More Media Consolidation Coming Soon 200
Logic Bomb writes: "According to the Washington Post, a federal appeals court yesterday made a ruling that could make the last couple years of media consolidation look like nothing. Some major FCC rules about media ownership were ruled as "arbitrary" and therefore illegal, most importantly the one preventing a company from owning the cable system and television stations in the same place. Also, though the FCC gets one more chance to defend it, the rule about a company not owning stations reaching more than 35% of the national viewership may get tossed out too."
Spectacular (Score:5, Interesting)
It's like a leashed dog. You hold the leash, the dog will pull on it. You let go, the dog will run around a bit then get tired and stop.
Not like it matters these days... (Score:5, Interesting)
However, in recent years, companies that wish they could merge, but can't due to regulations, have found the perfect way around the problem: Content sharing agreements.
So instead of having to come up with ORIGINAL programming, news, and movies, they can just copy eachother's work. These sharing agreements also cross into paper and Internet media as well.
So it used to be that if media company X did something terrible, companies Y and Z would report on it. However, nowadays we'll see a content sharing agreement between company X and Y, with Z sharing content with Y as well. Since none of them want to lose their 'agreements' they won't say anything bad about eachother... Or resist buying into 3rd party content.
This way they don't have to merge and they don't have to share revenues, but they can save a ton of money--at the cost of original programming and the public's best interest.
So what? (Score:1, Interesting)
This sounds like justifying paranoia, as opposed to justifiable paranoia.
Goodbye affiliates (Score:3, Interesting)
If the 35 percent rule goes away, we'll be very likely to see the big networks simply merge with their affiliate stations, or buy them outright.
Another example of Government for by and from Biz. (Score:3, Interesting)
We're becoming the Serf's, and Ultra Large Corps are becoming the masters.
Government isn't interested in even seeming to keep such entities in check.
We have an executive and legislative branch that is only truly responsive to large monied interests. These branches both work to stack the courts with stooges that follow the party line as much as possible.
The manipulation of our Courts really began in earnest in the Regan administration, though I'm sure it happened to a lesser degree earlier. But Regan made it a public point to try to shape the legal system in it's image, rather than just appointing those who were strong mental thinkers, without requiring a specific "position.
I've ranted before about the horrible state of our government, but I'll keep doing so. (For those who will immediately say "Well go live in Cuba" - I say - Piss OFF! I know that we probably have the best system around (although Canada is looking more and more attractive - taxes regardless) but having the best system around doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to improve it.) One key approach in putting the brakes on our system is a control of power/money.
It seems that huge corporate interests are a key part of the problem. The campaign finance reform issues revolve around huge "investments" (so-called campaign contributions) to both the executive and legislative branches of government. What might help stem the problem is a smaller corporate system. Smaller corps means less power and money pooled in a single hand.
Look at the DMCA... We have a monied interest on one hand, and virtually no money-making interests on the other hand. Tell me, how are we going to defeat this? Consumers can't really effectively fight such legislation. And these trends just continue. The end result is a killing fields/scorched earch style environment. If you aren't represented by a massive corp with lots of money and financial gain, you're just screwed. We may eventually beat the DMCA, but the interests will just continue to assult the law until they get what they want. Sure we may win the battle, but eventually we loose the war.
Next, look at corp entities. (Lets take the defunct Value-Jet) They, as far as I can tell, intentially voliated rules that resulted in the death of 110 people. If you or I had done these things, we'd be charged with murder, and get a long prison term or the death penalty. If you're a corp, you say "Oops. Oh, by the way, we're bankrupt too - sorry." The CEO, executives and board members took home huge salaries, and all them walk away at the end of the day. If they aren't responsible for the acts of the corp, who is? What were they paid the high salary for then?
Basically, corps have "person" status - free speech and almost every other right a "person" has, but no limited limetime, and really no real threat of criminal prosecution. Sure, they will forfit all assets, but that's not a real threat. Esp. if the corp is setup right, as a shell corp., the available assets are very minimal.
So, in base, if we limit the rights and powers of corporations, I think we would then restore some oxygen to the "individual." Less power to corps, and more power to individuals, means a more responsive gvmt, and thus a gvmt that regulates where it must to protect the individual.
In todays world, the individual has NO power. Legal threats (DMCA/Sony Game Boy/Mattel Web filter hack/DVD etc) are very effective, because most of us don't have anywhere near the resources to defend ourselves. Even if we did, is there a financial justification? It's WAY cheaper just to fold. But the financial justification for a huge corp is enormous(sp)!
This comment has gotten way too long, but in general, we need an equalization of powers. The action of the courts just tilts the balance even more toward the ultra large corp, even in the face of lax regulation by the FCC. The courts ruled that the FCC, even as lax as it was, was too stringent!?*&*^!~! This is just another example of the continuing spiral that the US Gvmt is in. I hope that we can successfully counter this, 'cause if we don't, it's going to be a very sad day!
Re:Who Owns What (Score:2, Interesting)
You can wrap a present any number of ways... (Score:1, Interesting)
Does it really matter how many stations are broadcasting the same shows and commercials? Was this actually a deciding factor in their decision? How many ways can you "repackage" the same news story to give it that "spin" for another waste of a half hour or hour on a different channel?
Won't this be great? One company to rule them all (heh
Of course when they cancel the sci-fi network I will be appropriately irritated... and at the same time have more free time to spend on more creative, entertaining, useful pursuits!
The 35% rule is arbitrary and dumb. (Score:3, Interesting)
A 35% rule doesn't guarantee competition. Rather, it could easily allow total monopoly over news coverage in each region with three oligopolies dividing up the US such that every citizen has access to only one.
A 100% rule doesn't prevent competition. Under a 100% rule we could still have twenty fiercely competitive companies with nationwide coverage. For instance, ABC might be channel 7 across the entire United States, NBC might be channel 11 across the entire United States, and so on for another dozen or more companies. Each network has a potential reach of 100%, but none of them actually does reach all those subscribers except when their programming is sufficiently compelling that viewers choose to watch it.
Open competition is good. Forcing companies to jump through hoops to provide the nationwide coverage their customers want, is bad. The court made the right call.
OJ. Monica. Sports. Presspools. Pentagon News. (Score:1, Interesting)
The new change will have no impact. We already live under a state controlled media. This just makes it more visible...the media giants can officially merge, but they aready act as a unified state propaganda entity.
For example, remember echelon? Did anyone see it in the U.S. news media before european media started screaming about it? Perhaps a small blurb on page 20A. It's only become known thanks to foreign press. U.S press wouldn't touch it before that. Even so, most Americans still don't know about it. Coincidence?
Read foreign news to find out what foreign governments want you to think. Read american news, like cnn, to find out what the U.S. Corporate Republic wants you to think. CNN loves american wars. Remember how the pentagon had advisors there for a while? Oh yea. Read www.indymedia.org to find out what some skeptics think. Look for scruffy news websites with no advertisements, or with weird political views. Then try to tally it all up. Whatever you read, question it.
We Were Warned Back in 1968 (Score:3, Interesting)
Interestingly, the consolidation hasn't thwarted competition. It has, however, thwarted disemmination of information from a variety of sources - just as Commissioner Johnson warned back in 1968.
Relevant links about Clear Channel (Score:3, Interesting)
Radio's Big Bully [salon.com]
This one also looks relevant: Clear Channel an Illegal Monopoly [salon.com]
Vary your news sources (Score:3, Interesting)
The best way I can see to fight this is to vary your news sources. Read the little guy (if you can find him) as well as the mainstream news. Check out several sources from both.
Comparing an article on CNN's site to an article on the BBC's site can really be enlightening. On the same day, CNN failed to report 20,000 Israelis demonstrating for peace with Palestine, while the BBC stuck it at the bottom of an article summarizing the latest violence. I would think that since violence in the Middle East is the status quo, talk of peace is far more newsworthy.
Another comparison is when Bush caused the Yen to tumble during his speech by using the wrong economic term (devaluation instead of deflation - suggesting to some that he was supporting artificial devaluation of the Yen in order to make exports more attractive to consumers, when he was really just referring to bad things already going on with the Japanese economy).
The BBC used the occasion to print an entire article (quite amusing, but also quite editorial) describing the incident and recalling other times Bush has misspoken, ending with the observation that somehow, despite his obvious stupidity and incompetence, he was still extremely popular with the American people. CNN covered the speech about Japan's economic troubles, but made no mention whatsoever of the economic troubles that the speech caused. ABC briefly mentioned it at the bottom.
Every news source I know of is biased in some way, and over the years it seems that journalists have blurred the lines between news and editorialism more and more (they are both good to have, but should be properly labeled).
Reading different sources can often tell you just as much about these companies' motives as it can fill in your understanding of what actually happened.
Even reading news from fanatical and therefore unreliable sources tells you what various extremists are thinking and alerts you to the subject so that you can do your own research.
And to be trite, every lie that you spot shows you some truth about the liar.