Is there a specific reason that the FCC has for making these changes? I'm assuming it's interest group-related, but I was wondering if there was more to it than that. I've done a search, albeit cursory, and haven't found anything particularly informative on the FCC's stance.
Also, I was under the impression that this (or something similar but not as sweeping) was already in effect. In Seattle, for instance, there is one parent company (Entercom) that controls (or holds controlling interest) in many of the popular AM and FM stations stations (though they only fully control four or five). The only regulation is that no stations owned by the same parent company can have the same programming format.
So I'm curious as to what specifically this move will change.
I haven't read the proposed rule changes myself, but this is from the link I posted above:
"The rule changes could allow your local TV stations, newspaper, radio stations, and cable provider to all be owned by one company. NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox could have the same corporate parent. The resulting concentration of ownership could be deeply destructive to our democracy."
The FCC is a governmental body (www.fcc.gov), and as such they are supposed to be impartial. However, I hae no idea how they are appointed or who they are accountable to - for all I know the members are all major shareholders in AOL-Time-Warner.
The proposal being decided is one that would make the same rules that currently apply to ownership of radio stations (changed in 1997 - which now allow for multiple ownership of stations within a single market) apply to television as well.
The main criticism against this form of deregulation is that it allows for the creation of a monopoly, thus limiting the viewpoints available to the consumer. Take radio, for example. Since the deregulation of radio stations (it used to be that a single company could only own a maximum of 28 radio stations total) the Clear Channel corporation has amassed over 1500 independent radio stations, many of which are in the same market. This has resulted in the homogenization of radio, as the same DJs play the same (short) playlists of songs everywhere, the same talk radio is broadcast everywhere, and the diversity of radio has suffered as a result. In addition, it has limited availability of differing political opinions - Clear Channel has an interest in the Republican party, and the corporation sponsored and organized several "pro-war" rallies in the time leading up to the war in Iraq. Their syndicated, nationally broadcast talk radio includes such arch-conservatives as Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, but does not include a single voice who could be considered left of center.
The example of Clear Channel is one that people against deregulation of markets continually refer to, but it represents what many believe to be the worst case scenario for a particular medium, and the hope is that will not be the case in television as well.
-mike
Originally posted by richjohnsonI hate to tell you this, but they already can. There is one company in Pittsburgh that owns 3 radio stations (2 FM, 1 AM). I think that 3 is the limit. Maybe they are going to raise the limit.
On 2 June 2003 the FCC is going to vote on whether to allow multiple media outlets in the same market to be owned by a single company.
Do you think that is a good idea?
http://www.moveon.org/