53 thoughts on “Revision of FCC Media Ownership Rules”

1. When I worked as a legal assistant at Debevoise & Plimpton, I spent a great deal of time on a media deal that was at risk because of FCC regulations. In the end, the deal was able to go through. However, the corporation had to be split into two entities (a tremendous task), and the reallocation of stock certificates for shareholders alone took me over one hundred hours over two weeks.

   I am a biased man; I don’t want anyone to have to go through that again. Yet, I truly do think easing regulations makes sense. The end of the LA Times article quoted a Congressman claiming that the FCC should do more to ensure minorities play a part in media ownership. At first glance, the further consolidation of media may seem to hinder that. However, consider that the FCC would spend much less time (and money) regulating the business structures of media conglomerates, and could devote more time towards incentivizing wider participation in the media.

   The FCC can ease regulations when it comes to ownership, but can create new regulations to encourage less biased media. For example, the commission can require media sites such as CNN.com to post a certain number of ads per day from other media outets like The Atlantic.

   In the end, people are reading what they want. Liberal readers of the New York Times don’t subscribe to the Wall Street Journal. Conservative viewers of Fox don’t tune in much to NBC. Media may set the tone for which stories are most relevant, and may even hide some that are unappealing to its reader/viewership. However, alternate ideological demand will always be present to push outlets for greater variety. If it ever became profitable for Disney to sell ABC to Comcast, NBC might become stronger. However, with the internet’s unlimited sources, and with the distinction in viewership, could we truly expect to ever be in danger of a monopolized media?

   1. In my opinion, if the FCC were to begin with deregulation for print and televised media, who is to say the same practice would not follow suit in the future when the internet is on the chopping block? There are unlimited resources that the internet provides to us all, but I can not imagine that the internet would remain free from monopolized media in the future if the FCC were to begin deregulating media outlets today. It may be many decades away, but maintaining the regulations as they stand today might be the key to retaining a monopoly free internet.

      I agree with you in that people read what they want to read, but “alternate ideological demand” does not guarantee a diversity of material broadcast. Infact, if the FCC were to begin deregulation, I believe that alternate ideological demand would have less of an impact on what media outlets provide to their consumers.

      1. THe FCC has already started deregulating the media industry or rather continues to deregulate. The prompt above stated that when the FCC reviews it’s media ownership rules, “the review is pressured to relax media ownership rules.” This happens nearly every time they have a review. Unlike television, the internet is a platform where anybody can post original ideas literally at no cost to the user. Every idea no matter how absurd or bizarre it might be, can be posted freely on the internet, where it can be accessed by anyone with a library card.

         As stated in the video lecture, the corporations owning the stations produce content catering to viewership. Though I don’t think consolidation would have positive consequences on the media industry, it’s a free market. I think they should be more worried about preventing a monopoly rather than the diversity of opinions. If the viewership wanted diverse opinions, there would be a station or show catering to that demo. Why should there be a guarantee of diversity in programming? It would be nice, but forcing the industry to cater to such dispositions would not be in accordance with free market principles. I would leave that to PBS.

      2. Craig, I think you made a good point with hypothesizing about what effect deregulation of print and television would have on the regulation of the internet. I agree that the key point is having monopoly-free media, whether it be television, newspaper, or internet.

   2. I would agree. I tend to think that less government involvement leads to greater market variability. When it comes to media, more is better. Although the argument can be made that more consolidation with less regulation leads to fewer opinions, I think the internet helps to maintain that variability.

   3. Yes, the internet is a platform for free speech. For now. Who is to say that it will remain this way for the rest of our lifetimes or even into the lifetimes of the next generation? I think that a time is coming where the internet will no longer be a platform for free speech. This is why I think that opposition to deregulation is crucial. Taking a stand and defending the federal government’s ability to restrict ownership rules and regulations for companies purchasing and owning media sources demonstrates the peoples interest in keeping our sources of information and entertainment both diverse and honest.

   4. I think your idea for new regulations is interesting. I do think that there would be substantial benefits to creating less bias per outlet. I think variety is important and there will always be that variety, but a more well rounded perspective is vital to the education of citizens.

      1. In my opinion the Federal Communications Commission needs to relax media ownership rules. I do understand it is important for everyone to have the right to promote their own belief and the public should be able to access information at their on discretion. However, limitation is needed to be in place to prevent destruction. In the video lecture presented online about this topic showed an image during World War I. a gorilla in a Prussian spiked helmet carrying off a woman. The vicious propaganda in this image put the enemy to be portrayed as an inhuman and abusing a helpless captive, which is a woman. Now that was the propaganda during the war, but a few years ago the same image was compared to a Vogue magazine cover. Instead of the gorilla carrying off the woman it was basketball star LeBron James on the cover its cover running off with a beautiful white woman. The article that spark up the controversial mention he was only the third man, and the first African American man, to gain that distinction of the Vogue cover.
         Critics went on to say Vogue was “perpetuating racial stereotypes,” depicting the “dangerous black man”. I have seen this image before without being compared side by side of the World War image photo and didn’t think anything of it beside happy thoughts of great accomplishments.

         The human brain is designed to process images, not words. There is a saying that a picture is worth a thousand words. I guess that’s why during the war that image of the gorilla was displayed because it is know that Political cartoons are among the most effective means of communication. I hope that the FCC is trying to help the Nation not limit the Nation’s citizens 1st Amendment.

   5. I think that’s the greatest flaw in the advocacy for deregulation; that less information can become public. However, I do think that we’re closer to the internet as a reliable investigative outlet than we think. The large scale media certainly has a financial and professional advantage, but in the age of information, people and events are more widely subject to ridicule than ever before. Consider what started the Arab Spring – a poor merchant in Tunisia being taken advantage of. This became public enough to encourage revolt which continues to have tremendous ripple effects throughout the region.

   6. I think it will be difficult for media outlets to advertise other media companies because it will affect their own profit. Also, they may advertise their partners and the consumer would just be reading the same information twice. However, coming up with alternatives is important so thanks for opening the discussion, Dov!

   7. I agree with you on some points, but I hate the fact that the media is split by political lines.

      I don’t think it has to be this way by default. Because these companies know they are generally allowed to appeal to a certain number of people (by virtue of statistics, and regulations in the case of television), they try to appeal to emotional/political sentiment. This is wrong.

      NPR works. PBS works. But efficient and effective news/programming doesn’t bring in the ad revenue that controversy and vitriol possibly can. I’m also huge on services like Reddit, because I believe in community ranking and preference. It allows for a wider range of views.

2. Current FCC regulations are behind the times and there is a need to relax restraints in order to better compete with an up and coming social media market. However, I do believe that deregulation of mass media markets—allowing for more of a monopoly—can only hurt the public. My concern is not so much for scandals like Big Tobacco from our lecture, but for the lack of different biases. We can all agree on the biases that currently exist—Fox News is conservative and CNN is liberal—and we come to expect a certain slant on current events depending on where we curate our information. But what we don’t expect is to only find Fox News OR CNN. More consolidation would lead to less diversity.

   I’d like to think that less regulation would be more equal, and that it would mean mass media having a fair competitive standing with newer forms of media, but the fact is that they’re different beasts altogether. Perhaps it’s best that we treat them both like we treat sports for instance. We have different rules and regulations that exist in the game of baseball that don’t pertain to football. A home-run and a touchdown mean different things, and the manner in which they’re attained are different. But we do expect the same regulations on players of different sports—performance enhancing drugs as an example.

   Does the FCC regulate the internet in the same manner it regulates mass media? Maybe we’re allowing a performance enhancing double standard.

   1. In our country, its not the formation of monopolies that’s illegal, its the elimination of the competition that’s illegal, which I believe would ultimately be the outcome if Comcast and Time Warner Cable were to be allowed to merge in the near future. It would be the beginning of the end, which is why I think the FCC wants to step back and let a judge to rule on the decision.

      Expecting the same regulations on media outlets to be applied to the internet is unrealistic in my opinion considering the internet, when compared to the other forms of media, very new. Newsprint, radio, and television outlets have been around and regulated for many years while the internet is still the new kid on the block.

      1. That’s a great point, Craig. Capitalism touches every aspect of our society and the media is not exempt. The internet may make it easier to access other media outlets (i.e., television, newspaper, magazines, etc.) but has not replaced them.
         It will be interesting to see the future of the internet in the next decade and century.

   2. I agree that lack of different biases would be very dangerous to the public. An extreme, literary example of this can be found in Fahrenheit 451, with the interactive tvs on the walls of the living room. When you have absolutely no access to diversity of opinion, you are very uninformed. Deregulation would lead to monopoly, and the consumer would suffer.

      1. Television and internet media cannot be compared and I completely agree that in terms of regulation, they need to treated completely differently. Diverse perspectives are important and though might not be readily available on television, the internet offers the element of an open forum.

   3. I really like your sports analogy. It seems like the perfect comparison. There are base line regulations, but there is an understanding that it may not make sense to control different types of media or different outlets in the same way. And I do think you’re right, that baseline should be applied across media, including the internet.

   4. Ryan, I think you make strong points in your views. Like most of us, you want to believe that capitalism will work. But…you see that unlimited freedom for large corporation won’t do anything to help the general public gain access to more news with less slant.

      I think the FCC’s recent regulation of the internet through net neutrality is a great step in the right direction. It prevents the internet from growing into another playing field for big corporations.

      I do also agree that the rules can be different for different formats. Unfortunately, newspapers are dying, and there seems to be little to save an industry bound to be replaced by the internet. We seem to be trending towards a society where we can pick and choose what we want to hear/see – and I think that’s a good thing.

   5. Ryan, you bring up a great point, if less regulations wouldn’t cause fewer forms of media, and wouldn’t allow huge companies to merge and essentially cause monopolies or in the least less diversity, maybe deregulation wouldn’t be that bad. Unfortunately we do not live in perfect world of mega billionaires being nice. As you point out we live in a world where double standards are prevalent and deregulating will lead to even more corruption, with the viewer/consumer suffering.

   6. I agree with you on the current FCC being behind time, but then again are they really behind time or just want to be in the dark. It is clear that without some type of increase in regulation from the FCC there will be no fair competitive standing. I believe that any shape of monopoly can hurt the public.

3. I don’t believe it makes sense at this time for the FCC to relax its media ownership rules. I believe that deregulation is necessary in order to guarantee a diversity of news sources for the American public. Allowing consolidation of media outlets would prohibit the introduction of new beliefs and ideas to the audiences around the country. It is ultimately up to our politicians to enforce and guard the existing ideals of our democratic society, and supporting the elimination of platforms for different groups of people to speak sounds anti-democratic in principle. With the dominance of overwhelmingly powerful conglomerates regarding media ownership, the FCC’s role now is more important than ever in protecting “the little guys” rights and freedoms as well as public interests.

   FCC regulations ensure that no one media outlet becomes overly influential over the American people and their beliefs. Personally, I don’t see the issue that people have with the FCC regulating media outlets. It’s already common knowledge (and kind of a joke that) in our country that we can’t turn on any of the major networks and expect news that isn’t tainted with some kind of hidden agenda in one way or another. Do we really want to exacerbate that by allowing these corporations to push around the American people and spit on one of the fundamental ideologies we as Americans take pride in, our right to choice or basically the spirit of democracy?

   1. second line **Regulation (NOT deregulation)

4. Great point Annette, on the two-step flow theory having an impact on our internet resources. New online journalism seems to be a way to mitigate negative effects of deregulation, however most online resources are simply aggregators of news or tied directly to mass media.

5. I have to agree. Deregulation seems to provide a lot of advantages for the multi-billion dollar corporations ( whose primary concern is their bottom line) and not many for the masses of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens out there. If deregulation is going to move forward with public support, than someone needs to explain to the voters how this would benefit them because from where I sit, it appears that deregulation would allow for over-sized conglomerates to become wealthier, more influential, and less-concerned with the interests of their consumers.

   1. Craig just tune into your local news! They will lay out all of the benefits of deregulation in discreet bits between advertisements.

      “..and in consumer news buying GE lightbulbs reverses global warming, back to you Brian.”

6. I believe the FCC should not deregulate. In fact, I think it might be beneficial for the FCC to begin regulation of internet news publication ownership. Since some are of the opinion that the FCC behaves as though the internet does not exist, I believe this is an opportunity for the FCC to address this deficit.

   The public may be able to access multiple sources of information on the internet, but they might not know where the information is coming from. The FCC should create an ownership percentage structure, similar to what exists for radio, print, and television media, for internet media. Since most print, radio, and television media outlets have their own websites, it seems as though proponents of deregulation are just scared that the internet will take away their ability to frame the news and control the dialogue.

   With a deregulated media market, news will be treated as more of a business (although it already is treated this way) than a dissemination of information to the public. Deregulation will decrease legitimacy in the field and limit the amount of different opinions the public can experience. With fewer opinions, the public will not get the full picture when formulating opinions on current events.

   1. Megan I agree with you when you say that the media market is treated as a business. Unfortunately, many news outlets – or their owners – are not concerned with presenting relevant information to the public, but with presenting information that will increase their ratings, even if it’s not too relevant.
      Deregulating the market would just allow big corporations to continue to profit from this business and eliminate those players that are not rich or influential enough to compete. This is definitely one of those cases where more capitalism is not necessarily good.

7. Great point on the Two Step Theory, Annette! I agree that there are definitely members of the internet news media that act as opinion leaders. Earlier in the semester, we discussed how the internet is not necessarily the best deliberative tool since it facilitates the beginnings of discussions, but does not necessitate that they continue – or even end. This incomplete, fleeting nature of internet behavior alone should pacify media outlets. While the public is able to utilize the internet and search for more information, they aren’t engaging and buying into the stories the way they do with television, radio, and print personalities.

8. I am not very familiar with this topic, but from reading the article from the LA Times, I have a couple of thoughts:
   The article mentions that 10 companies own 700 local television stations across the county. That is with regulation. This obviously means that there are only 10 big companies that basically influence all of the information everyone in the country has access to on TV. Even though there is a trend towards the Internet, there are still millions of people that rely on TV news for access to information. So what would happen with deregulation? Probably the biggest of the 10 companies would take ownership of even more TV and radio stations, and basically end up with a monopoly on information.

   On the other side, the influence of the Internet and other sources of information cannot be understated. Yes, it is true that the same companies that own TV and radio stations own websites that present the same information. But no one is restricted from accessing any website in this country, so even if a few influential companies have a monopoly on information, the public is free to explore other public sources. The question is, how willing are we to question the information we receive, or search for different sources in order to get accurate and objective information?

9. I always knew the FCC existed, but I don’t think I understood the types of regulations and controls that existed. I do think there needs to be some regulation to ensure that there is diversity amongst news sources, enabling the public the potential to get their information from a wider variety of sources. Limiting those sources would limit the information, factual or otherwise, absorbed by the public.

   I think that it is important to note that sources don’t just between liberal and conservative. An important part of diversity is the range of digestabilibty. Some sources are hard hitting, intense and very political. Other sources are softer, more easily viewed by some populations, but still laced with the important news stories. I think that it is vital that both types of outlets continue to exist. Without one or the other, there may be a loss of viewership, resulting in a less informed public.

   Similarly, I used to work as a cold caller collecting contact information from newspapers. Most were no longer reachable. We all know that print media is dying, but I think it is a tragedy that local news is dying with it. I think it would be a shame if this trend continues because of monopolization.

   1. “I always knew the FCC existed, but I don’t think I understood the types of regulations and controls that existed.” Amen.

      1. ^^ Double amen to that.

         Emma, your comment about the range of diversity in news outlets not only ranging from political ideologies, but also to the range of digestibility is really insightful. I agree that a full range on all fronts should exist to contribute to a more informed citizenry.

10. Regarding the Two Step Flow Theory, who exactly do we consider opinion leaders? Is it journalists? News anchors? websites? Friends or family? Either way, aren’t they all at some point getting information from somewhere, or passing on their personal opinions? So how can the public get truly objective access to information?

    1. The question of whether there is truly objective access to information is a very interesting one. Is there information that does not contain any bias at all? Do the opinion leaders, whether they are the Twitter accounts of celebrities who are followed by millions of fans, or prominent nightly news anchors, really have news or information that is truly, fair, balanced and unbiased?

11. That’s an interesting point that I hadn’t considered. I do think that internet opinion leaders have a greater edge in finding information than simply expounding from media sources. However, if the theory holds, and despite the massive resource that is the internet, information has to start somewhere. We’re all capable of investigating matters of our own interest, but how much of the information really comes from our own fact finding, and how much comes from what we’ve heard?

    1. I think this discussion of the two-step theory and of opinion leaders is interesting, especially considering the trend of news becoming more snippet-centric, e.g. Twitter and The Skimm. Considering this trend, as the number of characters opinion leaders have to relay news in decreases, I think opinion leaders gain more influence.

12. I think that the FCC should not relax media ownership rules. These FCC regulations serve as a powerful symbol of what this country values; ensuring that minority opinions have an opportunity to be expressed. These regulations show that the US government is placing protecting minority opinions above protecting business interests.

    Granted, this is an ideal that is much easier to state than to put into practice. After all, it is very challenging for smaller stations (PBS) and publications to compete with media giants. The time and resources PBS spends on fundraising can certainly be better spent on creating programming. However, I think that this statement is a very important and worthy one to make.

13. In practice, I agree with Dov, when he asks, “Can we truly ever expect to be in danger of a monopolized media?”.

    As we learned in the video, the relationship between media and individual thought is not one-sided. The media certainly influences the way people think and what they think about (through agenda setting). However, people can also influence what the media presents. For, example certain publications and news channels, as a way to get more sales or ad revenue, will pander to many different audiences and present stories that align with their view points via different arms of the same company.

    I think that the FCC regulations more strongly serve as a symbol of what our country values than as an effective means of preserving diverse viewpoints in the media.

14. The media has to be regulated to avoid monopolizing the market and misinforming the public. If knowledge is power, s/he who controls knowledge is the one in charge. The fact that certain media outlets want to change this regulation just highlights its importance. They are aware that controlling the story will shape how decisions are made in this country, in everything from elections, public policy , court cases and even laws. An educated consumer will read multiple media sources to formulate an opinion and that will not be possible if there is only one source of information.

    I read multiple newspapers and magazines in both in English and Spanish, the latter especially important because different languages provide different perspectives as a result of historical and cultural influence. The public should have access to different sources of information to 1) educate 2) promote involvement in social matters and 3)because an educated society is a better and more peaceful society.

    1. Ysmeli, I think it’s very interesting what you said about the importance of foreign (i.e. non-English) language journalism in contributing to a complete picture about the world. I have a friend who works as an editor at HuffingtonPost, where she selects which foreign-language HuffPo articles should be translated and published for the American audience. An editor like that is often the only link between American readers (who are predominantly monolingual – English only) and important stories about foreign news, or culturally-specific US news. So I think not only should an educated consumer read multiple media sources on a similar issue, but I think an educated consumer should read foreign-language materials as well, if they can read a foreign language.

15. I, too, wasn’t very familiar with the intricacies of FCC regulation, so this topic was largely new for me to digest. In response to the prompt about whether or not it makes sense for the FCC to relax media ownership rules, I believe further deregulation should not be put into effect. Despite the research presented in the lecture from Gentzkow and Shapiro positing that media slant isn’t so much driven by ownership as much as it is driven by readership, I still stand by less deregulation so that smaller and more diverse news outlets are put in less jeopardy.

    In the LA Times article, Congresswoman Eshoo’s comment particularly resonated with me: “We need to examine this in terms of what consolidation is actually going to do for the American people.” The central issue her statement brings to light is whether the debate is about “better business models for media companies or serving democracy.” I think that re-framing the debate may be helpful in debunking some of the politics and special interests involved.

16. The media has a privileged role in influencing our perspective and the media is similarly influenced by what the viewers wish to see. Deregulating would not be doing any favors in terms of promoting diversity, but with the mediums available to the public to promote diverse opinions are available to everybody regardless of economic standing.

    If the government decides diverse content is important to the public, the obligation should be on them to provide it. This might be a little hard-lined, but I don’t see why corporations should be forced produce content that will not be profitable.

17. Craig, I disagree with your comment about how, ” Expecting the same regulations on media outlets to be applied to the internet is unrealistic”. The FCC is now grappling with how to regulate the data on the internet.

    Internet providers are trying to charge websites for access to internet users. For example, Comcast can ask websites to pay a fee so that internet users can access their website at a quicker rate. A website with a huge budget like Facebook can pay for better access to internet users and make it more frustrating for consumers to access their competitor’s website. The chances that your message will be heard, if you don’t have a big budget, will be much smaller.

    If this is allowed to happen, the internet will no longer be a democratic platform for ideas that is open to all. You can read more about this in this linked article:

    http://www.cnet.com/news/how-net-neutrality-helped-kill-the-comcast-time-warner-cable-merger/

    The recent net neutrality ruling by the FCC banned the following three practices.

    “No Blocking: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.

    “No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.

    “No Paid Prioritization: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration — in other words, no ‘fast lanes.’ This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates. (http://www.fcc.gov/openinternet)

    We will have to wait to see how successful this policy will be at keeping the internet a democratic and free platform.

18. I think that if the FCC relaxes the current rules of ownership, then it will actually hurt the viewing audience because there will be less diverse viewpoints being broadcast. This would then lead to a less-informed public. I agree with the opinion of the president of the Newspaper Guild Communications Workers of America which concluded that more concentration of the media ownership would lead to less credible news. This is tied to something from Professor Hoffman’s video lecture that said that having these opposing viewpoints and biases available to the listening or viewing audience, would eventually cancel out the biases. If, for example, in a small market a company could buy a broadcast station that is widely viewed and a newspaper that is widely circulated, then there is the potential for a monopolizing effect and the audience getting their information from only one biased perspective.

    At the same time, I do understand the opinions of the Committee members who are looking at the financial interests of these corporations, especially for print publication that has struggled with the competition from internet-based news and special-interest cable news stations.

19. I don’t know how I feel about the FCC regulation updates/lack thereof. I simply don’t have a preferred U.S. television news network – save perhaps for PBS (occasional news) and the BBC (not American). For radio, I also turn to the public provider, this time National Public Radio, which I think is the most honest and universal source of news in this country – save for comedy news reporters. I believe John Oliver was the only host to interview Edward Snowden recently, to talk about the crumbling American infrastructure, to discuss elected judges…and he is also clearly not American.

    The future of media (and of the news in general) lies in viewer-chosen material. I foresee a future where something like Netflix will be available for the news as well. In fact, services that offer streaming chosen by viewers are already in effect. Services like Reddit are even more crucial to public understanding. A forum where people can rank content, Reddit is the ultimate viewer’s choice. It also includes many of the other traditional media formats as a part of its content, via access to virtually any internet link.

    The FCC must be commended for its role in guaranteeing net neutrality. This will be a big win for advocates of public use for the internet. In effect, the stance of the FCC prevents big business from doing to the internet what has happened to television. Either way, I am strongly opposed to any over-large conglomerates. Size breeds inefficiency, sameness: a systematic oppression that prevents us from questioning the status quo because the conglomerates thrust the views of the status quo down the throat of the everyday viewer/consumer.

    1. Krzys, I strongly agree with what you are saying about protecting the internet. I will, however, have to take issue with reddit. It’s dangerous to think of social media sites as news outlets. The reddit community doesn’t have due diligence standards, they don’t have multiple sources confirming facts before they are posted, and no one is accountable for libelous statements when the community gets it wrong. Reddit detectives tried to solve the Boston bombing the 2013, which resulted in death threats for many innocent people accused by r/FindBostonBombers.

20. The FCC relaxing media ownership rules should not occur. While the FCC is still regulating T.V channels, ownership of different networks, prohibiting a T.V. station from owning a newspaper and so on, it give competition a chance. It allows people to read different views and watch a variety of T.V channels built on competing opinions. Though news for example does not change, the way it is presented can greatly differ between stations and newspapers. Deregulating FCC media ownership can put great strains on that. Allowing media ownership to combine will cause monopolies to try to form, become media giants and try to take over media. The wonderful thing about the media being separated is being able to watch different channels and form an opinion based on different views and different ways the same information is portrayed. Only a select number of views will be present, this will conform society from seeing things through different lights and different views. I agree with the L.A Times article that media giants should not be allowed to get even bigger. We as citizens need diversity and need our people to be exposed to differing thoughts and ideas in order for us to be able to build our own opinions. Combining media will lead to media giants, similar opinions, and ultimately one media giant, and thats something we cannot allow.

21. Although I think the FCC rules on broadcast ownership are largely outdated because they do not account for media delivered through the internet, which is a huge proportion of all media, I generally disagree that the ownership rules should be relaxed to allow for greater consolidation in broadcast media such as TV and Radio. I believe that maintaining legitimate competition in the information sphere is essential to keep news agencies credible and relatively balanced, rather than just a mouthpiece for a particular political viewpoint.

    From growing up in Ukraine, I know first hand what it is like to have a media landscape where everyone knows that a handful of channels or newspapers are owned and controlled by one “oligarch” and a handful of other channels or newspapers are controlled by a rival “oligarch.” The citizens start to doubt that the news that is being reported (or not reported) isn’t influenced entirely by the owner’s business or political interests. And that creates public disinterest and skepticism in hearing about the news at all. So I think that that the FCC rules were put into place to prevent this kind of media consolidation, and while the FCC should periodically reconsider altering some rules (for example, to account for new or changing broadcast technologies), I don’t think that every four years, there should be a loosening of these important rules.

    I believe that the FCC’s “net neutrality” rules may be an even more important set of principles, as Diane suggested, since the internet is increasingly the dominant medium.

    1. Olena, you are right. I also agree with you that deregulation would be a terrible backwards step into the stone ages (so to speak). I witness my grandparents now watching the one Russian news channel they have access to and believing in every word that is said. Granted grandparents are impressionable and the next generation, my parents laughing at what and how Russian news is reported and not believing a word. This is exactly what would happen if deregulation are set in place by the FCC in America. Now granted we only have access to one or two Russian news channels in America but this just proves the outcomes even more. You mentioned in Ukraine the whole nation only has access to pretty much the same views so you either believe it don’t but you don’t have the option of a differing story.

22. For decades now our country has suffered due to the corporatization of so many aspects of our every day lives, not least of which is the media. I can’t see the upside relaxing any of the laws as they pertain to the media, that could prevent the further consolidation of various outlets. If anything stricter regulations might be favorable to take the media back from corporate owners and for-profit models.

    BUT, the same reasons that broadcast news and, increasingly, print media are becoming more consolidated and less reliable, they are also becoming increasingly irrelevant. I don’t know anyone under sixty who watches the 24-hour news networks unironically. Local news has been a joke for long time. Comedians like John Stewart, Steven Colbert, and John Oliver have done an excellent job of putting the media’s feet to the fire, and while the reaction has not been for the media to fix what is broken, it has shined a light on the whole terrible business and exposed it for what it is.

    People are turning more and more to the internet for their news. The internet has really evened the playing field for the “print” medium. Alternative news magazines are available to anyone and are no longer constrained by circulation, and many times can operate ad-free. People have access to independent broadcasters, as well as foreign news services and are able to really educate themselves on the issues that are important to them in a much more efficient way than the old model could ever provide. So no I don’t think the FCC should relax any of its rules to provide any more profitability to a broken, irrelevant media. They could replace the nightly network news shows with 30 minutes of Franklin, and I don’t think anyone would be less aware of what was going on in the world.

23. Rep. Anne Eshoo’s comment that deregulation would benefit big media but not the public is accurate in my opinion, the issue should not be whether a company is losing money or not but whether there is enough diversity in media. She also pointed out that 10 companies own 700 local stations, and in my opinion, to consolidate that even more would severely go against diversity in media.
    And Waldens comment that media ownership rules persist as if the media didn’t exist, well, It unfortunately still does not exist to a large aging population. My parents get their information from tv and a fresh printed newpaper, and they are probably amongst many million aging retired baby boomers who do the same. Democracy should come first before higher business revenue for a few companies from more mergers.
    That being said, the one thing that really stood out to me from the video lecture was that big media companies have it in their interest to not swing one way politically because if they do they will lose the market share of the opposing political party. After all media is a business and not a money losing strategy to promote politics….I hope atleast.
    So to sum up, I am torn because If my last paragraph is true, you could theoretically have 1 media company and still have diversity, but that is assuming that politics won’t try to buy out that one company. In other words, let’s say you have deregulation and one political party has more money than the other they could throw money at that big media company to sway more towards their agenda.
    That’s why i have no earthly idea what to do here!

24. Oh and to add to this, I believe as long as the media isn’t state owned and we have more than one station in the country, we’ll be okay….wink wink..north korea

25. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) sets limits on the number of broadcast stations (radio and TV) an entity can own, as well as limits on the common ownership of broadcast stations and newspapers. As required by Congress, the FCC reviews its media ownership rules every four years to determine whether the rules are in the public interest and to repeal or modify any regulation it determines does not meet this criteria

    For decades, the Federal Communications Commission has imposed strict limits preventing any company from controlling too many media properties in the same market. These limits were established to ensure that communities have choices of newspapers and local TV and radio stations.

    Congress requires the FCC to take a hard look at the rules every four years to determine whether they still serve the public interest. If they don’t, the FCC has to rewrite them.

    Newspaper readers and advertisers have migrated to the Internet, where a lot of content is free and advertising costs less. As a result, newsrooms have shrunk and newspapers have sought bankruptcy protection or shut down. Television broadcasters are suffering too as cable, satellite TV and the Internet splinter audiences and siphon ad dollars _ forcing stations to seek new revenue streams and even raising questions about the future of free, over-the-air TV.
    Now, as the FCC kicks off its latest review, it faces calls to pare the limits because traditional media companies are no longer the almighty players that they were when the ownership rules were first enacted.
    Against this backdrop, media companies argue that the FCC’s ownership limits no longer make sense and should be relaxed, or even scrapped, so that the companies can get bigger in order to better compete and survive.

Comments are closed.