Senate to Reimpose Cross-Ownership Ban (FCC - newspaper ownership of TV/Radio stations)

AdWeek ^ | 4/25/08 | Editor & Publisher Staff

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

WASHINGTON The Commerce Committee sent to the U.S. Senate floor a resolution to nullify changes to the longtime ban on same-market common ownership of newspapers and broadcast stations.

The resolution targets last December's Federal Communications Commission vote, along party lines, that permits daily newspapers in the nation's 20 largest markets to own either one lower-rated TV station or radio station. Cross-ownership would continue to be prohibited in smaller markets. But the many critics of the rule change say it includes exemption provisions that could permit cross-ownership elsewhere.

Speaking to reporters after the vote, the resolution's chief sponsor, Sen. Byron Dorgan (D.-N.D.), said he expected the measure to pass the full Senate. The bill has 25 co-sponsors, including both Democratic candidates for president.

The Bush administration has indicated it would veto an attempt to reimpose the 32-year-old ban.

Free Press, the media democracy advocacy group, hailed the panel's vote, and said the bill was "our best chance to stop Big Media."

The measure is particularly important in light of reports that Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., publisher of The New York Post and The Wall Street Journal, as well as the owner of two broadcast stations in the New York City market, has agreed in principle to buy Newsday, the Long Island, N.Y., daily.

"With Rupert Murdoch poised to expand his media empire, today's vote shows the Senate won't simply roll over and watch media consolidation continue unchecked," said Free Press executive director Joel Silver. "This vote is a major turning point in the fight for better media."

A House version of the resolution has been introduced by Reps. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and Dave Reichert (R-Wash.).

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

Ping.

[latina4dubya]

for a second there i thought it was going to be against the law to own a cross or crucifix...

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

They use the ACLU to introduce those types of ‘laws’ since they can’t legally do it in the Legislature....

[Shortcake]

I'd like to know why and how the Senate thinks it has this “power”.

What is wrong with us? Why do we allow big brother to control what they have no authority to control?

[SamuraiScot]

Free Press, the media democracy advocacy group, hailed the panel's vote

Oh, that kind of "free press." Like all those Soviet "peace" and "disarmament" councils. Like the Soviet version of a free press.

[WOSG]

Needs rewrite:

Senate ignores First Amendment

[Just A Nobody]

What is wrong with us? Why do we allow big brother to control what they have no authority to control?

That is a most excellent question!

[Shortcake]

That is a most excellent question!

. . .which will wait a long time for an answer.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

O’Sullivan’s First Law
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1431401/posts

[Shortcake]

What is so frustrating, is, I understand this the same as others do (thanks for the link!) yet, we do nothing!

[Milhous]

Senators fighting corporate consolidation of media ownership are speeding the demise of Old Media 4/24/08

Posted by Steve Boriss in MediaConsolidation.
trackback

If a business is sick, one of the best ways to restore its health is for it to be acquired by a larger, healthier company in the same business. Such an acquiring business would already know how to succeed in that business, and have the financial resources to invest the funds for a turnaround.

Of course, that's too complicated for America's geniuses in the U.S. Senate, who often demonstrate their ignorance while claiming they are the smartest people in the room. Case in point is a Senate Committee trying to reverse the recent FCC ruling that allowed the new owner of the Tribune company to own a broadcast station and daily paper in the same media market. This was not a random act by the FCC, but a measure to ensure that the struggling LA Times could find an interested, experienced buyer to save it.

The Senators' rationale - concern about increasing concentration of media outlet ownership in fewer and fewer private hands - reveals their complete ignorance of the subject. Haven't they ever heard of the Internet, which is spreading-out "ownership" of the news into more and more hands? Haven't they noticed that corporate size seems to have little to do with success on the Internet as the wildly successful Drudgereport and TechCrunch have shown us? On the other hand, maybe we can be grateful to the Senators. Through regulation that prevents the healthy consolidation of outlets, they are killing-off Old Media outlets faster than they would die a natural death, clearing the way for superior New Media alternatives.

Possibly related posts:

• Old Media kidding themselves. Virtually every mainstream outlet is in the ...
• Senate Committee’s “Shield Law” for Old Media is a misguided and dang...
• Stop the FCC’s Big Media Handout

[SunkenCiv]

Free Press, the media democracy advocacy group, hailed the panel's vote, and said the bill was "our best chance to stop Big Media." The measure is particularly important in light of reports that Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., publisher of The New York Post and The Wall Street Journal, as well as the owner of two broadcast stations in the New York City market, has agreed in principle to buy Newsday, the Long Island, N.Y., daily.

Gee, I'm sure this move is unrelated to those NY Slimes layoffs and all the other signs that the partisan media shills have ruined formerly better publications.

[FrankR]

"Senate to Reimpose Cross-Ownership Ban (FCC - newspaper ownership of TV/Radio stations)"

The original cross-ownership ban was put into place to prevent a monopoly on news coverage in any one market. It also was better for advertisers because it kept the competition for the advertising dollar sharp.

Today's conglomerates, like Clear Channel, et al, are monsters, gobbling up every advertising dollar in site, and shutting out the small businesses by monopolistic prices.

As a former station owner and broadcaster, I welcome the return of the ban...which is a poor name for it, for it really doesn't "ban" anything...moreover, it promotes freedom of the press by allowing many viewpoints to be heard by the people.

For instance, if a conglomerate owns all the major stations and newspapers in a given area, and the ownership happens to be of the liberal/leftist bent, then ALL media outlets will be exuding leftist claptrap.

Let individuals own the media outlets, and not corporations, and we'll get a more fair news coverage all around.

An Bush is going to veto this?

[businessprofessor]

What is wrong with consolidation? Consolidation does not mean a monopoly. We have anti trust laws for monopolistic behavior. Congressional meddling with media usually has bad results. One of the worst laws was the 1971 law allowing collusion (joint operating agreements) among local papers.

[FrankR]

I was in radio broadcasting through the 60's and 70's, and I can tell you that one company owning every station in town and the newspapers is bad stuff. The only viewpoint you hear is from the same source.

Any one person or company could only own 7 radio stations...NATIONWIDE, and none in the same market, unless it was an AM/FM combination, and then many were forced to split their programming for part of the day...to serve the "public interest" to a diverse audience.

Stations are licensed for one reason, "public service"...the news, commercials and all that are just a sideline to pay the rent. When the periodic "license renewal" comes around, it used to be reams of paper, all justifying and proving that you did actally "serve the public".

Consolidation - for all intents and purposes - is a monopoly. What if one guy owned all of the fast food restaurants in Chicago (for instance). Eventually, all of the food would taste alike and the service would get "ho hum" due to lack of competition.

Now, your handle is "businessprofessor", and I can't believe you don't believe in healthy competition...unless you're one of those anti-capitalism lefty type professors.

And finally, imagine a country, where all the stations were in the hands of say, four or five conglomerates. If there was ever a coup, for instance, it would be much easier for a dictatorship, or "political party" to take over all the media, than if they had thousands of owners to contend with...it's like the 2nd amendment...a lot of countries don't want to try an invasion of the US because they know that the citizens are well-armed.

Class dismissed...

[Just A Nobody]

Interesting...

[Just A Nobody]

. . .which will wait a long time for an answer.

Courage is the answer. Soemthing most are sadly lacking.

[Milhous]

If there was ever a coup

Helmutt Hoffmann: Well, who needs Revolutionaries when the Revolution has already been achieved?

Imagine a world where a couple dozen companies (families) control virtually all of mass media. Shall we explore the ownership (power) structure of Germany's Bertelsmann company (family), one of the top six mass media giants in our world?

A privately owned company, Bertelsmann is fully controlled by a single family: the Mohn family from the small town of Gütersloh in North Rhine-Westphalia. Roughly a quarter of the company’s total capital is held directly by family members, and the remaining three-quarters has been attributed to the family-run non-profit organization, the Bertelsmann Foundation.

[businessprofessor]

I was in radio broadcasting through the 60's and 70's, and I can tell you that one company owning every station in town and the newspapers is bad stuff. The only viewpoint you hear is from the same source.

Times have changed with the web. There are many outlets for opinion, news, and communication. In addition, consolidation of ownership does not mean monolithic programming and opinion. I do not advocate monopolies in any factor of production. Nor do I advocate policies that would specifically encourage consolidation. Otherwise, I am open to the market structure that develops.

Stations are licensed for one reason, "public service"...the news, commercials and all that are just a sideline to pay the rent.

I do not advocate licensing of the airwaves. I prefer auctions to establish ownership. Owners will be the best stewards of the air waves, not government bureaucrats. There would be less role for regulation with ownership of the airwaves.

I certainly believe in competition. I am against government policies that restrict market development, either to encourage consolidation or to discourage consolidation (except for regulation of monopolies).

I do not see anything sinister with 4 or 5 large conglomerates in the radio business. We have the situation in other areas of communication and commerce. A number of factors influence industry structure including barriers to entry and industry maturity. Government meddling rarely accomplishes anything useful in the long term except to raise prices, punish enemies, and reward friends.

[FrankR]

"I do not see anything sinister with 4 or 5 large conglomerates in the radio business. "

Well prof...if you don't see it, I'm not going to try to explain it any further because you don't want to see it.

I can't believe you don't advocate broadcast licensing...obviously you don't understand that either. It's technical...if you don't need a license, then everyone would be doing it, and we'd have nothing on the airwaves but gibberish in the form of channel interference.

There are treaties concerning power limits, directional rules, etc, in place to prevent this from happening with stations from countries like Mexico and Canada.

It's not a "capitalist plot" to keep the left silent, it's been in place for decades for technical reasons. I hope you're not also against non-citizen ownership of stations...if you are, Tokyo Rose would love you.

Anyway, you've got your opinion, so I'm not discussing it anymore...I'm broadcasting but your antenna is not receiving.

Goodnight America,whereever you are.

[businessprofessor]

Do you object to 4 or 5 large software companies? 4 or 5 large telecommunication companies? 4 or 5 large auto companies? In each case, I would prefer more players. However a variety of factors often leads to consolidation. I do not want government to micro manage private enterprise.

You are wrong about my understanding of licensing. I clearly understand the need to prevent interference. I promote private ownership of the radio spectrum instead of government ownership through a licensing scheme. The radio frequencies could auctioned just like the wireless spectrum is auctioned. Private ownership will promote better programming than government regulators. If radio frequencies are owned, interference will be a dispute between private parties.

I do not think that we should prohibit foreign ownership of radio frequencies. We can use war powers if there is some national emergency. We have foreign ownership of many aspects of our economy. Why should radio frequencies be different?

Our disagreement is philosophical. You want government regulators to control radio frequencies. I want private ownership to control radio frequencies. Private control will provide better stewardship. Of course, private ownership does not mean no regulations, just fewer regulations and more market decision making.