the reaction to this needed action, it is being underreported that the revised guidelines generally do not permit majority cross-ownership of newspapers and TV stations with the four highest viewership ratings in each of these 20 metros.

Given that the typical metro television alignment only involves four local stations with local news operations, I don't see what the fuss is about.

Comments

[realitytrumpsbull]

As long as all parties keep it honest, there's
no problem. If they venture off into yellow
journalism-land, and it's a BIG company that
now tells the same story on all channels etc.,
hmmm....

[digitboy]

Well, Bullshit to you, too!

If media diversity had gotten something in return... perhaps if a conglomerate would have to give up a broadcasting entity to absorb a newspaper, I could go along.

I'm tired of We the People getting a smaller and smaller voice without getting anything in return.

I live in the San Fernando Valley, part of Los Angeles City, about 30 miles west of downtown. Coverage of our local news is nonexistent in the Times. On television, forget it!

And since IBOC has been switched on the AM band, I can get neither of the 2 news stations (owned by the same company) here. Try navigating the freeways in LA without even a freaking traffic report!

[Producer1]

Mr. Shaw, you are totally mistaken in your theories. Here in Orlando Florida there isn't one liberal voice on the airwaves, and the local daily newspaper is decidedly not liberal. I tried to apply for a broadcast license, but the FCC wouldn't issue any more in this area. In Philadelphia, a solidly Democratic city, there is no liberal or progressive talk radio and the Inquirer has been purchased by a group of conservatives.

There is a reason why we've had to turn to alternative outlets, but it shouldn't have to be that way, and it is definitley not in the public interest which is what the FCC should be promoting.


There is also the fact that many people do not have access to the internet which means they can't read your biased, unresearched and incomplete post.

[Kungfublood]

Well, bullshit.

The fact is that a mere 1 to 3 percent of the total population live in the 20 largest metro areas - we 3% have lots of diverse voices screw everyone else!

[Janco54]

Well, goody for you.
Media consolidation and control is a threat to the First Amendment and a major component in any run-up to a facist society.

[Blackbird2004]

Mister Shaw, I think you are totally mistaken. Yes, you have a valid point that there are multiple news and media outlets in cities like NYC & Boston, but those other outlets (college radio, alternative presses, etc) are often staff mainly with interns and unpaid writers. Which may lead to poor news reporting.

Secondly, I take offense to the attitude of Chairman Martin. After six public hearings asking that the FCC not to relax this law, then a congressional hearing in which Martin is told that it is a bad idea, finally his fellow commissioner Michael Copps declaring that this would be a "train wreck" and Martin still pushes forward. Huh??? Whom does Martin work for? I thought it was for the people of the United States of America.

When the FCC"s Chairman Kevin Martin will not listen to public opinion, Congress or his fellow Commissioners in the FCC, one needs to question whom is Chairman Martin working for? It certainly not for the citizens he should be serving. It is more likely that he is serving purely corporate interests.

Chairman Martin is selling our public interests to the highest bidder. Maybe you may think it's okay, but to many of us it the government ignoring us for money. It's another wall that these large media corporations have knocked down, against our will. How long will our government sell our interests and trample on opinions?

To many of us, including me, it is completely dystopian.

[drblack]

This is a parody or spoof right? When Chris Dodds actions on the Senate floor go unreported on TV news there is a problem.
I would like to see all media subject to a one station, paper rule. All media should be independent.
Freedom depends on accurate info. Freedom depends on going after those in power and asking tough questions.
Where do you see that in the traditional media outlets?