Critics speak out on media concentration

By David Ho


Feb. 27, 2003 | RICHMOND, Va. (AP)


Critics of efforts to overhaul media ownership rules said Thursday that weakened government restrictions will lead to more mergers and a few large companies controlling what people read, hear and watch.


Representatives of newspapers and television networks disagreed, saying that decades-old ownership rules are outdated in today's world of satellite broadcasts, cable television and the Internet.


Both sides made their pleas to the Federal Communications Commission, which moved out of Washington for a day to get opinions on its review of six ownership rules. The FCC is expected to make its decision in May.


The agency's five commissioners heard testimony from experts and industry officials, and from about 30 of the several hundred people attending.


David Croteau, a sociology professor at Virginia Commonwealth University, said the media cannot be treated like other industries.


"It's products are not widgets or toasters _ they are culture, information, ideas and viewpoints,'' he said. "Less regulation will be a windfall for a few giant media corporations. It is likely to be a huge mistake for the rest of us.''


A 1996 law required the FCC to periodically review ownership rules in light of industry changes.


It is widely believed that FCC Chairman Michael Powell and the two other Republicans on the commission want to loosen regulations, an outcome sought by many large media companies, including the four major television networks and the Newspaper Association of America.


"Relaxation of the commission's ownership rules will not diminish diversity,'' said Jay Ireland, president of NBC Television Stations. ``What will diminish diversity is the loss of media outlets because they can no longer compete in today's fragmented marketplace.''


Rain Burroughs, 39, a daycare center worker from Richmond, said media mergers have diminished the diversity of programing. She cited her parents, who are documentary filmmakers and in recent years have had trouble finding an outlet for their work.


"There were more ways back then for people to produce interesting programs and get them distributed,'' Burroughs said. She said that now ``the best programs don't get to air because of the obsession to maximize profits. Today, we are bombarded with sensationalist, mindless, violent shows.''


Opening the hearing, Powell said that if the commission cannot justify a media ownership restriction, "the rule will go away.''


"This is a rule-making that will be driven by evidence and not just intuition,'' he said.


John Sturm, president of the Newspaper Association of America, said the rule preventing a company from owning a broadcast station and a newspaper in the same market should be repealed.


"The media world is totally different now as compared to when this ban went into effect in 1975,'' he said. He said "cross-ownership'' of a newspaper and a broadcast station can enhance the quality and quantity of news and local information.


But not all newspapers oppose the ban.


Chris Powell, managing editor of the Journal Inquirer in Manchester, Conn., said he came to the hearing to protest news media concentration in his state. He challenged arguments that the ownership rules are outdated because new kinds of media have changed the market.


"The state and local news advertising provided by the Internet and cable TV in Connecticut are negligible,'' he said.


FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, a Democrat, has sought more public hearings on the media ownership review and plans to hold his own hearings next month in Seattle and Durham, N.C.


"I think we don't yet know the potential implications of our actions,'' Copps said. He said the public also needs to be more aware of the review because it could reshape the landscape of news and entertainment programming for generations.


Powell has said the Richmond hearing would be enough because the agency already had received thousands of public comments, most of them by e-mail.
blockquote>

Well, here is another example of the FCC kowtowing to large media. As was reported here, all of these meetings are conducted within the industry first, and then between the industry officials and the FCC officials.

There should be a national dialogue about these rule changes, as there is so much at stake. Are you interested in knowing about just how much media consolidation there already is? I thought you would be.

Here are some links: MediaChannel's Media Ownership Chart | Columbia Journalism Review's 'Who Owns What' | The Nation's 'Big Ten' | The Incredible Shrinking Ownership Group | FAIR's List of For-Profit Media | NOW's 'Who Controls The Media?'

Too much information, and as easily MIS-information controlled by too few sources. As I wrote earlier in the day: "Informed Consent of the Governed", is not something our government has any real taste for. I recommend, "Our Media, Not Theirs", by John Nichols and Robert McChesney. The book is both history of the press, and good commentary. A transcript of their recent interview with PBS' Bill Moyers can be found here.