There has been quite a bit of comment about this in the media lately. I will admit that I'm not fully up to speed on this in terms of the details, but basically, my understanding that FCC regulations regarding media ownership are being relaxed. It will now be possible for a single entity to own television stations that account for up to 45% of their market's viewers. One network could own 3 television stations in the same market, and other media outlets such as newspapers could also own a television station. Is this a good idea? Does this serve the public interest? I have my doubts, and you all should know that I'm not really in favor of governmental regulation, but this might be an exception. Bear with me while I tell you all about Los Angeles.....

At the present, LA has a number of broadcast (not just cable) television stations. Seven of them are VHF, and CBS owns 2 already, channel 2 (KCBS) and channel 9 (KCAL). Channel 5 (KTLA) is owned by the same company that owns the Los Angeles Times newspaper (Tribune). Then, we have channel 4 (KNBC) owned by NBC which also owns Telemundo, a spanish language network on UHF here, channel 34 aka KMEX. Disney owns Channel 7 (KABC), and Fox has channel 11 (KTTV) and channel 13 is UPN. LA is the second largest market in the US, but in terms of broadcast channels, it's really not that diverse. In the case of KCBS and KCAL, you have the same reporters doing the same story on both, just at different times. They have the same news director, the same editorial staff, and the same pool of reporters. I'm sure that saves them money, but from the viewer standpoint, is that a good thing? I don't think so, I'd like different points of view.

I have heard arguments from those who support the FCC decision that cable offers an alternative, but does it really? Where is the alternative there? It seems that FOX, NBC, AOL-Time-Warner, CBS-Viacom and Disney own most of the cable stations as well. This whole consolidation seems to me to be a bad thing. What do the rest of you think and what could we do about it?

I forgot to add a link to an article about this......

Washington Post

Doesn't sound like deregulation to me. I mean, the FCC is not relinquishing any control, only adjusting the existing rules to allow greater concentration of ownership, which I don't see as a good thing either.

I'd rather see the FCC hold auctions and sell off the airwaves, and thereafter restrict their role to enforcing the property rights in airwaves thereby established. That would be deregulation!

Why should my first amendment right to freedom of expression not include my buying a transmitter and sending out radio signals? How can there be privatized ownership of radio-wave frequencies? It flies in the face of our liberty.

Competition in the market is still served, because a viable radio or television station needs money, either from advertisers or from direct public support.

The problem with just buying a transmitter and putting up a signal is that if you broadcast on someone else's frequency, you end up interferring with their broadcast and violating their first amendment rights. The Televison broadcast spectrum is finite and there are limits to how many channels can go across it.

I understand that, but wouldn't honest market competition belay that? If my transmission gained more support and money than yours, my signal strength would increase as I could afford a stronger transmitter than you. Eventually, you would either stop broadcasting, or else your range would only be good for a city block. I do see problems with the total lack of regulation, but I believe that would be better than where we're heading now. I believe that in a good free market system, regulation is intended to prevent monopolies, not empower them.

Because without some kind of control you could be infringing on my right to buy a transmitter and send out radio signals. It would turn into a monopoly. He with the biggest transmitter, wins.

With all due respect, I really didn't start this thread to talk about the pros and cons of television bandwidth. If someone wants to really talk about that, fine, post a new thread and I would be more than happy to explain why two television stations can't transmit on the same frequencies.

Rather, I am more interested in talking about the idea that single entity be allowed to control several sources of our media in a single market. I really don't think this is a good idea, it only gives one slant to the news and it hurts competition. If we are going to have an FCC at all, one of the things it should do above others is encourage a diverse market and healthy competition. This latest rule seems to run counter to that.

the big transmitter already wins, due to the fact i moved to a small town for some reason, when i try to tune in a radio station all i get is country music(i'm no fan of that stuff myself). then when i try to tune in pri, or some other station alot of times i just get some of it, some gospel, and alot of static music. and no i dont think fcc regulation is going to lessen its grip that much really, not when you can slam howard stern for 10g because he said some magic word.

This new deregulation is pretty nauseating. Media companies can already own 35% of a market's media outlets and now its being bumped up to 45%. This is outrageous. If the FCC should be doing anything about media ownership, it should be changing the regulation to say that a media company cannot own more than 1 media outlet of any kind in any one state. Not just the market, the entire state. This is more in tune with the spirit of competition and media diversification. It really is a shame that the Republican party was taken over by the ultra wealthy. They seem to be turning their back on true free market liberty and principles in favor of assisting the rich in acquiring more wealth and power. And of course the Democrats have grown too spineless to dare try to stand in their way. I read that the Senate may try to work up a bill to reverse the FCC's decision, but I seriously doubt it will lead to anything productive.

Well, judging from last November's election we must have a lot of ultra-wealthy people. Free market principles would allow one corporation to control 100% of the media.

If voter turnout was 100% every election, your statement might mean something, but since its less than 50% every time, it doesn't. The idea of one corporation owning 100% of the media is no longer a crazy idea. This is one prospect that sends chills down my back. I know you're a libertarian and all about the free market and business and capitalism and all that, but I really hope that you (and other like-minded folk) dread the idea as much as I do. And to anyone who scoffs at the notion of a giant corporation controlling all of the media....laugh now, obey later...

Ted Turner's objection to this is that it limits new start-ups in the market. It squeezes out the little guy, in his words.

For instance, when he started his empire (now a part of AOL-Time Warner), he bought a local UHF station that was losing money. He turned it around, eventually bought another station. Founded CNN, etc, etc.

His argument is that the existing companies wouldn't have done what he did (risk capital on losing stations in a hope of turning them around to be profitable). He says that big companies have a risk-aversion that is anti-innovation.

It doesn't seem like a huge deal to me. There are several BIG conglomerates of media in this country. All of them vying for market share. To me, this encourages competition.

BTW, deregulation is rarely anti-free market Nu Marx.

hugo,



This makes a case for protecting diversity in the media through regulation in order to support the First Amendment.

Consolidation of media outlets always happens during hard economic times. Metro areas often have two or more daily newspapers. When the crunch comes, they tend to merge under one entity while attempting to keep editorial distances--like the Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News.

When it comes to news outlets that use the air waves, I really don't see much diversity the way it is. This ruling will simply add to the homogenization of editorial comment.

At least the big players are still restricted to 45%, so expect tweedle dee and tweedle dum to take 90%, leaving 10% for everyone else. So in effect, the percentage reserved for everyone else has been cut by 20%. Looked at in another light, 20% of our freedom of speech has been cut. This may be a good thing for commerce but not a good thing for the First Amendment.

How is this encouraging competition? There are but 5 competing media companies in the country. It is a monopoly that's about to be further concentrated. The messages and information we receive is filtered by the monied few. This is not competition, this is a rigged game.

(Wish Theodore Roosevelt were in office to bust this one up!)

I can see nothing good coming from media moguls controlling so much of the airwaves. Are our politicians going to be mere vassals of the corporate heads? It looks like government by corporation is where this country is going.

The Corporation giveth, the Corporation taketh away, blessed be the name of Capitalism...

We are losing freedom of speech in ways the Founders never imagined.

I can certainly see and understand Paladin's fear of a government by corporation. Allowing such businesses to have control over the bulk of our information would not, in my opinion, be a good thing. Once that happens you start getting into scenarios previously painted by social commentators and science fiction writers the likes of H.G. Wells, George Orwell and others.

There were those who considered such visions to be madness at the time they were written. And while they are indeed frightening and no less sane today, that is exactly where we could be heading.

"Knowledge is power."

It's a risky venture giving corporations so much control over the information we receive. While the following comparison is an extreme, following such a path could very well make us no more important to those in power than the batteries people had become in The Matrix.

I do not see the news media as being a natural monopoly. A government acting under free market principles would not prevent a corporation from controlling 100% of the media. However, the free market would.

It is odd the same individuals who oppose a few corporations controlling our news generally support members of a couple powerful unions having such powerful control over educating our children.