Give 'em Zell! ... While You Still Can, etc.
Matt Welch | December 18, 2007, 5:57pm
The good news: The FCC will now allow big-market media companies to own both a newspaper and broadcast station; at least as long as the market is one of the biggest 20 in the country, and any television station would be no bigger than the fifth-most popular.
The bad news: Why the F*CC are we even talking about this in 2007?
The worse news: If a Democrat wins the presidency, Democrats will run a majority on the FCC board. And here's the kind of nonsense Commission Democrats are saying:
"The FCC has never attempted such a brazen act of defiance against Congress," said [Jerome] Adelstein, in his comments. "Like the Titanic, we are steaming at full speed despite repeated warnings of danger ahead. We should have slowed down rather than put everything at risk."
"Today's story is a majority decision unconnected to good policy and not even incidentally concerned with encouraging media to make our democracy stronger," said [Michael] Copps[.]
In 2004, reason interviewed then-FCC Chair Michael Powell, and contributor Ben Compaine demolished the hoary myth of the "media monopoly." Also check out this FCC/ownership two-fer by Jesse Walker from 2003.
LarryA | December 19, 2007, 12:08pm | #
If they had to nuke Hollywood to ensure better media, I don't think they should do (so).
I can think of some other reasons to nuke them, though, so go ahead.
However, if the regulation at issue is merely that various newspapers, radio stations and newspapers must remain relatively small and highly independent, then I say that it is a regulation fairly tailored to the objective at hand and its relative importance.
Newspapers used to be independent because they had different viewpoints. A major city, or even a large town, would have a conservative paper, a liberal paper, a socialist paper, a populist paper, etc. The golden age of yellow journalism.
Then journalism schools turned to preaching fairness and objectivity, and everyone was supposed to report the news “without bias.” Given that that translates into every newspaper sounding like every other paper, the multiple papers became unnecessary.
I remember the waning days of the San Antonio Light, before the SA Express-News drove it out of business. The major competition between the two publications was in the size of their Wingo-Bingo prizes, and the major content difference was which comic strips they carried.
Journalism school killed far more newspapers than corporation buyouts ever did.
if I can't easily find a writer whose information and/or opinions I like, then that is a bigger problem
Marketing of newspaper columns is controlled by the syndication process, over which the FCC has no control. Marketing of news content is controlled by the Associated Press, also outside FCC control. You have your money on the wrong agency.
Most of this is predicated on the supposition that if one company owns both a paper and a television station, that company will have an inordinate amount of control over news coverage.
Since they both feed off Associated Press, who owns the paper and station is largely irrelevant.
Note that I live in a rural Texas county (pop. c 40,000) with three newspapers, a daily AP organ and two local news weeklies.
Disclaimer: My wife writes all the non-sports news and takes most of the non-sports photos for one of the weeklies.
