Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

FCC Chairman Tries For More Media Consolidation

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Mon Dec 03, 2007 06:13 PM
from the playing-monopoly dept.
Government Media Politics
An anonymous reader writes "FCC chairman Kevin Martin wants to relax rules on how many media outlets one company can own in one market. Democratic commissioner Copps wants to rally the public to stop media consolidation. He says he's 'blowing a loud trumpet' for a 'call to battle' to stop the FCC from giving big media a generous Christmas present."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] News: FCC Commissioner Stumps For Media Diversity 159 comments
maynard writes, "Speaking at a New York City town hall meeting on corporate media consolidation and its deleterious impact on the expression of minority viewpoints, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps stumped against greater media concentration and instead argued for greater diversity of media outlets and voices. In 2003 the FCC, under Chairman Michael Powell, changed media ownership rules to favor greater corporate media consolidation at the expense of local owners. In an attempt to reverse totally the prior FCC policy, Mr. Copps argued strongly in favor of independent media owners. Read on for what he had to say.
Submission: FCC Chairman tries for more media consolidation by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

FCC Chairman Tries For More Media Consolidation 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Let's Remember (Score:5, Funny)

    by MightyMartian (840721) on Monday December 03 2007, @06:19PM (#21565773) Journal
    Let's remember that Jesus loves large media conglomerates. Jesus despises a multiplicity of media providers in any given market. Jesus loathes a functioning marketplace, preferring monopolies that will supply money, trips, golf club membership and hookers to Senators and Representatives in exchange for screwing the average American. Jesus despises the average American. Jesus is all about the money, and that shows in His favorite country, the United States of America.

  • This is old news; Martin's tried this before (Score:5, Insightful)

    by postbigbang (761081) on Monday December 03 2007, @06:23PM (#21565799)
    Perhaps it's Sneaky Time to do this on Holiday Break (for Congress, anyway) so that he won't catch too much hell.

    It would make a nice present for Murdoch, and the other media gluttons.

    Where I live, we have a newspaper monopoly brought to you by Gannett and the quality of the newspaper plainly stinks, now that they've put all of the competition out of business.

    That pesky competition stuff seems all too familiar at the FCC these days. It makes one wonder what might happen if the FCC had the interests of the American consumer in mind, rather than that of the media and telco mega-corps.
    • Where I live, we have a newspaper monopoly brought to you by Gannett and the quality of the newspaper plainly stinks, now that they've put all of the competition out of business.

      And better still, when their circulation goes down because nobody wants to read the crappy newspapers, they get to blame it on the internet.

      • Re:This is old news; Martin's tried this before (Score:5, Funny)

        by postbigbang (761081) on Monday December 03 2007, @06:51PM (#21566059)
        Oh, now that Craigslist and others have eaten their classifieds, and online communities do better news, they're starting to pay attention.

        They do this by wrapping the Sunday Comics in tear-away ads, and other slimey things that their sales guys must drool over.

        They launched a city site, and have all sorts of 'business partners' to feed and link content. Seemingly astute, but state of the art 1998.

        Their website currently as a registration policy that makes the old WSJ and NYT premiums seem laughable by comparison.

        I think I like their old crabby-assed publisher better. At least he knew how to pay reporters and do investigative journalism. The reporters are all but gone, and there hasn't been an investigative piece since the takeover. Why ruffle advertiser feathers, after all?

    • Perhaps it's Sneaky Time to do this on Holiday Break (for Congress, anyway) so that he won't catch too much hell.

      Ah, you haven't been reading the news, the dems blocked bushie boy on his recess appointments by putting someone in the senate every two days as a profroma session. Bang in and out 30 seconds a senator (or a hookers) dream. [come to think of it, they are both the same thing]

      shrub was really pissed cause he couldn't get another Bolton in. http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/bush-blasts-senate-over-pro-forma-sessions-2007-12-03.html [thehill.com]

    • That pesky competition stuff seems all too familiar at the FCC these days. It makes one wonder what might happen if the FCC had the interests of the American consumer in mind, rather than that of the media and telco mega-corps.

      If the FCC really wanted competition on the airwaves they'd allow Pirate [wikipedia.org] and Micropower [wikipedia.org] broadcasters. But instead the FCC does what it can to shutdown them.

      Falcon

      • Bravo on the thesis.

        Martin's not very nice towards the consumer/populist mentality that he's sworn to protect.

        We the Major Corps, in order to form a more perfect shareholder experience, establish Justice, ensure domestic Profits, provide for the common litigation defence, promote the general Marketing Plan, and Secure the the blessings of the SEC, to ourselves and Posterity, do ordain......

  • Ugh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dirtside (91468) on Monday December 03 2007, @06:25PM (#21565827) Journal
    A strong, independent media (meaning: lots of independent sources for news and commentary) is essential to the health of a democracy. (Or even a republic.) Many points of view allows the (cliché inbound!) market of ideas to determine what's best. When there's only a handful of humongous players in that market, they all tend to have an identical set of interests and will likely end up as an oligopoly, much to our detriment.

    Media consolidation is, overall, a Bad Thing.

  • Media Monopoly Cartel (Score:5, Informative)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Monday December 03 2007, @06:26PM (#21565833) Homepage Journal
    The US already has a media monopoly cartel [usfca.edu]:

    In 1983, there were 50 companies that owned nearly all of the major US media sources. Today, only five corporations, "The Big Five," absorb the lion's share of the 37,000 different media outlets (daily newspapers, magazines, radio and television stations, book publishers, and movie companies) in the United States. According to Bagdikian, the number of media companies dropped drastically due to many recent mergers and acquisitions. In 1983, the biggest media merger in history was a $340 million deal involving the Gannett Company, a newspaper chain, which bought Combined Communications Corporation, whose assets included billboards, newspapers, and broadcast stations. Then, during the 1990s a small number of America's largest corporations purchased more public communications power than ever before. In 1996, Disney's acquisition of ABC/Capital Cities was a $19 billion deal -- 56 times larger than the 1983 deal. In 2001, AOL's acquisition of Time Warner dwarfed even this deal at $182 billion, ten times the price of the 1996 Disney deal and 537 times the price of the Gannett merger.

    [...]

    99.9% of the 1,468 daily newspapers in the United States are the only daily in their cities. As Bagdikian explains:

    That 99.9 percent of morning papers are monopolies in their own cities understates the problem. Owners exchange papers with each other or buy and sell papers so each can have as many newspapers as possible in a geographic cluster. This permits individual owners to have something close to a monopoly for daily printed advertising in that region and in many cases to use one regional newsroom to serve all their papers in that cluster.



    These media monopolies present our entire society through their filter of corporate priorities:

    (1) ensure that the parent company is never cast in a negative light, and (2) find ways to plant positive news items about the parent company. Bagdikian details several examples in which journalists were fired and stories killed simply because the subject was in some way injurious or potentially injurious to the parent company. For instance, a survey by the American Society of Newspaper Editors found that 33% of all editors working for newspaper chains said they would not feel free to run a news story that was damaging to their parent firm.


    And of course that "info monoculture" dictates politics that can be rigged most easily by a single political party, so long as it is thoroughly corporatist. Which is why the US government is getting rid of the rules that protect a free market of consumers and diverse startups, in favor of corporate anarchy.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Garrett Fox (970174)
      So, if the current practice of having a federal bureaucracy that dictates who can own what and what people are allowed to say, allows the current state of the media to exist, how great is it? Might there not be more freedom of competition, and more voices, if there weren't a federal agency charged with managing our ability to talk and write? There wasn't much push for government management of the media in early America (except maybe the Sedition Act) yet even with that era's primitive tech, there were a var

      • Re:Media Monopoly Cartel (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Doc Ruby (173196) on Monday December 03 2007, @07:12PM (#21566235) Homepage Journal
        Like I said, you're describing a corporate anarchy. It is precisely the deregulation that the story we're discussing documents that has allowed the media consolidation I just detailed.

        The early US had lots of media competition, but it had no corporations. Corporate personhood, which offered legal protections to corporations, wasn't invented until 1886 [wikipedia.org], when a railroad monopoly faked a legal ruling in the newspaper monopoly it owned, on which the entire corporate scam is based. Within a generation, monopoly corporations had so abused America that they were finally regulated a little with "antitrust" laws, but they've steadily crawled back to unprecedented power and consolidation.

        Early America also had no "truth in advertising" or other consumer protection, and frequent ripoffs and unchallenged political abuses. It was also a relatively small country (0.3% in 1776 as in 2007), though the ability to independently publish was very widespread. But as conditions for publishing improved, that power fell into increasingly monopolistic hands. As is the case with all power when the people don't organize to protect ourselves from it - which is exactly what we started America for.

        You're right about tech making the FCC's mission irrelevant, if noninterference is part of the tech. I impatiently await phased arrays freeing spectrum myself. Though we'll still need our government to prohibit unhealthy radiation emissions from telecom products, but that should be part of the FDA, the Health agency, or a product safety agency. But you're confusing the FCC's role in controlling content, which is already irrelevant with media client filter tech, widespread tagging activities and busybody ratings orgs, with the FCC's role in controlling the market itself. The media is a unique industry for control by government, because it is so integrated with our government structure that it's still referred to as the Fourth Estate [wikipedia.org], even though the first (clergy) is (officially) gone, the second and third merged. When spectrum management is unnecessary or minimized, the FCC should be replaced by a "Telecom and Media Agency" which oversees media, prioritizing market protections, consumer protections, primarily discouraging monopolies and cartels.

        A bottom line example: without decreasing government protection, this media cartel is threatening the Network Neutrality that makes the Internet the most accessible, diverse - and therefore essential - info source in our society. Markets don't protect themselves. We establish governments to protect ourselves from predators, like the corporations that control most of the media. When we beat them back with better regulation, we'll have a freer society and better media, through increased competition among all of them. Rather than the cozy relationship where the media and government mutually exploit each other to their mutual benefit, entirely at the public's expense.
        • Mod parent up, specifically for the fourth paragraph, which spells it all out to be understood by our mindset.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Garrett Fox (970174)
          Interesting. Would you agree with me that (1) where no scarcity of "voices" exists, as on the Net, there should be no restriction on how many channels one entity can own, how many people they can reach, or what they can say short of fraud, libel, death threats etc.? And/or that (2) to the extent that the FCC or its successor has the power to control ownership of media, it will try to use that power to control content and should be restrained from doing so?

          Where I'm most likely to disagree with you here is
          • Although I do agree with what you said strictly in (1), I don't quite agree with what I think you really mean. I don't think there should be any restriction on, say, how many websites, or its share of the audience (traffic by headcount) any one entity (like eg. MSN or AOL) can have. But I do think that if smaller competitors can demonstrate market conditions that force competition with them to be unfair in a way that consumers don't have equal opportunity to choose the smaller competitors instead (and grow

            • healthcare/insurance corps have produced a "libertarian" hoax that is precisely wrong.

              Neither healthcare nor health insurance were created by Libertarians in the US. The current health insurance industry was created by a Democrat, FDR. During WWII, because of wage and price control laws [time.com], employers couldn't pay employees more so to entice people to work in factories and other establishments the government allowed employers to pay for health insurance for the employees. And still today employer have an

          • So, I don't think the comparison between "taming the rampant corporations" and "stopping the British from burning our city" is fair.

            No less than Thomas Jefferson saw the risk of the Corporate Aristocracy [amazon.com]. Specifically Jefferson said "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

            Falcon

        • We establish governments to protect ourselves from predators, like the corporations that control most of the media. When we beat them back with better regulation, we'll have a freer society and better media, through increased competition among all of them.

          You don't create competition by regulating an industry, you create competition by making it easy for competition to form. If I wanted to I should be able to start my own radio station without a license therefore creating competition for the established

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Doc Ruby (173196)
            You're going to have to explain how the market is served by your buying a transmitter to drown out the signal of your incumbent competition, broadcasting their format to their old listeners, but with your own ads inserted.

            You make it easier for competition to form by protecting the market from domination by a cartel (among other cultivation). That requires regulation - proper regulation. We have living proof of how deregulation, except for regulations that enforce a billionaire's club barrier to entry, crea

      • As one example, what if we found a way to make the radio spectrum freely available to all without mutual interference, so that as many people who wanted to broadcast, could? If it weren't for the scarcity of usable frequencies imposed by past-generation technology, would we need or want the FCC to be telling corporations how many stations they can own in an area. And would the FCC be able to impose censorship or (currently at bay) a "fairness doctrine" using the excuse that it can impose any restrictions it

    • And of course that "info monoculture" dictates politics that can be rigged most easily by a single political party, so long as it is thoroughly corporatist. Which is why the US government is getting rid of the rules that protect a free market of consumers and diverse startups, in favor of corporate anarchy.

      In the East they have official state news sources like Pravda or Xinhua, while in the West we have a vast network of ostensibly separate and independent news sources which are ultimately through various o

    • 99.9% of the 1,468 daily newspapers in the United States are the only daily in their cities.

      Hmm. Only one in a thousand? I live in Seattle and there's the Times and the Post-Intelligencer. That's 2. So either Seattle is unique and someone rounded up to 99.9% or that stat is bogus.

      Also, I've seen Michael Copps speak. He seems to have intelligence and integrity. Great combo.
  • Funny that a few stories down we should have an example of one of Kevin Martin's ventures in the other direction. [slashdot.org] Then of course is one of my favorite quotes of his, "The public interest is not what any company wants." Not particularly eloquent, but succinct and true enough. I like to think the man's heart is pointing in the right direction. Anyone care to comment?

  • Diversity. (Score:4, Informative)

    by headkase (533448) <pickett.bill@gmail.com> on Monday December 03 2007, @06:34PM (#21565901)
    I just finished reading The Wisdom of Crowds [wikipedia.org]. Great book, highly recommended. Anyway in the context of group decisions the book postulates that one of the fundamental requirements to make good group decisions is diversity. Without it you end up in the "me too" situation where opinions cascade through the group simply because there are less building blocks to improve on. With less diversity there is less granularity to approaching a problem leading to situations where a groups decision doesn't fit the original problem as well as it could have.
    Right now the book is just a proposal - it will take much more time to empirically test the ideas put forth in it.
    • Abraham Lincoln appointed several of his political rivals to his Cabinet, and most historians agree that the diversity of opinions and perspectives helped him understand the situation better and control dissent. This was also the subject of Doris Kearns Goodwin's biographical book about Lincoln, Team of Rivals.
  • Is it opposite day already? I thought the FCC was supposed to regulate such things.

  • Let's be honest about the situation: no matter WHAT rules are eventually enacted, they will be challenged in court. Once it is in court, there is a significant chance that the entire newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule will simply be invalidated. Why? Because a very similar rule, the cable-broadcast cross-ownership rule, was tossed out in 2002 by the DC Circuit Court because it was arbitrary and capricious.

    Personally, I could care less if a local newspaper owns a radio or TV station; I care more

  • We should all be paying as close attention as these people.

    http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/68295/ [alternet.org]

    And be making as much noise.

  • There is a substantial body of evidence saying that mergers hurt : employees, customers, and stock holders. Only the executives normally benefit. because they become executives of a larger corporation.
    • That's why we're not on Digg.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dunezone (899268)
        Reddit is starting to turn for the worst also. This new breed of internet people are like locust, they go from one site to another, like locust, consuming all natural resources, and then they move on again, and their coming for us soon. Just like those aliens from Independence Day.

    • Flocking (Score:5, Insightful)

      by paladinwannabe2 (889776) on Monday December 03 2007, @06:49PM (#21566035)
      People tend to flock to where the group-think is. Very few people want to be challenged about what they believe on a daily basis- it takes a lot of work, especially if you're willing to admit the possibility you might be wrong. Slashdot tends to have a variety of (highly nerd-centric) views, so it's easy to find a bunch of people who passionately agree with you on issues that most people don't care about: File sharing, the best Star Trek Captain, Emacs vs. Vi, etc. There will be the heretics who disagree with you, but you can always mod up those you agree with and ignore the rest.

      That being said, Slashdot would be horrible as my only news source. It's got a huge number of opinions, but most of them are the idealistic ravings of an intelligent but dysfunctional individual with minimal real-world experience. (Something like 80% of non-troll posts are in this category, including most of my own). Then you've got the corporate shills, the grammar Nazis, and the occasional individual who knows what he's talking about. Plus, there are all these rambling posts that are almost on topic, but don't really address the issue at hand- not to mention the article.
    • Let the babies have their bottles. I dare any of the uber-corporations to erect a media outlet that does not suck donkey balls. If Ropert Morduck wants to own every station in my market, let him! I won't be listening to any of that garbage. I have iPods, CDs and superior satellite radio. What do I need with a Ropert Murduck? Sounds like a skin condition. Throw another media outlet on the barbie, douche!

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Cajun Hell (725246)

        That sounds a lot like, "It's a good thing that we have given the executive so much power, because our president is doing a great job keeping Americans safe from the Iraqi terrorists." It's ok for George's people to listen to your phone calls. But what do you do, once Hillary is elected? Suddenly you're paying for everyone's manditory healthcare insurance, farmed out to some no-bid-contract provider, and she is listening to your phone calls.

        What do you do, when you justify centralization of authority, a

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by MrKaos (858439)

        While you might not care for Murdoch's brand of politics or his business style, it is difficult to argue that he has done anything but increase diversity in the media marketplace.

        Perhaps for now, but like his now-dead compatriate, Kerry Packer, his unwavering faith in himself is a curse to you all because of his own mortality. Let me explain...

        Kerry Packer and Rupert Murdoch were players in the Australian media market place, they each staked their claim but from different parts of the market - Murdoch f

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by spun (1352)
      Creating monopolies? They are also stopping them. The article is about them wanting to change that, so to answer your question, yes. The FCC currently prevents large media conglomerates from getting larger. Without the FCC, there would likely be only one media conglomerate in America, owning all publishing, television, radio, and movies.
      • No, in truth the FCC acts as a public opinion damper. Without their protector agencies of the government, large conglomerates would get burned off the face of the Earth by large mobs of angry people they've screwed over. This would be the so called "frontier justice" (i.e. the kind that works for the little guy better than it does for the big guy.)

        Government never helps the little guy, never has. Even Yahweh in the Old Testament (this is for you Christians and Jews) tells the people of Israel who asked
    • In the ideal world, there would be no government regulation. However, because radio waves are a government regulated commodity, Joe Schmoe can't hijack, for example, FOX's airwaves and broadcast his own competing opinion. Sure, it starts a "signal strength" battle, but energy is a limited commodity itself. Eventuall Joe Schmoe can win, only a smaller area. Many Joe Schmoes can pool their resources and win a bunch of smaller areas. To an extent, the Internet has given Joe Schmoe and Media Conglomerates
    • I am a registered libertarian, and I have to say that even here, I prefer the FCC to not allow this. The reason is that the gov. already created the monopolies, but granting exclusive owning of the airwaves. As such, I think that if they are going to give monopolies, then it should be regulated. Of course, if they would create a space where anybody could compete (i.e. think of the open regions), then it should be winner take all assuming that you limit the power of the radio.

    • Re:FCC (Score:4, Insightful)

      by RabidOverYou (596396) on Monday December 03 2007, @09:34PM (#21567319)
      The FCC is the Federal Buggy Whip Commission. They are regulating a bunch of dead, dying, or at the very least rapidly-changing businesses. The FCC getting in the action will help neither the businesses nor their consumers. If the radio/tv biz was made 100% unregulated, they'd still have less than even odds of surviving. The web will consume them. You're going to watch TV by browsing to www.desperatehousewifes.com. With the exception of real live stuff, podcasts will eat radio, and even the live will get done somehow or another. Heh, maybe all that free wifi will eventually work.

      My fear of allowing the FCC to get up off the mat, is that they'll proclaim they're needed to regulate the Web. They're going to try to stick their nose in the tent.

      -- Rabid.
    • I was surprised that the crowd didn't rip Martin to pieces.

      Maybe if citizens were allowed to rip misguided public officials to pieces when they err, there'd be a lot less erring on the part of said officials.
    • Don't pretend that this is about Joe Business Owner selling the company he built at a healthy profit, this is about five or fewer corporations controlling the vast majority of media in the entire United States who want to make it four or fewer (preferably one). History has shown that the rules need to change for oligpolies and monopolies or very bad things happen. These "very bad things" take on the general form of low quality goods and/or high prices.

      In the case of multimedia, are you going to seriously

    • In order to defend the freedom of expression, which is somehow vaguely threatened by media consolidation

      What media consolidation threatens is not freedom of expression, it's variety of expression, and you're going to be hard-pressed to convince anyone that it's good for a democratic society to reduce the number of different viewpoints that are available. Since an unfettered media market will always tend toward consolidation, and media consolidation harms society by reducing the exchange of ideas, it's in s

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.