[vmpaul]

Some good points in the Boston Globe:

(Chairman Michael) Powell's scheme is awful policy. If he wins, all three major networks could be owned by the same conglomerate (which could also be a defense contractor). The limits on cross-ownership of newspapers and radio and TV stations will also be lifted, as will the constraints on networks' ability to buy up local TV stations.

If you want a glimpse into this utopia, consider the deregulation of radio, which Congress enacted in 1996. Before then, the FCC limited how many stations any one company could own, and ownership was widely diversified. It took less than a decade for most US radio stations to be owned by just three conglomerates.

To see the potential for political mischief, look at what conservative radio networks did to the Dixie Chicks after their lead singer criticized President Bush. Cumulus Media banned the Chicks from its 42 country stations and some Clear Channel affiliates promoted record-trashings. Right-wing media are particularly benefiting from the new concentration. Clear Channel, with more than 1,200 radio stations, is dominant in many smaller cities. One of its top executives is a close business associate of George W. Bush. Shouldn't liberals just start a radio network of their own? Good idea, but nearly all of the stations with strong signals are taken, and they're not for sale. Here's where politics and monopoly commerce intersect.

Not sure if it's true but i heard somwhere that Clear Channel owns 1,200 radio stations nationwide but has only 200 employess. That's is scary. Means less diversity in your local radio market.

Surprised I haven't seen this here before now. I did a search but came up with nada.

[chabig]

If he wins, all three major networks could be owned by the same conglomerate (which could also be a defense contractor).

"If...could...and could..." This is not news, it's nonsense.

[Earth Mk. II]

Originally posted by chabig:
"If...could...and could..." This is not news, it's nonsense.

your half right. This isn't news, it's OpEd.

The regulations passed, BTW. And surprise, surprise! They passed with a vote straight down party lines.

What bothers me about them isn't the increase in number of stations a company can own in a region (though that is a point of concern for me), but that a station can own a TV or radio station and a newspaper in the same market.

Deregulation may work for some markets. But I don't think news/media is one of them.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Earth Mk. II:
your half right. This isn't news, it's OpEd.

The regulations passed, BTW. And surprise, surprise! They passed with a vote straight down party lines.

Yeah, it did pass today.

Funny about the party lines though. I've heard several Republican's compain about it as well. Including Trent Lott.

[Earth Mk. II]

Well, the party lines within the FCC anyway.

And I heard about Trent Lott as well. He proposed a huge budget cut for the FCC until they reverse the decision or something. I haven't heard much on it though.

[OldManMac]

This is another example of the corporatization of America! What is outrageous is that five people get to decide what the rest of America's news and "entertainment" will look like! What's even more outrageous is that the Republicans are constantly saying that the "free market" will decide everything, yet they are so deep in the pockets of corporations it isn't funny!

[chabig]

Of course they don't decide what our news and entertainment will look like. You have it exactly backwards. By getting government out of this, the market will decide.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by chabig:
Of course they don't decide what our news and entertainment will look like. You have it exactly backwards. By getting government out of this, the market will decide.

Oh no?

Not that I care about the Dixie Chicks but the example is there.

To see the potential for political mischief, look at what conservative radio networks did to the Dixie Chicks after their lead singer criticized President Bush. Cumulus Media banned the Chicks from its 42 country stations and some Clear Channel affiliates promoted record-trashings. Right-wing media are particularly benefiting from the new concentration. Clear Channel, with more than 1,200 radio stations, is dominant in many smaller cities. One of its top executives is a close business associate of George W. Bush.

[Earth Mk. II]

Originally posted by chabig:
Of course they don't decide what our news and entertainment will look like. You have it exactly backwards. By getting government out of this, the market will decide.

You're correct, but the question remains... who controls the market?

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by chabig:
Of course they don't decide what our news and entertainment will look like. You have it exactly backwards. By getting government out of this, the market will decide.

What a specious argument! If you have only one choice, it is hardly a market decision!

The government is out of it in only one sense; it's been sold to the highest bidder, so it can look the other way now.

[Earth Mk. II]

If you're going to declare that a free market is the best economic system, then it is best to be aware of the possibilities of abuse within such a system.

The media, in it's various outlets, has a profound effect on public opinion. If the control of media is allowed to be consolidated (by whatever system - free market, government sponsorship, or otherwise) then the power to shape public opinion will be placed into the hands of an uncomfortably few number of people.

A completely free market, like most economic and political ideologies, could work in an ideal world with ideal circumstances. On the flip side, complete socialism would work just as well to ensure the media stays objective - once again, with the caveat that it exist in an ideal society and in ideal situations. What is important to remember is that there is plenty of room for abuse in any economic/political system, and the media is hardly starting out on a level playing field.

IMHO, a purely free market ideology has little utility in a market that is already dominated by a small number of players. Regulation is needed.

[vmarks]

"Federal law prohibits changing the channel"

-- Futurama

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by vmarks:
"Federal law prohibits changing the channel"

-- Futurama

We have a winner, folks! Sadly, so many people wander around life with blinders on, accepting whatever others tell them to do, just because!

[davesimondotcom]

I heard an interview with a woman from a group opposing this change in the rules on my drive home last night.

Overall, I would like to see more local coverage of things. However, I grew up in a town with two half-assed news local news stations who swapped talent like spit at a kissing contest. We had one newspaper for the city and it was certainly anything but non-biased.

I now live in a community where I don't know a single person who watches local news (most people have dish or direcTV) and the community is dominated by one newspaper. And I hesitate to call that newspaper anything but slanted.

The woman, while making good points about the fact that news should come from varied sources, quoted the New York Times a number of times. I don't believe that she quoted anything else. She also said that the first place she goes for news is to the internet, where her start page is the New York Times. I found her obsession with the NYT a bit fishy. Especially when she was doing this in an effort to keep the news of the world "fair and balanced."

Yes, there is a possibility these new regulations will cause some consolidation in the industry. But look at the past few years in the cable TV business. It used to be that if you wanted news on cable, there was one source - CNN. Now you can flip to CNN (or it's other networks, CNNi and HNN), MSNBC, FoxNews, CNBC or even Bloomberg news at certain times of the day. On my system, you can even bring in an interactive news feed through Dish Interactive.

Certainly, the trend is the opposite of consolidation on the internet - bloggers are taking over the world. Why start at the NYT, when you can start somewhere like InstaPundit where there are links to stories all over the web, most of which you'd never find on your own?

So that leaves us with radio. Radio, in general, is dominated by music formats. Most of what they play is corporate music in the first place, so the consolidation is done before it even gets to the radio station. Then there is talk radio, which is dominated mainly by conservative voices. The reason for this domination is not because of corporations owning the radio waves, it's because they have audiences. People love to listen to them, whether they love them or hate them.

So, in the end, I don't know if these rules will change anything. Maybe they will. I know that I'll continue to get my news from a variety of sources, except for locally, of course, where I only have one choice. Is that ironic?

[dencamp]

Less channels for information to flow through is a bad thing. I don't care what ideology you support, less is less. Informed decisions are based on access to INFORMation. Free market limiting the flow of information is not the highest good merely because it is the free market.

[Lerkfish]

In our little metropolis, 90% of the radio stations are owned by ClearChannel.
They all sound the same (surprise!).
Even in terms of music choice, they are the same.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
In our little metropolis, 90% of the radio stations are owned by ClearChannel.
They all sound the same (surprise!).
Even in terms of music choice, they are the same.

Of the 12 radiostations we have here in Iceland, 8 are owned by the same company (Norðurljós), 2 by another company and 2 by the government. The 8 Norðurljós stations naturally sound the same and the only real variety comes from the 2 government owned stations. (they are a bit BBC-ish, but not with the same 'finesse')

Point being, that we have a totally free market here in media, so this seems to be the trend in the free market. Corporations. Big ones.

[davesimondotcom]

How many owners are there of broadcast media in other countries? Such as in the UK - just changing between choices of BBC doesn't seem like a choice. So how many other competitors are there?

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
In our little metropolis, 90% of the radio stations are owned by ClearChannel.
They all sound the same (surprise!).
Even in terms of music choice, they are the same.

And more than likely, all that programming comes froma centralized point as oppose to being generated locally. Again, I've heard (not sure if it's true) that Clear Channel owns 1,200 stations nationwide but only has 200 employess. You're getting canned music, programmed playlists by people not even aware in your community.

No wonder radio sucks. That's why I listen to internet radio.

[voodoo]

Norway has a lot of government radio (5 channels IIRC) and 2 big privately owned channels. p4 and Radio1. Lots and lots of local radio, that isn't centrally owned AFAIK. So, mostly government, and bits and pieces of independant there.

[nvaughan3]

Again, I've heard (not sure if it's true) that Clear Channel owns 1,200 stations nationwide but only has 200 employess.

If you are going to repeat statistics over and over with doubt as to the truthfullness of them, a website named "google" might be your friend in the future.

http://www.clearchannel.com/ir_faq.php

How many employees does Clear Channel have?

Clear Channel has approximately 55,000 employees.

[Logic]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Of the 12 radiostations we have here in Iceland, 8 are owned by the same company (Norðurljós), 2 by another company and 2 by the government. The 8 Norðurljós stations naturally sound the same and the only real variety comes from the 2 government owned stations. (they are a bit BBC-ish, but not with the same 'finesse')

Point being, that we have a totally free market here in media, so this seems to be the trend in the free market. Corporations. Big ones.

Not to mention they own the record companies and the MTV-a'la Iceland. So they can completly(well, almost) channel us into what they want to sell. Thank God for the internet

I wonder if the same trend is in other countries.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Logic:
Thank God for the internet

ya well thank Allah for the download quota while you're at it.

[Logic]

Originally posted by voodoo:
ya well thank Allah for the download quota while you're at it.

I better go have a talk with him

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by KarlG:
What a specious argument! If you have only one choice, it is hardly a market decision!

The decision does not prohibit newcomers from buying and/or starting up new media companies. If the market is there, and there's money to be made, new stations/outlets/content providers will arise and succeed as their ability and ratings dictate.

These regulations were implemented in a time when everyone got their TV news from a single, 6:00 pm broadcast on 1 of 3 network channels. Much has changed since then.

Also, don't forget that this FCC adjustment does not trump anti-trust legislation. Monopolies will still be prosecuted.

[chris v]

Originally posted by KarlG:
... the Republicans are constantly saying that the "free market" will decide everything...

The free market has decided that the Republicans should bend legislation in favor of huge corporations. Corporate America bought the Republican party, fair and square through the free market. If you, the citizen has 5 billion dollars with which to buy a major political party, they're for sale, on the free market. That's unfettered Capitalism for you.

CV

[chris v]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Monopolies will still be persecuted.

By whom? The Spanish Inquisition?

CV

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by chris v:
Corporate America bought the Republican party, fair and square through the free market...blah, blah, blah...

Yawn.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by chris v:
By whom? The Spanish Inquisition?

My bad...edited to say 'prosecuted'.

So, anything topical that you wish to rebut?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The decision does not prohibit newcomers from buying and/or starting up new media companies. If the market is there, and there's money to be made, new stations/outlets/content providers will arise and succeed as their ability and ratings dictate.

These regulations were implemented in a time when everyone got their TV news from a single, 6:00 pm broadcast on 1 of 3 network channels. Much has changed since then.

Also, don't forget that this FCC adjustment does not trump anti-trust legislation. Monopolies will still be prosecuted.

you have an optimistic view of what it takes to start up a radio station. For one thing, there are limitation set by the FCC on wattage, location, dial address, etc. When major corps buy up every existing station, that means even small companies cannot purchase existing hardware that might have been available to them under a regulated system.
So, that means, if someone wishes to start a radio station, they have to invest MORE capital than the conglomerate who simply gobbles up existing and depreciated facilities, since they have to start from scratch.
As far as advertising, the corps can charge less just long enough to kill any independently starting up business.
What you have, essentially, is a defacto monopoly. Just as used to happen with the old robber barons.
Aren't you listening? even NOW, before the ruling, clear channel owns 90% of the radio stations in my area. If they are also allowed to own television stations and newspapers, you are well onto the path of the equivalent of state-run media, only instead of the state, its a corp, who can then hold undue influence in which candidates get airtime, how they are presented.
I know you don't care NOW, but wait until the corp decides that going democratic in the next election is the way to go, and start shutting out your conservative candidates. how would you feel at that point?

[vmarks]

Shoot, this came as no surprise. Have you seen what it takes to get a LP (Low Power ) FM license?

The FCC grants a very limited number of LPFM licenses, and NPR and mostly Democrats have lobbied to end LPFM licensing.

It's a shame really, since most LPFM stations are serving communities better than the bigs.

The problem with citizen responses to Federal request for comments is usually that the citizens respond with comments that do not address specifically what the issue at hand is. When commenting for the FCC and Library of Congress (copyright, DMCA, etc.) and DoJ (MS anti-trust) you have to be relevent at every step of the way, and address exactly what's under examination and nothing else.

Otherwise, your comment is rendered irrelevent and doesn't make the impact necessary. We saw this with the DMCA, where only one exemption was granted by the Library of Congress, and with the Microsoft Anti-trust case, where people addressed that Microsoft was wrong, but didn't comment on proposed remedies, or put forth and support their own remedy.

It isn't about how much money you have behind your voice when you make a comment that enters into public record. It's about the relevence of the comment. Too many people express frustrations, but don't express the reasons behind those frustrations and possible better solutions, or why the proposed solution is the wrong one.

This isn't necessarily a Republican or Democrat problem, either- it is firstly a problem with how our government, both Federal and State/Local handles granting legal monopolies over airwaves and telco/cable co. services. Secondly, look at the battle over Low-Power FM and NPR's war against it.

[chris v]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
My bad...edited to say 'prosecuted'.

So, anything topical that you wish to rebut?

I was just giving you the ol' jabbing stick smiley. This IS the lounge, after all, even if it's the political lounge. Is there a forum rule against having fun here?


I'm wating for the big collapse, so I can buy me a radio station cheap. That's always been my fantasy. It seems like radio has been in a giant speculation bubble for the last five or ten years, and sooner or later, it'll pop. If de-reg. hastens the popping, good. Overall, I think it's a plain-as-your-face power grab, but I'm hoping it'll backfilre, as the price of bandwidth spirals up. Sooner or later, some of the big media conglomerates will get over-mortgaged trying to keep up with expansion, and they'll go bankrupt, like with the internet bandwidth overbuild we just went through a couple years ago.

CV

[thunderous_funker]

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I know you don't care NOW, but wait until the corp decides that going democratic in the next election is the way to go, and start shutting out your conservative candidates. how would you feel at that point?

For one, conservatives like me would stop listening to those stations. That would translate into lower ratings and lower station revenues from advertisers, who would be demanding lower rates and searching for other outlets through which to advertise and reach the consevative market.

So, now there is all this advertising money that needs to be spent to reach the conservative base, but there is no station or outlet that reaches that market. Guess what happens next? That's right, out of nowhere, a conservative station will pop-up, guaranteed.

The only way this wouldn't happen is if the entire nation became liberal. Either way, market forces are the primary determinant.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by chris v:
II'm wating for the big collapse, so I can buy me a radio station cheap.

I'll be right there, bidding against you. See, I have this new concept...reality radio.

[dencamp]

I don't give a flying polyp who wins in your free market competition for who gets to spew propaganda at us. Again, I want variety, I want various viewpoints. I want debate and dialogue. Not a game of agit-prop for ratings.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
If you are going to repeat statistics over and over with doubt as to the truthfullness of them, a website named "google" might be your friend in the future.

http://www.clearchannel.com/ir_faq.php

How many employees does Clear Channel have?

Clear Channel has approximately 55,000 employees.

Correct. It was second-hand information so I should of checked before I used it again. (or the first time actually)

mea culpa.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by dencamp:
I don't give a flying polyp who wins in your free market competition for who gets to spew propaganda at us. Again, I want variety, I want various viewpoints. I want debate and dialogue. Not a game of agit-prop for ratings.

If you want debate and variety, you don't want radio anyway. It's not a medium that works for debate.

Stick with the internet.

[dencamp]

And that is what saddens me. The beauty of Radio is the low cost of access. 5 bucks and you can get a radio and be exposed to a world of ideas and sounds--at least you used to. Now, with the exception of our dwindling libraries, dialogue is restricted to a medium that requires a relatively large investment to gain access.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The decision does not prohibit newcomers from buying and/or starting up new media companies. If the market is there, and there's money to be made, new stations/outlets/content providers will arise and succeed as their ability and ratings dictate.

These regulations were implemented in a time when everyone got their TV news from a single, 6:00 pm broadcast on 1 of 3 network channels. Much has changed since then.

Also, don't forget that this FCC adjustment does not trump anti-trust legislation. Monopolies will still be prosecuted.

Another specious argument! Of course, it doesn't prevent newcomers from entering the market; it just puts up a hundred foot high brick wall to make it next to impossible! Obviously you know very little about capitalization of new organizations, and what it takes to start a firm, especially when the "market" is dominated by a few large players!

Monopolies haven't been prosecuted successfully in America in decades! The trend in business is for large firms to swallow up small ones! We, as a nation, are so dense that we buy from companies that take the money we spent with them, use some of it to put their name on entertainment venues, and then make additional profit from us, when we visit those venues!

I love how people who support such anti-competitive practices always use "the market" as an excuse to support such behaviors.

[spacefreak]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by KarlG:
[B]

I love how people who support such anti-competitive practices always use "the market" as an excuse to support such behaviors.

Supporting government control of an industry is supporting anti-competitive practices. The rest of your blurb was just as nonsensical.

[thunderous_funker]

Was it "market forces" that drove ClearChannel to organize pro-war rallies?

Critics of convergence need only look at AOL/TW to see evidence of what's wrong with this picture:

CNN doing stories on internet technologies and quoting AOL as source to support their case. CNN entertainment pundits crooning about the latest Warner Bros. release with exclusive interviews. AOL ads every commercial break. Lots and lots of celebrity appearances by recording artists and actors on Warner's labels. Time editors guests on CNN.

One giant infotainment circle-jerk.

People get upset when Jobs makes his political views public and worry if Apple's influence will be used for something they don't agree with, but they don't have any trouble considering the possibility that one company can own every TV channel, radio station and newspaper in your area?

This crap is even more inbred than the grammy awards.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
but they don't have any trouble considering the possibility that one company can own every TV channel, radio station and newspaper in your area?

Someone needs to actually look at the changes. Your scenario would be impossible under this 'loosening'. Read up on the isue and you'll find that this is only a tweaking.

Did you even know that the FCC had a losing streak in the courtroom, with the courts having overturned the last three broadcast ownership rules they reviewed? These rules were put in place in the 60s, when there were 3 major networks, and no cable TV, no internet, etc.

Additionally, the FCC kept in place a ban on mergers among the four TV networks: ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox.

Is anyone even reading up on this issue?

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Supporting government control of an industry is supporting anti-competitive practices. The rest of your blurb was just as nonsensical.

I agree with you that a free-market, unregulated system would be the best. However it is impractical and irresponsible to go directly to such a system from what we currently have. If all market regulations were suddenly removed, it would have the exact opposite effect of what a freemarket is supposed to do, because the giant corporations are already on top. The only way for a free market to work is if everyone starts out equally which is not currently the case. This is why Marx's theory started with a Proletariat revolution overthrowing the bourgiousie and instituting a temporary totalitarian regime. The idea was that this temporary government would force everyone to a state of equality and then dissapear leaving a state of anarchy (free-market applied to society) in which everyone was equal. You can't just remove the few balancing forces in a horribly unbalanced system and expect it to fix itself.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
I agree with you that a free-market, unregulated system would be the best. However it is impractical and irresponsible to go directly to such a system from what we currently have. If all market regulations were suddenly removed, it would have the exact opposite effect of what a freemarket is supposed to do, because the giant corporations are already on top. The only way for a free market to work is if everyone starts out equally which is not currently the case. This is why Marx's theory started with a Proletariat revolution overthrowing the bourgiousie and instituting a temporary totalitarian regime. The idea was that this temporary government would force everyone to a state of equality and then dissapear leaving a state of anarchy (free-market applied to society) in which everyone was equal. You can't just remove the few balancing forces in a horribly unbalanced system and expect it to fix itself.

Amen!

If only this was clear to the European (and US) politicians at the moment. There is a great imbalance in creation over the Western world.

[thunderous_funker]

Thanks, nonhuman. That was right on!