A 3-2 Decision

As everyone predicted, the Federal Communications Commission voted today to revise its media ownership regulations. Details to follow…

Update: You can read the FCC's summary of the new rules here.

Comments

[Dam Strait]

Having just read the FCC's self-serving obfuscation, I can only sigh and lie back in the tall grass to wait to see what happens here outside the rabbit hole.

Judging by the sophisticated sophistry the FCC calls its "Diversity Index," however, I can also guess that we, as radio consumers, are all going to be bent over the nearest piece of furniture and driven home.

[junyo]

Of course, maybe there really ARE some previously good stations since ruined by Clear Channel...?

106.5, the late, lamented Buzz, in Richmond, VA. Started as an alt rock station, with DJ's that played everything, old, new, off format. Then CC bought 'em, promised not to change the format, next thing you know, you're getting the Sugercubes songs fading into Britney Spears. Then it went country, then adult contemporary. Last I heard it was hip hop...

[FM/AM]

Yes, radio does indeed suck. I live in DC. Everything here is bad and I don't know who the culprit is. What I do know is that Internet radio is spectacular, better than the good ol' days of radio. XM is equally good. Consider the suck of radio as an evolutionary step for communications. XM would probably be a total failure if not for the ineptitude of its AM/FM competition.

[Jough]

If only Clearchannel would buy out NPR for the sake of diversity...

http://www.detnews.com/2003/entertainment/0305/30/c01-178421.htm

[twistedmerkin]

FM/AM beat me to the punch. It seems to me that the FCC is in the business of regulating businesses based on obsolete technology. Don't like clearchannel? Try satelite radio, or internet radio. Don't like the phone company? Try the cable company, or get a cell phone. Broadcast TV has cable, cable has satelite. Maybe in a year or 2, someone will offer internet radio over Wi-Fi. The technology is constantly changing, yet the FCC stands still.

[Jag]

Exactly. Cable TV became so big because the regulated networks didn't offer what people wanted.

Try WorldSpace satellite radio.

[Lazarus]

twistedmerkin & Jag: Now you guys are onto something. Of course I am still waiting for the standard whining crap about "rights" to diversity etc etc, quotes from the Founders on "Constitutional" media, how this is all a neocon plot, etc etc

I will enjoy this while it lasts. Any other ideas about how technology, markets and other non-governmental activities will find ways to get around the FCC and satisify the tastes of listeners/viewers? Any other ideas for the here and now?

[JDM]

Sooner than most people think, unregulated wireless Internet bandwidth is going to replace cell phone towers, radio towers, and the rest of the liscenced spectrum. At least in urban areas, and at least until the feds figure out that they're losing licensing dollars...

[Lefty]

"Twenty years ago, a book dealing with the needs of democracy for news diversity vs. the needs of media corporations to fatten their bottom lines listed over fifty corporations as major media players. A more recent edition of the book had the number down to ten. Today's FCC decision probably will shrink that down to five. Clearly, this is harmful to the democratic process, for without news diversity, our leaders, with the help of the media, can manipulate our citizens to believe most anything." - from Bushnews.com

It's no surprise that 40% of Americans believe Saddam Hussein was behind 911 or that secondhand smoke is as dangerous as smoking. As the media corporations consolidate and continue finalizing their marriage with Congress we're staring straight into the face of de facto government control of the news.

[Lazarus]

Only less than an hour of bliss...

Lefty: And yet you seem to find your precious factoid with relative ease. So what is to stop Joe Sixpack from surfing over to Anti-Chimpy.com for the latest cut and paste job from Noam Chomsky on how the evil corporations are brainwashing us?

Ahh yes, the standard leftist rant about the stupid American sheep too dumb to understand this esotoric truth. If the average American is too stupid to think for himself when CHOOSING which programing to consume, how is he intellegent in the first place to partake in the precious Democratic Process?

(This just reeks of the party line of the Chomskyites: You - yes you the American reading this - are TOO STUPID to know the media is LYING to you. Only I, Noam Chomsky, High Priest of the Truth, can lead you to salvation from the corporations)

Obviously I am annoyed by your typical left-elitist tone. However, let us hear your solution to the quandry you propose: Is it less or more regulation? If you choose the first, I will laugh at your futile efforts but respect your intentions. If it is the second, I will just laugh at your ignorence.

[Brian]

In markets with five or more TV stations, a company may own two stations, but only one of these stations can be among the top four in ratings.

So if I own two of the five stations in my market, one of them always has to be last in the ratings? Does that mean I have to make it intentionally suck? Do I forfiet ownership if I can't keep people from watching?

Just wondering.

[joe]

So in other words, Laz, a constant stream of government approved propaganda dominating the most accessible, popular media isn't dangerous for democracy, as long as highly motivated people who know there are other media and know how to find it have the opportunity to dig around until they hit upon it.

So what if the state gives a prominent location and a ton of preservation money to the Christian Church? If you go into the bad neighborhood and know exactly which side street to look on, you can find a mosque. See - neutrality!

[PLC]

JDM - only in your dream$

[PLC]

The business case has already been made. Top people (geniuses really) are overcoming the techincal hurdles AS WE SPEAK.

[JDM]

errr...

PLC,

The business case has already been made. Top people (geniuses really) are overcoming the techincal hurdles AS WE SPEAK.

[Lazarus]

It is isn't dangerous to democracy at all, in fact it is a key feature of democratic societies. Government-approved content is POPULAR by the choice of the consumer.

[Dean]

Let me give the executive summary of why radio should not have been ruined-- radio is free. We can tune into the spectrum for no charge. The spectrum belongs to the local community for local broadcast messages. Deregulation has forced consumers seeking qualifty alternatives to _pay_ for those alternatives, when what they wanted _used_ to be freely available.

The origin of AM/FM deregulation was that a group of media conglomerates complained that they were being denied an opportunity to get rich off of radio consolidation because the laws made it more practical to keep stations in local hands.

Now, anyone here is free to leap to the defense of media conglomerates' rights to enrich themselves and their shareholders by exploiting the the cross-ownership of radio spectrum, but let's not pretend that this is about consumers.

[cinquo]

dean, thanks for clearing up what dis is about...gimme gimme gimme!!! i want to listen to weirdo music that doens't draw a dime of advertising for free

[PLC]

JDM - the second PLC was not me.

[PLC]

Oh, I get it - was it you?

[Croesus]

Someone made a comment about no one watching local TV programming; well, local news broadcasts have been and continue to be one of the most porfitable time slots for TV stations. Local broadcasters make oodles of boodle during the hour before the national news is broadcast, and during the half-hour slot before Letterman, etc. This is why a local anchorperson can often make far more money working say at the Denver affiliate of NBC than working for NBC itself (there only rivals are generally folks like Tom Brokaw). Anyway, people tend to underestimate the profitability of local news programs and morning shows.

[PLC]

Will the real PLC please stand up?

[Lefty]

It's ignorance, Laz, not ignorence.

I guess I'm more bothered by the spooning of corporations and government than by letting markets do their thing. The system ordinarily works fine when an independent body fairly regulates, in this instance, the public airwaves.
But that's not what's happening.

For instance, according to the Center for Public Integrity, the FCC members took 2,500 trips, 330 to Las Vegas, paid for by the corporations they regulate. Now the FCC came down with a ruling favorable to those corporations. I think any reasonable person would say that's crap.

When I click from one channel to the next I see the very same news du jour on every station. It's a perfect situation for a competitor to move in with an alternative but the financials and politics of it prevent the entrepreneur from having a go. It's a closed system that's getting even more closed.

Slackers like you and I evidently have the time or inclination to surf around and search out different views. But mass media sets the table and makes out the menu. All those other views are merely the diners.

[Dean]

yes, cinquo, if _public_ spectrum regulations promote the existence of a large variety of low-cost local programming that I and my neighbors, have easy access to, then that is more important than the regulatory demands of ClearChannel shareholders.

Can you explain why I should care more about ClearChannel's shareholders than I should about how the programming on _our_ local spectrum that _our_ radios receive in _our_ region is managed? The fact that a few big companies let up a whine that they can't buy as much as they want is not a particular concern of mine.

[Lazarus]

Lefty: Thanks for the spellcheck. Anyway, you are slowing grasping a natural law, the fallacy and impossiblity of "public" ownership. Good for you.

Mass media is for the masses, and no doubt the masses like it that way. Sometimes people just want a consistent, hot cheeseburger to stuff their face in a hurry. Good for them.

Thinking people will continue buy music they like (gettting easier!), debate and read different viewpoints (as we do here via blogging), etc. The herd will continue to feed on propaganda and companies will continue (justly) to serve that market.

[cinquo]

you are not the public dean! who appointed you the spokesperson for all the people you claim to speak for! be honest about your greed at least! my city has a community run channel (non-govenment and non-corporate) because people like me give to them while people like you whine about the quality of your FREE programming. the fact that clearchannel makes money means that _a_ _lot_ _of_ _people_ _like_ _it_!

[david f]

hey laz!

this isn't a neocon plot. it's actually a plot to bash christians, narrow-minded overzealots, big government liberals, big govt conservatives, politically correct bed wetters, and anybody else for that matter.

just wait when this gets used somehow to get bare breasts on tv. that'll really rile the thumpers...

(phew. i need a drink)
drf

[JDM]

This entire topic is very like fighting over who gets to stand on top of the turbine in the engine room of the Titanic as the water rises. The iceberg (the Internet, and the future forms of packet switched networks) has been hit. The rowboats (unlicensced, infinite wireless spectrum, orders of magnitude cheaper than current broadcast technology) are pulling away, with the smart people already on board.

(Very clever analogy, yes?)

The information superhighway is INEVITABLE. Don't sweat the FCC. There will soon be more channels available to everyone than any conglomerate or even the government could hope to control. If people watch or listen to any one corporation's content, it will be by choice.

PLC,

That was me misposting above.

[fyodor]

Oy, how I dreaded this decision and the concentrated power of homogenous whining from the Left it will bring us!!

All seriousness aside, the way the Left already describes the Media decision, one wonders how it could even get any worse!

That said, I didn't find Nick Gillespie's LA Times article very helpful. He offers up the expansion of the Big Three into the Big Four as a benefit of past deregulation, but he doesn't distinguish between the type of deregulation that reduces barriers to entry from the type of deregulation that allows mergers of existing media companies.

Ultimately, it's probably much ado about not a whole lot.

[fyodor]

Uh, make that "the way the Left already describes the Media situation..."

[dude]

It's hard to see how local TV could suck any worse than it already does. Someone explain to me why this will make it any worse. (Does anyone under 60 still watch local TV news?)

Yeah, ClearChannel ruined radio, with help from their running dog lackys in DC, but local TV is already a black hole of suck.

[fyodor]

Did Clear Channel ruin any stations that were actually good before? One of my (many) liberal friends complained about the boring content of a local Clear Channel station, and then he put in parentheses that the station was boring back when it was locally owned too. I told him he was too honest to leave that last part out, but not honest enough (with himself) to remove the parentheses and admit that the station was boring cause that's the lowest common denominator that the American public buys!!

Of course, maybe there really ARE some previously good stations since ruined by Clear Channel...?

[dude]

Holy cow, back up my grumblings with evidence? Well. . . I just seem to remember radio being a little more diverse and unruly when I was a youngster. I mean they'd play a wider range of stuff than just the same 10 songs that the suits had designated as "hits" over and over. And the songs didn't all sound the same. And you could get a station in one city and it had a different vibe than one in another. Maybe that's just nostalgia though.

Now I'm reduced to listening to NPR! But I can only take so much bluegrass and celtic music.

[Madog]

Clear Channel ruined a station that I liked for me, though it porbably benefited them and some other people. There were two good stations in the Orlando area I liked in the mid-90s, one was new rock/alternative the other was a mix of 80s and 90s rock and alternative. I liked switching between the two, since I preferred the newest songs. Then, clear channel realized there was an opening for a country station in part of the area one covered, so they reformatted it over night, and consolodated the personalities and playlists of the two stations into one. So, less choice for me, but more for those poor souls who think country is good music.

Still, the way the did it pissed a lot of people off, wake up one morning and country music is playing with no warning to either the listeners or the staff of the stations.

[HH]

"It's no surprise that 40% of Americans believe Saddam Hussein was behind 911"

Push poll...

[Anonymous]

What ever happened to Wolfman Jack?

[Gates]

To reiterate: The many disputes and objections to what just occurred at the FCC, should be an indication of what to avoid further on down the road. Let's make damn sure none of this ever happens to the Internet and related future technology.

We're now stuck with an over-legislated bureaucratic stew, because early on, newspaper and spectrum entrepreneurs ran to the hired guns on the Potomac, instead of settling matters through private contractual means.

Let?s, for a change, be a step ahead of the command-and-control freaks and other such assorted pencil-pushers, who believe that without their incessant meddling, the world will be chaos.