FCC Approves Media Consolidation 899
evenprime writes "You can expect more media consolidation in the future. CBS is reporting that the FCC has approved the media deregulation that was previously discussed on Slashdot. Expect Clear Channel, Viacom and their kin to get bigger, and the radio to have even less diversity (a situation that some people think is responsible for falling CD sales)."
Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
I know the radio sucks, but I had no idea that the record industry felt the same way. Seems like everything to do with music needs a remodel.
Re:Shit. (Score:2, Interesting)
A list of the small guys (Score:4, Interesting)
a list (web site, blog...) of the
non-alignend radio & TV stations....vote
with your tuner.
How much difference will it really make? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also the radio markets are still limited to a max. of 8 in markets of 45 or greater stations. Same issue as above, if there is no variety now, how in the world are they going to make it much worse?
-- Rick
Does this affect XM? (Score:2, Interesting)
How soon until (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Whoo-Hooo! (Score:4, Interesting)
What do Republicans think of this? (Score:3, Interesting)
One thing that disappoints me about this, is that the vote was on party lines, with Republicans on one side and Democrats on the other. Are Republicans (generally) really in favor of simultaneously deregulating while continuing to grant the government-backed monoplies that prevent free market competition? Or is this just the usual case of whoever-happens-to-be-in-power being corrupt, where Republicans (the people, I mean, not the politicians) are shaking their heads at how they've been sold out? Republicans, please answer: are you getting what you wanted, or are you being betrayed by poseur "Republicans"?
Or have you not figured it out yet, so you're suffering from a vague uneasiness that you can't explain? ;-)
What isn't mentioned (Score:5, Interesting)
-Sean
The NeoCons Strike again. (Score:2, Interesting)
Michael Powell is the son of Colin Powell in case you didnt know.
This means that in the future, the government will now only have to write one letter or make one telephone call to one board of directors of a single company to control the flow of propaH^H^H^H^H news throughout the entire usa.
They are already controling what you see on the news; read about it here [tbrnews.org].
And I quote:
(March 22):....it is not conducive to maintaining an overall neutrality in the Palestine uprisings to show any pictures of the American peacenik that was run over by the Israeli army bulldozer. This is only to be mentioned as a "tragic accident" for which the IDF "is truly saddened."
(Feb 10)....It is not permitted at this point to use or refer to any film clips, stills or articles emanating from any French source whatsoever.
The consolidation of these powers in the hands of a single person, say the person who inherits Murdoch's empire is truely firghtening, not only for the citezenry of the USA, but for the whole world, because now any flagrantly law violating military action can and will be sold to the american poplulation, and subsequently exported anywhere in the world, justified with bald faced lies transmitted through this consolidated and all powerful deception machine, which the Neocons are building.
Even Ted Turner [washingtonpost.com] is against this. It is a huge tragedy for the USA and the world, no doubt about it.
Check out KEXP or KCRW, then fight back. (Score:2, Interesting)
So, go out and get an Audiotron, and toss your AM/FM receiver in the trash.
As far as this latest ruling goes. It sucks. What needs to happen is radical change that vastly changes the value of the spectrum that people are using. Once these companies merge they'll be impossible to pull apart.
I think right now we need to free up more spectrum for public use, plus defend the WiFi space from being totally commercialized. Perhaps them we can have low cost bandwidth available everywhere and help keep us free from the monopolization of the airwaves.
The other avenue to fight back involves bringing back many of the FCC rules on community service, and the fairness doctrine. Fat chance, but worth writing and calling your congress-critter...
Re:I honestly don't care.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Shit. (Score:1, Interesting)
I don't think "massive tax cuts for the rich" are a good idea. Thankfully, that's not what's happening.
What is happening is across-the-board cuts, which helps out my single-income family, and provided Congress has the balls to keep them going, they'll continue to help me out. Oddly enough, the people that don't benefit tax cuts -- the oft-quoted $10,000-$25,000 bracket -- don't even pay taxes now. Imagine that!
The tax cuts just passed are going to help everyone who pays taxes.
Re:Shit. (Score:2, Interesting)
The basic complaint by those opposed is that there are several large companies competing with each other. These competitors have similar (NOT identical, but that is a matter of personal perspective) programming. The competitors as a group draw a large number of listeners/viewers (depending on medium) by airing similar programming. This has somehow been labeled as a monopoly.
Well, guess what, a group of COMPETITORS drawing large market share is NOT MONOPOLY. It is not even collusion. It is competition to draw an audience. It is like accusing auto amnufacturers of having a monopoly because they all amke cars and people buy the cars of 5 competitors 90% of the time, even though the smaller competitors make cars at the same price.
Guess what else? In the media as a whole there are indeed HUNDEREDS of competitors and, combined, they have 100% of the market! Woooo! Call out the National Guard!
I find it amazing that Pacifica and others keep repeating that they are somehow being "squeezed out" or "silenced" by "big media". Know how I hear this? I listen to their stations on occasion and they repeat it almost every half hour. Could have fooled me about their being "silenced". Maybe more people would listen if they stopped the whining and started programming that more people want to hear?
Outlived its usefulness (Score:4, Interesting)
The other option is that media companies are not effective at giving people what they want. In this case, people will stop listening to them and the media companies will lose. Consumers will lose a little in that the radios in their cars will become pretty much useless. However, they'll be able to branch out into other forms of entertainment -- DVDs, video games, independent music, web surfing, and so on. The real winners will be the companies that figure out how to give consumers what they want.
I think that one can make a pretty good argument that the media ownership rules have outlived their usefulness. When each city only had 4 TV stations, a dozen radio stations and one newspaper, the rules made some sense because it guaranteed a wider variety of information and entertainment. But now, if I don't like what's on my local radio station, I can stream music from some independent station across the country. If I think the news from my local ABC news/newspaper/6 favorite radio stations is biased, there are a thousand options for me on the internet.
I'd argue that local broadcast media (TV/radio) and local newspapers are something of an anachronism anyway, for everything but the local stuff. I don't receive the local paper, because I can go online and read the news (for free). I rarely watch network TV because I have 50 cable stations and I'd rather watch Comedy Central than ABC.
To me, this seems to be equivilant to complaining about how few choices we have in bus and train transportation, while ignoring the fact that we have so many choices in cars, motorcycles, scooters, bicycles, airplanes, taxis, rollerskates, subways and so on.
Re:Bad example - NOT (Score:3, Interesting)
The Future of Media in the US (Score:4, Interesting)
He who controls the media, controls the people.
Re:I honestly don't care.. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:One Channel My ASS (Score:5, Interesting)
Market consolidation is just a pretty way of saying COMMUNISM.
The whole point of capitalism (for those of not Robber Barons) is the beneficial side effects of competition that arise out of multiple players existing in the marketplace. Eliminate choice and diversity from the marketplace and you are left with the unacceptable choice of either putting up with the crap or stop participating in the market.
Re:No small cities, and abuse of first amendment (Score:3, Interesting)
This is why I'm not clear on the uproar surrounding the FCC decision. If those types of stories are deemed important enough to a community, then what's stopping an independant media outlet from reporting them? In most markets, independant media is going to have a hard time getting along, not because Clear Channel is bringing in bulldozers to crush local media, but because most people are sheep, and won't care about losing local media coverage. Yes, this sucks, but I can't see how you can blame Big Media for the public's apathy for seeking out important local news, interesting music or other programming.
how about this for a twist on the first amendment? Condider offensive material. People in different areas have different standards
The First Amendment pertains to the government, not private enterprise. For example, Wal*Mart doesn't sell CDs with "adult content" on them; as a result, my cash goes to a retailer that does not have the same view. Wal*Mart seems okay with that, so am I.
We shouldn't force global culture to be homogenous, even in the name of "Free Speech" and equal access.
Turn off the TV. Donate to your local college radio station, public television station, or community newspaper. Read a book. Nobody's forcing Survivor down anyone's throat. People choose their own sources for information and entertainment.
Bad Ruling, Good Intentions (Score:3, Interesting)
For starters, the broadcasters have claimed for years that attrition due to cable TV and DBS broadcasters was eating into revenues. True.
They also claimed that this was likely to hurt smaller-market and independent broadcasters the most. True.
What the broadcasters *didn't* tell you is that they own many of the cable channels that are hurting them. So at best, the claim that over-the-air broadcasting is in trouble is only a half-truth. It is in trouble, but they are the ones who have made it so.
The intent of the FCC is to hopefully be able to allow smaller-market and independent stations continued operations because they'll be part of a larger group ownership. This will ostensibly allow the smaller station lower operating and programming costs. True.
Unfortunately, what they don't tell you is that this requires that the independent and local programming be replaced with mass-produced content or full-network programming. It'll also mean loss of jobs as production and operations staff is moved to primary stations.
Worse, this does nothing to solve the original problem. Michael Powell stated in a recent interview that he was concerned that in many markets, you don't get to watch local sports teams without ponying-up $60 for basic cable services. Well Mr. Chairman, I hold the FCC responsible for this problem. First, the Commission let cable companies like Comcast, or mostly-cable outlets like Fox Sports, bid on the rights to sports broadcasts. Not to mention that the FCC simply refuses to reign-in the outrageous costs of cable and DBS services, claiming a free-market will solve the problem.
So instead of fixing what's really wrong, the FCC applies a giant band-aid and sticks head in sand.
Consolidation Example (Score:3, Interesting)
The broadcast industry derives their money from advertising. Their goal is not to provide good programming
Once a company has a monopoly in a closed market (such as broadcast television -- the FCC isn't allocating any more frequencies for that), they no longer have any incentive to produce good programming if they're making enough money from their advertisements.
Clear Channel bought our local monopolistic billboard company, almost as soon as the state (or city, I forget) rubberstamped an approval on their monopoly, and the city no longer lets people build more billboards within the city limits. Another closed market.
Clear Channel now owns a significant percentage of our local radio stations, the majority of our billboards, our major ticket sales systems, and several other major media holdings.
They have no reason to keep prices down, because there are enough big companies and non-profits (read: write offs) here to keep them going strong as they increase their prices due to the recession and/or inflation.
They have no reason to improve their programming.
And now, the chairman of ClearChannel, makes this response to the further deregulation of the broadcast industry:
"Clear Channel is deeply dissapointed with today's FCC vote to re-regulate the radio industry. While the FCC is supposed to act in the public interest, today they missed the mark by a mile."
(from their web site)
Wow. What can I say?
Re: limitations need to be opposed or lifted (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't see the option to put limitations back in. So if it does become a monoculture, there isn't much the FCC could do.
Re:Time to move to Canada. (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't worry, ClearChannel won't skew the news... (Score:3, Interesting)
Wait, "re-regulate". WTF?
They do have one rule that binds them... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's rather sad, really. Here's a good example why: My home state is North Dakota. When Grand Forks and Fargo had a three-day ice storm during the winter of '96-'97, there was a radio station in town which 24-7 covered every single piece of news or announcement related to the event. Even with the phone lines down, our high school speech team was able to use the radio to tell everybody back home that we were alright.
On the other hand, a little more than a year ago, Minot (town of about 38,000 people in central North Dakota) had a train carrying anhydrous ammonia (cheap fertilizer) that derailed in the town early in the morning. Everybody instinctively turned on the radio (either after hearing the crash, seeing a huge white cloud of ammonia coming their way, or feeling the smoke burn their lungs) to find out what was going on, only to hear music. Six of the seven radio stations in Minot are owned by ClearChannel. Afterwards, when asked for a comment, ClearChannel said that they were in the business of playing music and selling advertising, not 24-7 local news coverage.
It's about the money.
Re:Time to move to Canada. (Score:5, Interesting)
All well and good, but no doubt they will be just as open for public comment as they were on the ruling itself. Let's see, most human beings were against the rule change while monsters like Big Corporations were all that mattered.
The FCC will have a massive blindspot for the tremendous deficiencies in the media as long as Bush and buds are in power. They are NOT interested in furthering dissenting voices' (anything other than conservative Republican cheerleaders) access to the airwaves. They are NOT interested in ANYTHING that doesn't further pad the pockets of rich corporate heads in the media. They are NOT interested in anything that might produce news media that isn't 100% behind the current regime.
Unless there is a new Administration in 2 years, the rules will be a priori assumed good regardless of public comment or real evidence to the contrary.
Huge (Score:5, Interesting)
In reality this will hurt in that Newspapers will be bought by bigger corporations (clear channel), and the content will be dumbed down, local personalities will be "Right-sized" to control profit margins in place of Market researched personalities.
This hurts, and you will notice the difference. Right now newspapers and newsstations keep each other in check by double-checking facts. Soon you will have one person double-checking facts for the radio, newspaper, and television. You get one slant, one idea, and one perspective from all three. That is where the diversity will be lost. I hope you like reading BBC newspapers over the internet, because soon that's where the best news you get will come from.
Re:One Channel My ASS (Score:2, Interesting)
The "news" used to be a public watchdog of sorts. Now, it's a ratings grabbing corporate run marketing scam. And to think of all the people gaining their world views from them and ONLY them scares the living hell out of me. If you only watch MSNBC (yes, that's MICROSFOT NBC) or Fox News to form your world view, then believe me when I say, you "live" in an extremely distorted world. A corporate view, a sponsored view, etc...
Everyone wants their cake and eat it too! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:One channel to rule them all (Score:4, Interesting)
Then where did YOU learn about these protests? Did you attend all of them? Or did you learn about them someplace other than FOX?
It doesn't matter how many independent voices there are if you only use a sample size of one to form your opinions. FOX had very little on the demonstrations, MSNBC seemed embarrassed to be covering them, but did a bit. CNN at times seemed downright cheerful to be showing them, while NPR felt almost as if it was out and out participating. At least, that was the impression I got as I WATCHED THEM ALL. (well, listened in the case of NPR).
The media giants are not one large monolith most of the time. I think the FCC is wrong because this ruling will make it *more likely* for stations to stifle minority opinions, and there is no appreciable upside for the public to offset this potential problem.
Clear Channel Press Release: (Score:3, Interesting)
Clear Channel is deeply disappointed with today's FCC vote to re-regulate the radio industry. While the FCC is supposed to act in the public interest, today they missed the mark by a mile. This FCC action will extinguish the substantial consumer benefits brought on by radio deregulation
What's up with that? I can't help but wonder what this stinks of. Are they trying to look like the "good guy", while secretly getting in position to reap the rewards, or do they fear a bigger competitor taking the market away?
Read what Warren Buffet has to say about this. (Score:3, Interesting)
Warren calls it Class Welfare.
By Warren Buffett
Tuesday, May 20, 2003; Page A19
The annual Forbes 400 lists prove that -- with occasional blips -- the rich do indeed get richer. Nonetheless, the Senate voted last week to supply major aid to the rich in their pursuit of even greater wealth.
The Senate decided that the dividends an individual receives should be 50 percent free of tax in 2003, 100 percent tax-free in 2004 through 2006 and then again fully taxable in 2007. The mental flexibility the Senate demonstrated in crafting these zigzags is breathtaking. What it has put in motion, though, is clear: If enacted, these changes would further tilt the tax scales toward the rich.
Let me, as a member of that non-endangered species, give you an example of how the scales are currently balanced. The taxes I pay to the federal government, including the payroll tax that is paid for me by my employer, Berkshire Hathaway, are roughly the same proportion of my income -- about 30 percent -- as that paid by the receptionist in our office. My case is not atypical -- my earnings, like those of many rich people, are a mix of capital gains and ordinary income -- nor is it affected by tax shelters (I've never used any). As it works out, I pay a somewhat higher rate for my combination of salary, investment and capital gain income than our receptionist does. But she pays a far higher portion of her income in payroll taxes than I do.
She's not complaining: Both of us know we were lucky to be born in America. But I was luckier in that I came wired at birth with a talent for capital allocation -- a valuable ability to have had in this country during the past half-century. Credit America for most of this value, not me. If the receptionist and I had both been born in, say, Bangladesh, the story would have been far different. There, the market value of our respective talents would not have varied greatly.
Now the Senate says that dividends should be tax-free to recipients. Suppose this measure goes through and the directors of Berkshire Hathaway (which does not now pay a dividend) therefore decide to pay $1 billion in dividends next year. Owning 31 percent of Berkshire, I would receive $310 million in additional income, owe not another dime in federal tax, and see my tax rate plunge to 3 percent.
And our receptionist? She'd still be paying about 30 percent, which means she would be contributing about 10 times the proportion of her income that I would to such government pursuits as fighting terrorism, waging wars and supporting the elderly. Let me repeat the point: Her overall federal tax rate would be 10 times what my rate would be.
When I was young, President Kennedy asked Americans to "pay any price, bear any burden" for our country. Against that challenge, the 3 percent overall federal tax rate I would pay -- if a Berkshire dividend were to be tax-free -- seems a bit light.
Administration officials say that the $310 million suddenly added to my wallet would stimulate the economy because I would invest it and thereby create jobs. But they conveniently forget that if Berkshire kept the money, it would invest that same amount, creating jobs as well.
The Senate's plan invites corporations -- indeed, virtually commands them -- to contort their behavior in a major way. Were the plan to be enacted, shareholders would logically respond by asking the corporations they own to pay no more dividends in 2003, when they would be partially taxed, but instead to pay the skipped amounts in 2004, when they'd be tax-free. Similarly, in 2006, the last year of the plan, companies should pay double their normal dividend and then avoid dividends altogether in 2007.
Overall, it's hard to conceive of anything sillier than the schedule the Senat
Re: limitations need to be opposed or lifted (Score:5, Interesting)
It takes a partisan 3 to 2 FCC vote to relax regulations so the conservative CEO's of Fox and Clearchannel can have yet more power, but it would take a huge (think ma-bell proportion) congressional act to cut them back down if they ever get too big.
I really wish the FCC had to explain (and justify) why they think it's in the public interest to allow mega media companies to expand further. So far their reason is, "well, we couldn't think of any good reason not to!", even though thousands of americans emailed and called in plenty of reasons against deregulation.
Re:Interesting (Score:1, Interesting)
They don't want to sell records that people will actually listen to for years, they want to sell ones that people will be embarrassed to admit having bought...
I'm exaggerating; obviously the long-lived music also brings in revenue. However, I'm pretty sure that the really short-lived megahits are the most profitable, and are intentionally treated preferentially.
Lets think logically.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What do Republicans think of this? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know any actual Republicans, or at least I don't know any who actually think about political issues. (Not saying that Republicans don't think, just that I'm living in an oasis where I don't meet any who do.)
I've heard that the NRA was in opposition to the FCC loosening regulation [google.com].
A quoted excerpt from the Kansas City Star [kansascity.com] says: National Rifle Association members have flooded the FCC with thousands of postcards opposing changes in the ownership rules. An NRA letter to members said, "a small group of top media executives could literally silence your NRA."
Barriers to Entry($) and Short Range Broadcasters (Score:3, Interesting)
BUT!!!
Did you ever bother to ask, "How is it possible with all the available Radio and Television spectrum available, that ONLY 5 companies make up a majority?"
Radio technology has advanced at a phenominal rate, and the equipment has gotten rediculously cheap, so why don't we see smaller/nimbler radio/TV broadcasters out there, especially with so many people creating so much content on the Internet?
Could the FCC be possibly regulating the industry so that the Barrier to enter the market is so high that it effectively kills smaller/nimbler competition?
Think about it:
1. Radio/TV is sustained with advertisement which are derived from ratings.
2. There are a limited amout of ratings.
3. In order to sustain yourself as a broadcaster, you must capture a big enough slice of the pie to cover this barrier to entry.
4. The bigger the barrier the entry, the more ratings you'll need to sustain yourself.
Maybe that would explain why the National Assocation of Broadcasters gave $2,502,700 dollars to various politicians. [opensecrets.org]
I don't mind corporations owning as many TV, Radio stations as they want, but I want something in return.
*** Short Range TV/Radio Broadcasting ***
Since, I've been talking about Barriers to Entry, then why not lower them?
Here's how you do it:
* The FCC should Offer Inexpensive Short-Range TV/Radio Licenses, so broadcasters could operate a station on a budget of a couple thousand dollars a year rather than hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.
Will it happen? No fucking way. That would give any asshole to opportunity to offer the public cutting edge TV/Radio a lot cheaper than the larger broadcasters, which would SEVERELY eat into thier margins.
Could it be that free enterprise in this country is a sham? Could it be that neither Republicans or Democrats actually give a shit about equal justice and equal economic opportunity?
If you really think this is a free country, I challenge you to try to get your town to build a municipal fiber-optic infrastructure to deliver high-speed internet access and then watch how fast Verison, SBC, or whoever controls your local telecommunications infrastructure slaps so many injunctions on your ass, that it'll make you head spin until you vomit.
Fuck you, I want this country to return to a REAL free market that isn't obstructed by FCC "deregulation" (Give us real deregulation), Corporate Welfare, CEO's CIRCUMVENTING (slap THEM with the DMCA) the entire PROTECTIVE purpose of FILING remotely accurate information to the SEC, and rabid Patent/IP Lawyers litigating entire industries to death (thanks to their $28,000,000 to the democrats).
You may say this country never had a real free market. Fuck you, your socialism, and your little dog too!
Thanks, That felt pretty good.
Re:One channel to rule them all (Score:2, Interesting)
And the Government knows better?
I'll tell ya folks, the truth is about to become muddier to the average citizen, and yet much more difficult to discern for those that actually are interested in the truth.
Only for those too cheap or lazy to plop down $10 for internet and look up the truth yourself. If you think "truth" is something you find on guardian.co.uk, then go there. If you think "truth" is something at christiansciencemonitor.com, then go there. The only thing we lose here is radio and newspapers (that are dying formats anyway) and TV (which will eventually die out when fast internet access is cheaper than cable). The internet, thank God, is still not regulated much. So cheers!
Re:and the FCC actually did serve the public inter (Score:3, Interesting)