Consumer Guide for Today's Media

By: Nick Mangiaracina

In late December 2007 The FCC voted again to allow more consolidation of the media. This continues the deregulation trend that began about 30 years ago and has accelerated into the 21st century.

The new rules approved by a 3-2 vote allow one company to own both a newspaper and television station in one market. However, more consolidation is not better for Americans.

FCC dissenting commissioner Michael Copps spoke out against the rule change.
Copps said of the act, “We claim to be giving the news industry a shot in the arm, but the real effect is going to be to reduce total newsgathering.”

This makes sense, because if you allow a newspaper and T.V. station to combine, they can reduce the number of people on staff and at the same time cover the same stories for both print and broadcast. While doing so they can increase their audience and become more profitable. This is great if you happen to own the paper and T.V. station, but otherwise sucks because it leads to fewer jobs, less reporting and a less-informed electorate.

This push for more deregulation has come from corporations—not the people. The people are not concerned about media profit margins. After the decision Copps said, “Today’s decision cites not a single word from the thousands of Americans who waited in long lines for an open mic. to testify before us. We say we’re guided by public comment, yet the majority’s decision is overwhelmingly opposed by the public, as demonstrated in our record and in public opinion surveys.”

At the same time it’s the corporate media who have argued that they are struggling to stay afloat in an age becoming increasingly digitally oriented. However, this is not true.
Copps again, “The truth is that newspaper profits are about double the S&P 500 average.”

Likewise, this story is not about increasing competition, but it is instead about crushing it, and what’s more anti-American than that?

These giant media corporations are robber barons version 2.0—hell bent on making as much money as possible without regard to the public interest. What’s disturbing to note is that they already control practically all traditional media (Radio, T.V., Film & Newspapers). Five companies control nearly everything. These five are: AOL Time-Warner, Viacom, Fox, General Electric, and Universal.

Michael Copps said it best when he said last December, “It’s time for the American people to understand the game that is being played here. Big media doesn’t want to tell the full story, of course, but I have heard first-hand from editorial page editors who have told me they can cover any story, save one—media consolidation—and that they have been instructed to stay away from that one. That’s a story for another day, perhaps.”

By: Nick Mangiaracina

“To promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies.” –The FCC’s rational for the Telecommunications Act of 1996

A dozen years after The Telecommunications Act of 1996 promised to “promote competition,” there has never been less competition among media companies (see previous article). In the consolidation process, the quality and the scope of traditional media (radio, T.V. and newspapers) have shrunk. Look no farther than radio, where repetitive top 40 programming now dominates programming coast to coast.

In fact, in 2003, the FCC itself showed that the objectives of the Telecom Act failed. In the report, the FCC said that although there was a 5.9 percent increase in stations between 1996 and 2003, the number of owners of these stations actually declined by 35 percent. “This decline is primarily due to mergers between existing owners,” the study said.

This statistics should not be surprising though as the Act eliminated the cap on the number of radio stations a company could own nationally (20) and the number of stations a small business or minority-owned business could own (23). After the national cap was eliminated bigger radio stations were free to buy as many smaller stations as they wanted to, which is exactly what happened.

According to The FCC, by March of 2003 radio giant Clear Channel Communications owned more than 1,200 stations. This is more than four times the number of stations the second biggest company, Cumulus Broadcasting, owned (250+) at the time.
The Act also decreased minority ownership of radio stations (and likewise led to less diverse programming) because rich white males already controlled the large stations. Likewise, the elimination of government control has lead to the further concentration of power in the hands of the few.

This concentration of ownership has lead to factory-farm programming across the nation. You can now turn on the radio and drive from L.A. to New York City and hear the same one hundred well-known, non-controversial songs over and over and over and over again.

Connor Oberst of the band Bright Eyes has been a vocal critic of Clear Channel Communications. The artist has refused to play at venues the company owns.

Photo: http://www.tinymixtapes.com/IMG/jpg/f-l-07-11-bright_eyes.jpg

Since one company like Clear Channel controls literally more than 1,000 stations, it’s unlikely they’re going to try anything new or innovative in their programming, since one mistake would be multiplied a thousand times over. It’s a formulaic way of thinking, but formulas sell.

As corporations they are responsible to stockholders and the bottom line. They aren’t evil for wanting to make a profit, but their domination on the publicly-owned radio waves has squeezed out competition and stifled diversity.

On the other hand, small local non-profit stations, like Lawrence’s KJHK, can deviate from the norm. They are responsible to no one but the community. Likewise, this is why KJHK features blues, rock, reggae, techno, metal, funk, jazz, and classical music as well as sports and non-sports talk radio. With their programming they try to cover the eclectic tastes of a community like Lawrence—and do a much better job at it than a station that will play the same songs regardless of location. How can these companies know a community when they view every one as the same?

Radio stations are legally responsible to the community—this is why they are granted the use of the public’s air waves for no monetary fee. When stations aren’t responsive to the demands of the community, their licenses should be revoked. This was the radical concept the FCC introduced when it began licensing in the 1930s.

Companies like Clear Channel are failing to serve the communities they broadcast in when people don’t want to listen to their programming. It’s time to start competing…

In December 2007 the FCC pushed through new rule changes to allow a newspaper and TV station to be owned by the same company in the same market. The new deregulation rules continue the FCC trend toward further deregulation. In response to the changes, 200,000 people sent a letter to Congress in favor of repealing the new rules. Yesterday congress announced a bill challenging the new FCC rules.

Reuters reported yesterday that democratic senator Byron Dorgan introduced the bill. Dorgan commented in the article, “When nearly half of the people in this country are told that in their cities and towns the media will get the green light to consolidate, they will not be happy.”

Byron Dorgon

The fairness doctrine was established in 1949 to ensure that both sides of controversial issues had a chance to air their viewpoints on television. According to The Museum of Broadcast Communication, “The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.”

Since the Reagan Administration decided the fairness doctrine was unnecessary, television analysis has become progressively worse. The broadcast networks have increasingly relied on the “if it bleeds it leads” mantra for news coverage. Both local and national broadcast news stations focus now more than ever before on shootings, fires, natural disasters, and other relatively worthless topics. As far as they’re concerned they might as well. These stories are cheaper to cover, garner higher ratings, and in turn allow them to charge more for advertising.

The original idea behind the abolition of the doctrine was that people had enough alternate means of obtaining different viewpoints, so it was no longer necessary to require stations to cover them. It is likely that the birth of cable drove this decision, but cable has so far not picked up the slack.

Cable stations like Fox News don’t serve the public interest, but the right extreme of the Republican Party. This righteous partisanship would be ok if there were stations that broadcast the opposing view, but there aren’t any. Instead you have shows like the ultra-conservative O’Reilly Factor and then “hard news” programs like the less conservative Anderson Cooper 360. Where is the liberal media?

Again, the content relates to the ownership of the stations. Sure, CNN is more liberal than Fox News is, but Fortune 500 companies own both stations. Rupert Murdoch of News Corp owns Fox News, whereas Ted Turner of AOL-Time Warner owns the other. Giant corporations are concerned with making a profit—not serving the public interest.

Despite suffering a 30 percent drop in profit in 2007 according to the BBC, Time Warner still made 6.5 billion dollars. Newscorp took in 2.3 billion in profit in 2007. These staggering figures show just how concentrated the media are.

Bringing back the fairness doctrine will help reverse the trend toward more style and less substance in the news. Life’s not fair, but the media can be—provided they do their job.

The media doesn’t do a good job of covering itself because it isn’t in the interest of the media to do so. Therefore, other organizations must keep track of the media. The Center for Public Integrity is one such institution that does so.

The Center states its mission as follows:

“The mission of the Center for Public Integrity is to produce original investigative journalism about significant public issues to make institutional power more transparent and accountable. To pursue its mission, the Center:

• Generates high-quality, accessible investigative reports, databases and contextual analysis on issues of public importance.

• Disseminates work to journalists, policymakers, scholars and citizens using a combination of digital, electronic and print media.

• Educates, engages and empowers citizens with tools and skills they need to hold governments and other institutions accountable.

• Organizes and supports investigative journalists around the world who apply the Center's goals and standards to cross-border projects.

• Remains independent by building a strong and sustainable financial base of support, including a community of committed individuals and foundations.

The Center is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, non-advocacy, independent journalism organization based in Washington, D.C.”

One key issue the site focuses on is media ownership. In fact, the site even has a feature where you can see the media ownership near your zip code. In a search for 66044, (Lawrence) Entercom, Cumulus, Bott and CBS turn up. As well as a list, the search feature shows a map of the locations of the towers where these owners broadcast from.

On a national scale, the site also breaks down media ownership. It features general categories such as entertainment, newspapers and broadcast ownership. In each category, the site ranks the top companies in each area by revenue.

These statistics give you a good idea of how mammoth companies like Sony or Walt Disney are. For instance, according to the site, in 2006 Sony grossed $1.47 million at the box office, but also took in $66.6 billion total. Disney grossed a mere $1.28 million at the box office and $31.9 billion overall.

The site is a great resource for journalists, or anyone else interested in media ownership.

About a week ago the Senate Commerce Committee voted against the FCC’s new cross ownership rules. The vote was against the FCC’s push to allow one company to own a newspaper and television station in the same market. Senator Byron Dorgan from North Dakota sponsored the bill. If the rules are enacted they will further degrade the quality of the media.

Stop Big Media is organizing resistance to these new rules. It points out that according to the FCC itself, more consolidation leads to less journalism jobs and therefore less news coverage. The group is also encouraging opponents to send a message to Congress and people like Rupert Murdoch that the public does not support these changes.

Murdoch has been in the news recently because he’s trying to buy Newsday. Murdoch already owns The New York Daily News and The Wall Street Journal and is already worth $9 billion according to Forbes Magazine. This ranks him 73rd in the world amongst billionaires.

Murdoch’s purchase of The Wall Street Journal was controversial because people thought he was just buying it to turn it into a right wing mouthpiece like Fox News. Fox New’s notorious “Fair and Balanced” label spurred a lawsuit by AlterNet and Moveon.org.

AlterNet had this to say about the “Fair and Balanced” label, “Is the Fox News Channel about to lose its "Fair and Balanced" trademark? Nothing is more likely to make a serious journalist, or a concerned news consumer, gag than hearing the Fox News Channel smugly refer to itself, day after day, as being "fair and balanced." But what really rubs salt in the wound is this: Fox has actually registered those three words – "fair and balanced" – as its signature trademark. Does this mean that all journalists and news organizations in the world are legally forbidden to use those words – not only to describe themselves – but for virtually any purpose whatsoever?”

What Fox News has shown is the danger of media that is too concentrated in the hands of too few people—in this case in the hands of one man—Rupert Murdoch.

As the concentration becomes more pervasive, more people will see why it should be resisted. It’s time for the people of this country to take back the past and with it take back the future. It’s not too late—as long as we’re not too lazy.