65 thoughts on “Revision of FCC Media Ownership Rules”

1. The FCC should not be relaxing its media rules. The rules were put in place to protect the average citizen from only hearing one side of the story. Ironically, the media itself is working to regulate the people creating their content, while also wanting them to be highly diverse. On the creative side of the media, producers will often use a series of biases (conscious and unconscious) when considering to hire you to produce their content. There are networks that you can only work at if you have previously worked there. Often times, you must have the exact experience to get the job, such as having previously worked for the network, as well as worked on the same type of show (i.e. news, drama, comedy, game show, home renovation, etc…). However, by the same token, these hiring managers will also discriminate against you if you do not have experience across multiple networks and genres. This is parallel to what the FCC is working to do, allowing a diverse audience access to diverse information.

   If you look at the news, especially the top stories, all the networks are reporting the same stories, using the same basic information. However, how they present that information is what is different. Different people respond to different types of media, and even different news anchors. There are hundreds of channels now with the expansion of cable; however many of those channels are owned by a handful of companies. If we allow the media conglomerates to absorb more media outlets we will eventually only have one voice to tell us the news.

   Every network has a target audience and specific programming to bring in the targeted viewership. Even the language you can use varies from network to network. Media outlets will not be able to compete with the internet, even if they became one large conglomerate company. The internet has greatly expanded our access to information and has brought in a variety of viewpoints from multiple sources. You are now able to get the information you want within seconds of searching, and can hear points of view from not only US reporters, but from around the world. The nature of television does not allow for such an instant dissemination of information. The internet can barely keep up with the speed at which information appears on the internet, and often gets the story wrong. How many times has Twitter falsely killed off a celebrity? The advantage of having several media outlets, as well as several viewpoints, allows the consumer to make a more informed decision about an issue. It also aids in making sure the correct information is presented to the public.

   A recent example of the need for independent media networks is to look at the recent controversy with Rolling Stone and its report of a gang rape at the University of Virginia (UVA). Rolling Stone, in an effort to protect the alleged victim, ended up not properly investigating the situation to its usual standards, resulting in the story becoming Rolling Stone’s failed reporting, and subsequent retraction, rather than the intended focus of an alleged gang rape and the problem of sexual assault that is rampant today on college campuses. The narrative has shifted the focus away from the story and instead to the reporting of the story. Now, independent researchers and reporters are now going back to find out all the facts of the story. Without having outside media reporters, who are not affiliated with Rolling Stone, we may never have found out the truth as to what happened at UVA.

   By keeping the FCC rules and allowing for a greater number of independent outlets, we are able to be a better informed public. Additionally, people have a preference to the type of news they seek, and where they seek it. Many channels have the news on at the same time in the evening, and most people have a preference for the types of stories and information they seek. Separation deters the formation of a monopoly which would then direct us to the information and news as the monopoly saw fit. By relaxing the rules, we would allow those in power to only show what they want us to hear and present it in a matter that puts the company in the best light. Cross ownership and consolidation will only lead to even greater biased reporting. Every form of media has some level of bias, and by combining ownership we would heightening one voice, while silencing many.

   1. I completely agree with you ; allowing the media to be controlled by a small group of people will lead to diluted and biased stories. Historically the media has be held to be responsible for investigative journalism but how can media be investigative if its being handled by the same media conglomerates with their own agendas

   2. Hi Michelle,

      I completely agree with your views and also believe that the FCC loosening restrictions will cause the media outlets to become a huge conglomerate of condensed views that lack much diversity. I think your Rolling Stones example demonstrates a prime example of this very situation.

   3. Michelle, I completely agree with you. The media is so biased as it is; it is often hard to trust what is presented in the media, simply because of the biased perspective of the media company. However, at least an individual has several options in terms of media, so that he can look at several different TV stations or newspapers in order to get different perspectives on the news. If only a few companies will own the media broadcasting stations, there will be only a few biased opinions represented within the media.

   4. I think you make an interesting point concerning the Rolling Stones UVA story. I think we can see several similar instances of journalistic impropriety such as the Brian Williams scandal at NBC and definitely the 60 Minutes report on Benghazi in which they were publishing the book for their alleged source. Without diverse media landscape these types of errors would be much more difficult to expose.

   5. Michelle, I think that your discussion about the Internet speaks directly to ensuring that there are many media outlets. However, I don’t see why two media outlets, especially newspapers and TV broadcasting stations, cannot be owned by the same company. As you have mentioned, newspapers are no longer commonly read by people. Therefore, why can’t a TV broadcasting company also own a small newspaper?

   6. I agree with you Michelle that the FCC should not be relaxing it’s media rules. The UVA story is a great example. Without the independent media, the truth would of not be uncovered.

   7. I completely agreed with you since we need regulations in order to make sure the news delivery is heard through both sides story and not just from one view.

2. I just finished reading a couple of articles about the Comcast TWC deal that fell apart yesterday because of regulatory issues.

   I have a couple of thoughts floating around in my head. My dad – an attorney – was deeply involved in the deregulation of the airlines in the 1980s. I remember all of the conversations about “good for the airlines” vs. “good for the consumer” – and the defining of what each idea really was. One thing that I took away from that whole era was the demise of a whole lot of smaller (and some larger) airlines as companies merged and implemented the hub system we now have (National Airlines anyone? Allegheny?)

   My understanding is that same market issues would come into play if regulatory rules were relaxed for media outlets. There would be a reshuffling and consolidating and much arguing. And probably fewer choices for consumers.

   I think this question, however, needs to be considered in conjunction with the internet. The internet is a disruptive force here. There was no technological change confronting the airlines. No time travel or space ships. Just who should own the airlines and who should control the routes. The internet is a game changer for media. I agree with whomever said that it seems that the FCC is perhaps acting like the internet is not here when reconsidering their media ownership rules.

   My husband and I are considering becoming “cord cutters” – those people who get rid of cable. I think a potentially more important question is that of open and equal access to the internet – net neutrality.

   Newspaper, radio and TV ownership issues are still important. And I still believe, in general, they should be regulated. But the issue is a bit different now. Newspapers, TV and radio are totally different delivery systems. These delivery systems are disappearing. I am old school. I listen to the radio, read the newspaper and watch TV.

   My husband, however, does it all in the same place – on his IPAD. So the question for him is not so much about the relationship between delivery system ownership but how many different sources are available to him online quickly and easily. He reads the Times but he also reads web-only sources – some owned by parents companies that own outlets in non-internet delivery systems.

   It seems to me that if net neutrality stays in effect, the issue is going to be transparency of ownership and new organizing systems. It is not going to matter as much who owns radio stations, TV stations and newspapers. It is going to be how media companies reach consumers online.

   1. We are a society that is in media overload. We also live in a highly interconnected world-we can obtain the same information in whatever format we prefer. As you mentioned, many companies own media in a variety of different outlets, making it difficult to avoid any one particular opinion. It is somewhat parallel to airlines, especially today as they can almost do what they want as we are dependent on flying to arrive at several destinations. We have to depend on the media to bring us the information that is most important, but also do our own due diligence to learn about all sides of the story.

      IPads and the expansion of technology in your pocket has made obtaining the news easier, but also made it a higher demanded commodity. We want to know it and we want to know it the second it is happening-to watch it unfold. I think it is a matter of the type of sources you are using, such as The New York Times vs a blogger, but to also know how to sift through what is researched and what is not (truth vs. “truth based”).

      The internet is a powerful force in media today, and as you commented, has become the major (and sometimes only) source of information for many people. It deserves a place at the table in this discussion. Since the lines of ownership of the internet outlets is as blurry as the ownership of the more traditional sources, it is important to have the internet be just another part of the question of diversity in media. It is crucial that all the players are identified and that the ability of the consumer to have choices is considered. As the internet is becoming a primary source of information and entertainment for people, it needs to also become a part of the bigger media conversation.

   2. I agree with the points you make. I opted out for “cord cutting method”. i tend to seek my news online. However even on my computer and iPad i turn to traditional news sources like bbc.com, cnn.com etc. I still think traditional network media outlets play a huge role even in the internet space.

   3. Hi, Rachael,
      I agree with you. It’s really not that the ownership that matters to our daily life, rather the contents that the media companies provide. The debate should be centered on the quality of products consumers get, not how many companies that consumers can choose. Provided there are plenty of small companies protected by intentional regulations, they might perform below the market standard which harms the society as a whole. Let the “invisible hand” dominate the market, governmental intervention even out of well-intention won’t flourish the market, but hinder the industry’s development.

3. My issue with FCC possibly relaxing their ownership rules is how it affects the consumers and their access to investigative journalism. A majority of the media is currently controlled by the same corporations making it harder for newer and independent voices to make their way into the media mainstream. We are losing opportunities of new ideas each time we let a large corporation own more of the media outlet. If the media is controlled by one source, it no longer media but stories told from a point of view of one person.
   In my opinion, the media currently works in a checks and balance system. One media outlet is able to put out a story but it can still be contended by another news media outlet; if the media starts being concentrated by the same owners, we are taking away the small checks and balance that is left in journalism.
   The FCC should not relax its ownership rules; big media is of course going to lobby for relaxation of ownership rules but if we let that happen, we are doing ourselves a huge disservice as consumers. Stories like the watergate scandal and Enron were only able to discovered because the media was not own by one big corporation.

   1. Irene I like your comment about the difficulty of newer and independent voices having the opportunity to have a voice in the mainstream media. I agree with you that the FCC should not relax ownership rules. Relaxing rules would allow further consolidation – imagine one huge corporation controlling the media… sounds like a sci fi movie I once saw where small pirate stations were set up to have that independent voice you spoke of. It’s important for us to have many different sources of news, think about North Korea and state controlled media.

      1. Mary, I think your analogy to North Korea is perfect. The inability for newer and independent sources to have the opportunity to have a voice in the mainstream media is terrible. It’s what makes the United States so great.

         Additionally, your point on relaxing ownership rules would allow the industry to further consolidate. This will cause one or two sources to control all media channels.

         It’s always best to get the most sources with as many view points, as possible. This allows the viewer to form their own opinion based on all the facts.

   2. Irene, I like how you incorporated checks and balances to the media system. I agree that having a large corporation own more of a media outlet does reduce the opportunity for new ideas. I think one of the best thing about television today is all of the options and different opinions and views you get when you change the channel and thats why i also agree that the FCC should not relax its ownership rules.

   3. Irene, I like what you are saying about the checks and balances system within the media industry. Whenever there is a monopoly on a certain industry, there is room for abuse. It may even mean the raising of prices within the industry, so that people have no choice but to spend a large amount on media. It is always safer to have regulation of an industry and to have several companies competing within an industry.

   4. Actually, Watergate- as a piece of investigative journalism, was possible because The Washington Post was (is) a large corporate organization. First, there was healthy (although obsessive) competition between the Times and the Post. But the Post had the resources to allow 2 full-time reporters to focus on one story that did not result in daily articles and – until almost the end – seemed like a wild goose chase. They also had the political muscle to withstand the intense pressure brought on by the federal government. A smaller, leaner organization may not have been able to make that commitment. The Post organization also owned other newspapers and TV stations at that time.

      1. This is a good point – consolidation does allow companies to have more resources. But if the companies are only pursuing more profit and are putting out junk stories instead of investigative journalism, then all the resources in the world don’t matter. Journalism falls at the crux of a public good and business venture – a very tricky place to be!

   5. Irene, it is true that there should be a system of checks and balances within the media industry. However, I also think that this system will not disappear if the FCC relaxes its cross-ownership rule for newspapers and TV broadcasting companies. There are some small newspapers that barely have any readers. Even if one company owns both the newspaper and a TV broadcasting station, there will not be a considerable reduction in checks and balances within the media industry.

   6. Irene, I agree with your perspective as far a the broadcasting system being a monopoly of sorts but so are many other industries, once we look at them closely. Unfortunately not all monopolies are illegal. The FCC is a regulatory commission established by the government. I do not see the FCC taking step backwards in order to satisfy greedy corporations’ thirst. They will have to find a way to make due.

4. The public can indeed access a lot of information on the internet; however, I do not believe the FCC should relax regulations. I feel it is important to have diversity of ownership. As Professor Hoffman discussed in our on-line lecture, if the NY Times and Wall Street Journal had been owned by CBS News, the story of Jeffrey Wigand may never have been heard. If we (or the FCC) allow corporations to continue to buy up other networks or stations, we would be suppressing diversity. I find that no matter which outlet I choose to hear or read the news, I realize bias. That’s a given and so I like to listen or check in on a multitude of stations/channels. I can get additional information or insight if I listen to msnbc, then check bbc uk, and then occasionally I’ll click over to the station my mother-in-law watches just to prepare myself to what she is listening to. As consumers it is important to understand the potential bias when listening to the news so that we don’t believe at face value what we hear. The news can be a gateway to curiosity, to allow us to delve further into a topic. I am reminded of Watergate and the impact that Woodward and Bernstein had in uncovering information and informing the public. The FCC needs to continue to have regulations regarding media ownership so the standard aimed for is diversity and truth in journalism.

   1. HI Mary,

      As you mentioned above it is important to have diversity of ownership. It is important to receive many different views and opinions. In Political Communication and Deliberation, John Gastil states that “when people deliberate, they carefully examine a problem and arrive at a well reasoned solution after a period of inclusive, respectful consideration of diverse points of view.” If the big corporations buy up the smaller or other networks are we only getting one view/hearing one side of the story? As the lecture said are we influenced on how we think about a topic. We need diversity to help create well informed citizens or at least having many different views would encourage citizens to think, exam the issues to come up with the own views.

      Maria

   2. This is a good post on the importance of multiple news sources. Diversity of ideas is important in a democracy, and diversity of media option is an aid to this. By allowing conglomerates to come together, biases are only enhanced and instead of multiple producers with multiple opinions producing a variety of shows, one producer with one opinion could effectively control multiple shows. Without the FCC regulations, mass media could be controlled by few, and stifle the the American ideological spectrum.

      1. I agreed if there’s only one monopoly player, therefore, it means that only the rich can play the game and not the poor. The one producer can be influenced by the usage of money to in order to have their news post up. Therefore, regulations is necessary to make the playing field fair to the non rich people as well.

5. Although the FCC believes that relaxing local television ownership to allow duopolies between different major media outlets, will promote news production efficiency and capability, I believe that this will in fact be more harmful than beneficial. Co-ownership of major news outlets limits the crucial need to preserve and promote viewpoint diversity. If media outlets begin to consolidate, then viewpoints will further be skewed, twisted, and one sided.

   It is crucial that the FCC keeps such restrictions and rules in place in order to ensure and maintain the existence of diversity, competition, and localism in public interest. Diversity has already declined in the media and easing restrictions will only further exacerbate the issue.

   1. I agree that further combining media companies would only lead to less competition and less accountability down the road. In addition, it will be far more difficult to break up a company once it has been merged together. As you state, the bias that exists in the news will be limited in its ability to reach as wide an audience as possible and present diverse viewpoints. Although no news outlet is completely neutral when it reports the news, they also all work to be as reader (or viewer) friendly as possibly. Eyeballs on the screen and people on their living room couches leads to higher viewership which in turn leads to bigger ad sales. By allowing companies to further merge we would not only create very one sided information to the news, but we would also effect the other areas of media, such as the type of advertising presented to us. We could potentially only see advertisements that fit within the companies’ brand or mission. There would be a ripple effect that would extend beyond just what news is being presented to us.

6. I believe the FCC should not relax it’s rules on media ownership. I do think that the media has a great influence over what people think. According to an internet posting by Michael Snyder the average American watches 153 hours of television a month. That is a lot of television and that is just TV. The same corporations that own television stations, also own newspapers, magazines, radio stations, and websites. So people can be influenced by the same corporation’s ideas no matter what they choose to watch, read, or listen to. So imagine if the FCC relaxed it s rules and these huge corporations monopolized the rest of the media companies, then the information delivered might be slanted and biased. Having many different owners can lead to diversity of information/ideas which is essential in helping citizens to become well informed.

   1. Hi Maria,
      I agree with you that having many different owners helps diversity of information. In our on-line lecture I believe Professor Hoffman discussed that news organizations/corporations can be public driven – in other words they concentrate on stories their readers/listeners/watchers want. I can see that being true but like minded people watch the same station therefore it’s a cycle – those like minded people want the same type of stories or only have the “pictures in their heads” of the stories told by that corporation.
      Thank you

      1. I was thinking about another framework for this entire question. I am not sure that concentrated ownership of media NECESSARILY means there will be a shrinking in point of view – although I acknowledge that there are many situations in which that is the case – across many industries. Perhaps the issue for news media is ownership at all. Perhaps there should be public funding for all news media – an NPR on public funding steroids, for example or a check-off box on your income tax. That way “we the people” would own the media.

   2. Hi Maria,

      I completely agree with your views. Studies already show that individuals tend to watch and receive information from media outlets in which they share the same opinions with. Studies also show that individuals of higher socioeconmic tend to have/ express more use of this information from media outlets. Keeping strict regulations will ensure that diverse opinions still circulate and are available. Relaxing the regulations would get rid of any existing diversity that is already diminishing to begin with.

   3. Maria, i agree with you that having different owners is essential in helping citizens to become well informed. If all media outlets were influenced by the same corporation’s views, the audience would be influenced by the same ideas no matter what they view. Considering how much time individuals spend watching tv, reading newspapers, etc. – that is a lot of influence.

7. I don’t think it makes sense for the FCC to relax its media ownership rules because they were put in place for a reason. I think allowing corporations to take ownership of as many networks as they choose would take away from the media options we have as consumers. Media outlets are influenced by the views of there owners and consolidating those views will create less diversity and options to choose from. Even in a time where you can find anything you want on the internet- the internet is still influenced by the same media outlets. Therefore, i think relaxing media ownership rules would lead to a more biased and less informed audience.

   1. HI Danielle,

      I agree with you that rules are put into place for a reason. I think these FCC rules can also help to control creating monopolies. If one company controls the market share, smaller groups will never be able to flourish. This is not right for the smaller media outlets. They should be given a fair share. Having many different media outlet owners is also good for growth and competition.

8. The Federal Communications Commission sets limits on the number of radio and television stations an entity can own, as well as determines the appropriateness of common ownership of those broadcast stations and newspapers in the name of public interest. So the big question is does control of television, radio, and newspaper in a given market allow for sufficient diversity of ideas and opinions to be expressed? I believe that the FCC should look at relaxing and modifying rules because the world and the United States have changed dramatically in the last 15-20 years due to advancement in technology. The FCC works towards six goals in the areas of broadband, competition, the spectrum, the media, public safety, and homeland security. The Federal Communications Commission is currently in the process of modernizing itself to inline themselves with the current technologies.

   The FCC believes that “All Americans should have affordable access to robust and reliable broadband products and services. Regulatory policies must promote technological neutrality, competition, investment, and innovation ensure that providers have sufficient incentives to develop and offer such products and services.” In regards to competitions, the FCC believes that “competition in the provision of communication services, both domestically and overseas, supports the Nation’s economy. The competitive framework for communications services should foster innovation and offer consumers reliable, meaningful choice in affordable services.” There is always competition between news stations, and I don’t think this would change much. The FCC believes that “efficient and effective use of non-federal spectrum domestically and internationally promotes the growth and rapid development of innovative and efficient communication technologies and services.” The Nations Media regulations according to the FCC “must promote competition diversity and facilitate the transition to digital modes of delivery.” When it comes to public safety and Homeland Security “communications during emergencies and crisis must be available for public safety, health, defense, and emergency personnel, as well as all consumers in need. The Nation’s critical communications infrastructure must be reliable, interoperable, redundant, and rapidly restorable.” News is now communicated instantly through the Internet, Twitter, and Facebook. We are able to get news quicker and faster with current technologies. We use our smartphones to record videos of incident and upload it on to the Internet before the local television station truck or even the police arrive. There are both advantages and disadvantages to how current technology affects the rules and regulations on the media. The Internet allows for competition and diversity but isn’t always a reliable source while many different social media websites will have redundant information. With respect to radio, we have satellite radio as well as the new digital platforms such as Pandora and Sirrus Radio with multiple news and talk show stations.

   We seem to be somewhat out of date given how different generations access their news and how they share it. From a pure economic standpoint, consolidation of traditional media outlets may in fact be a way for some newspapers to prevent going bankrupt. Regardless of outcomes currently being debated, we do not live in the same world as when the FCC was created and it might help if the FCC were open to change.

   1. i think it is clear to all of us why the role of the FCC is important in the control of media information and ownership in order to prevent manipulation of information.
      However it is also important to look at what people are looking for. The polarizations of news networks in the last 3o years may indicate that Americans are choosing networks based on their political views.

9. The FCC should not deregulate media ownership rules. I find it rather difficult to obtain news currently without a bias spin. Allowing news organizations to consolidate and grow will limit points of view that would be conveyed to the public. It is important to prevent only select entities from dominating the media industry in order to ensure diversity. I believe media currently fails to generate public awareness in a manner that in unbiased. Due to the vast size of a few giant corporations controlling the media that exhibit power and influence over much smaller news corporations makes is difficult for small corporations to compete with huge media conglomerates.The news in many circumstances is used as a tool by individuals to spread propaganda.

10. Recently, both Republicans and Democrats have opposed the media regulation rules of the FCC. Opponents of the rules argue that the FCC laws are outdated, and do not consider the effect that the Internet has on the media. Although it is true that the FCC rules have not been modified during the past few decades, I think that the rules should not be completely disregarded. Currently, only 10 companies own over 700 broadcasting stations across the U. S., and this is true even when the FCC rules are in place! Should deregulation of media companies be limited, there will be even more consolidation within the media industry. This will limit the amount of opinions within the media, and introduce even more biases than are already present within the industry.

11. I believe the FCC should continue to protect the media space from monopoly of information. It should continue to protect access to various sources of information.

    However, the playing field has changed. We have never in our history had access to this much information, literally, at the palm of our hands.
    from the consumer perspective it is getting harder and harder to filter out what is quality reporting. In the world of internet, podcasts, blogs, online radio etc, we are witnessing a sea of misinformation and propaganda.

    I think this makes FCC’s role even more important, as many turn to networks for objective reporting. When the consumer may doubt information found on the internet, tv networks may offer objectivity or reporting and the reputation of true news delivery.
    It has, however, become evident that the news networks are becoming more polarized and that consumers tend to turn to networks that represent their political views and values.

    1. Hi Nikolina,

       I actually read a study that supports what you were saying about people tuning into news outlets that share their views. Despite the plethora of options available to us, most of the public seeks out news sources that conform to their world view and we actively ignore sources that differ. It’s an interesting problem, but allowing more companies to be absorbed by these mega-corporations isn’t the solution.

12. I believe that the FCC should maintain the strictest of standards concerning media ownership. While certain companies gobble up other media outlets (see Rupert Murdoch) dissenting points of view get squashed. Some may argue that the internet allows for competing viewpoints but the truth of the matter is that conglomerates have a megaphone while the rest of us are speaking at a whisper.

    It will be interesting to see how the FCC handles this. Chairman Wheeler came from being a media lobbyist to now representing the American people’s interests against media companies. However, he has put forth strict rules concerning net neutrality and is widely seen as being a critical part of the break up of the Time Warner / Comcast merger. Going forward, I hope he reverses the trend of media conglomerates.

    1. I like when you said that the mega media outlets are speaking with a megaphone and we are all reporting at a whisper. I agree with this. Small blogs etc.. are difficult to get into the main stream while the mega media outlets have great power to move society. However I do believe that individuals have more and more ability then ever before to move markets.

    2. Dan –
       Bringing up Chairman Wheeler’s background as a media lobbyist is a really interesting addition to this discussion. Maybe he has seen the “dark side” and has now come back ready fight the good cause? It will be interesting to see how he navigates the years to come as these issues continue to remain a hot topic.

13. I also believe the FCC should be vigilant and rigorous to ensure media consolidation does not harm the availability of quality media. Media companies both inform and entertain the public, and compete with one another for audiences. As media companies consolidate due to a never-ending pursuit of profit, they continually focus on entertainment over information, and become increasingly powerful to control the information the public has access to.

    However there are other mechanisms to look to other than maintaining market competition and avoiding consolidations to maintain a diversity of viewpoints and ensure the public can access accurate reporting. The Fairness Doctrine, an FCC law demanding that news outlets showed both sides of any controversial issue, was in place until 1987 – perhaps policy makers should revisit it.

    1. Sarah,

       I enjoyed your post.

       Your point that said “The Fairness Doctrine, an FCC law demanding that news outlets showed both sides of any controversial issue, was in place until 1987 – perhaps policy makers should revisit it” is a good one. While I think consolidating media companies is dangerous, revisiting this doctrine that pressures media companies to show both side of the stories will not only enhance the quality of the programming, but will also make viewer more informed.

    2. Sarah –
       I think you bring up two great points. First of all, the tendency for media organizations to focus on “entertainment” to attract listeners in lieu of important news coverage. Although, I suppose one could argue that if media companies consolidated then they wouldn’t have any competition and thus wouldn’t need to fill the news with entertaining stories to attract audiences. (although I doubt this would actually happen).

       Also, I agree the Fairness Doctrine would be an important policy to revisit, whether or not the FCC decided to ease restrictions on media consolidation.

       Adrienne

    3. Hi Sarah, I agree with your post. I truly believe that policy makers should revisit the Fairness Doctrine, in which the news outlets will make sure that both sides of controversial issues are displayed and stated. I have seen how within the media that entertainment has now taken over the spotlight for factual news and current issues within America. Market competition will never disappear as different networks will have to always keep an audience and provide programming that is unique. This cannot be done if there is consolidation and market monopolies. The diversity of viewpoints will disappear and biased news reporting would increase and stations would duplicate each other.

14. I don’t believe that it is logical for the FCC to ease its media ownership rules. I think doing so would allow large companies to develop a monopoly incorporating as many networks they’d like. This would limit the media choices of consumers. Furthermore, media companies are influenced by the views of their board of directors and creating a monopoly would essentially facilitate fewer options to choose from. People may argue that nowadays one can find anything on the internet, however, websites are still influenced by the same companies. For the aforementioned reasons, I believe that it is imperative that media ownership rules are not relaxed or will harm consumers.

    1. Hi Jonathan,

       I think you’re correct in stating that these large companies have more and more say on the internet as well as all other media sites. The one thing that this brings to mind for me is how important it is to have a fair and unbiased search engine, perhaps the FCC can somehow regulate this.

    2. I agree with Jonathan. I don’t believe that it would be plausible for the FCC to take retreat from the position of conduct that they have established for television and radio. However, I do believe that the cost of running a television or radio station will become less expensive as fees will drop along with equipment and overhead costs. This will entice others to persuade Oprah’s footsteps in establishing their own network of programming. Instead of requiring a hefty amount in capital in order to get a television network off the ground it would require a fraction of that price.

15. I believe that with the advent of the internet and new and varied forms of media it is ok to ease the restrictions of the FCC. While a single news outlet owning several forms of media productions is a great way to be able to reach several audiences and markets. I believe that with blogs and easier forms of journalism available there is now less and less need for the FCC to worry over large conglomerates.

16. I do not think that the FCC should relax its Media Ownership restrictions. Although some of the smaller companies argue that the current rules ignore the presence of the internet, i think that the underlying potential for the tendency to bias still exists if we relax Media Ownership rules. Many of the online news sources are branches of the newspapers themselves, so the information being presented on these sites is equally compared with print edition.

17. I believe that the FCC should definitely alter its strict regulation of the media industry. First, FCC media-ownership rules have not been revised for the 40 years. In that time, the nature of the media industry has changed considerably, especially with the advent of the Internet. It simply does not make sense to continue to ban ownership of both newspapers and television stations when usage of newspapers has severely declined with increased usage of the internet. With regard to consolidation, many people are worried that deregulation will allow broadcasting companies to become too consolidated, which may make room for a lack of creativity in the media. However, the FCC rule related to the limiting of broadcasting stations is not the same as the newspaper-TV ownership rule. Even if some argue that broadcasting stations should not be consolidated, the rule limiting cross-ownership of newspapers and TV broadcasting stations.

    1. Hi, Chava,
       I agree with you. It’s unnecessary for some people to worry that deregulation will benefit broadcasting companies to be more consolidated, and restrict creativity. The more media companies doesn’t mean the more news resources people can have access to. Big media companies can also have voices from different points of view. Regulations should give way to free markets to determine which company should stay or not in the competition of media industry.

    2. Chava, I agree with you. The FCC seems to be a bit of a backwards organization when it comes to regulation, and seem to be blind to the advent of the internet. Physical newspapers and TV programs can’t be brought together, but an electronic source on an iPad and a TV program can. It doesn’t quite make the right amount of sense, which I think at least that rule should be revised or eliminated.

    3. Chava,
       I also believe that the FCC should look at relaxing and modifying rules because the world and the United States have changed dramatically in the last 15-20 years due to advancement in technology. We just simple don’t live in the same world as when the FCC was created. You mention many people are worried about deregulation and the lack of creativity in the media. I don’t think that lack of creativity could ever happen in the media, we thrive on media creating all types of creativity.

18. In my opinion, FCC should further relax its media ownership rules. First, some people are worrisome that “further concentration will mean less credible news”. They are doom-sayers, bigger media companies will have more financial and human capital advantage to invest on more valuable and less accessible news. Moreover, they’ll have more bargaining power to preserve the authenticity of news, rather than to be manipulated by the interest groups. Comparatively, the struggling small media companies have no such strong commercial or political foothold to maintain news neutrality. This refutes the saying that “deregulation will benefit big media but won’t better serve the public. In reality, the public will benefit from the concentrated investment of big media companies in getting multifaceted news.

    Second, the protection of minority ownership doesn’t guarantee the public will get more news resources than under the consolidation. During this Information Age, the public are well-informed and have independent thinking ability. What matters is how much news people can get, not how many media companies people can have.

    Therefore,FCC should deregulate its media ownership rules. The regulations which intends to artificially control the constituents of markets runs contrary to the democracy. In democratic countries, free market should determine the direction of media industries, strict regulations should not interfere in people’s daily life even though it’s well-intentioned.

    1. Jingyan I enjoyed reading your post. Regardless of outcomes currently being debated we live in a completely different world in regards to media then when they were first created. I think that the FCC should be open to change. I agree with John Dewey about having a world with active and informed citizens. “Democracy is a way of personal life controlled not merely by faith in human nature in general but by faith in the capacity of human beings for intelligent judgment and action if proper conditions are furnished.” We live in a world where citizens are very informed and I agree with you that what maters is how much news these informed citizens can get and not how many media companies people can have!

    2. Interesting take Jingyan. Like your point about what matters the most, which is how much new people can get, not how many media companies people can have.

19. The fact that FCC media ownership rules haven’t been updated since the Ford Administration says something. I don’t think this issue is so black white – we don’t need to either completely get rid of the regulatory measures, and we don’t need to maintain legislation that’s been on the books for almost half a century.

    Some regulatory measures make sense – allowing TV and Radio media conglomerates to come together would be detrimental for all. Consolidation of employees, less diversity in presentation of news, ideological narrowing, etc. But some of the other regulations make little sense – if a media outlet is able to capitalize on a certain sector of the national market, why should they be stifled at only 39% of all TV households? To me, that seems worse for the consumer. Consumers in areas outside of the “39% market” now do not have access to a growing or well-known media outlet. If a media outlet is able to reach 39% of all households, its clear that their message is well received, and makes little sense to restrict that message. To me, that seems like a stifling of free speech.

    The prohibition of TV/Radio/Newspaper cross ownership makes no sense to me whatsoever, especially with the advent of new media delivery methods. Just as an example – CNN, one of the largest cable news companies – reaches a national scope, and has a news app (which includes articles similar to a newspaper) on virtually every device. What’s the difference if CNN was allowed to have a physical newspaper?

    As another aside, to show how much internet outlets benefit over traditional media, let’s look at the growing “City & State,” a New York State news website dedicated to NYC and New York State Politics. They are fully online, and have a statewide scope, and are now expanding nationally state by state. Recently, they have begun posting physical newspaper stands all around the city, further expanding their coverage and marketing. Their website contains the exact same stories and delivery methods you would see on CNN – articles, anchors, video interviews, talking head debates, etc. Why should a traditional media outlet be punished, when an internet outlet can expand as they please?

    One could even argue that local media outlets are harmed even more by this – the channel “1s” that we all know so dearly that cover the local high school games, parades, etc. These local outlets have an incredibly small scope, and yet are relegated to stay within the confines of television, radio, or newspapers exclusively. Internet outlets cannot only stay local, but expand to other content delivery methods as well. While traditional media only has one source for a revenue stream, internet outlets can have two.

    Similar logic can be applied to radio. Podcast, internet radio streaming, and on-demand content all have multiple opportunities for revenue generation. The consumer can access these services on any device, virtually at any time. Additionally, internet audio services have the privilege of also being unencumbered in their quest for a national audience.

    In general, I agree with the FCC’s regulations when it comes to hindering large media conglomerates from coming together. But by not applying anything at all to the internet, or applying to the same rules the internet receives to traditional media, the FCC seems to be 40 years backwards.

20. The Federal Communications Commission, FCC’s purpose is to regulate television and radio broadcasting on the content that is produced. In order to protect our society from possible offensive programing it must be monitored by a outside entity that is overseen by a federal branch. Television and radio monitoring are very important for the safety of our children. Unlike the internet television and radio can be easily accessed. Television and radio serve as background sounds to many home environments. The FCC is there to do what most of can not do for ourselves which is to monitor television and radio by close observation. However, the internet is a communication outlet that in order to access it one must be deliberate. The internet is a separate entity of communication that is not regulated by the FCC nor should it ever be. Television and radio face some of the same challenges that many other companies face in a free market society, competition. As we move forward into a more sophisticated technological world only the strong will survive. Television must come up with different avenues in order to attract more consumers to their product. If they do not then I cautiously predict that in time we will evolve into a world where all information and media resources will arise only from the internet.

    1. Soraya, I agree with you regarding your views on the FCC regulating television and radio broadcasting. They need to review these regulations as the evolution of reality television shows and offensive programming is quite rampant and over-populated. Although the FCC doesn’t regulate the internet, I do believe that they should produce some regulation to protect and monitor websites, as the internet medium has become a source of media that also produces television programs and satellite radio stations. For these various sources, there should be a sector within the FCC that also monitors offensive content within these stations and programs because there is a movement that is already on the rise where audiences are choosing the internet to be their sole source for television and radio.

21. The FCC should not relax its media rules. The rules are needed so we don’t hear only a certain viewpoint. The important thing is not to relax rules on ownership. We don’t need three corporations owing all the outlets. It’s already bad enough out their as it is. We need everyone’s opinion to be heard.

22. As the Federal Communications Commission’s purpose is to serve and protect the public, it seems as the duopoly ownership is a threat to the public. Therefore to keep the media outlet market open for all types of broadcasts and stations to prosper, I believe that the FCC should NOT relax media ownership rules. TV-newspaper cross ownership ban needs to remain in standing, although media communications and technology have evolved over time since it has been implemented. If this ban was to be released, I believe it would create broadcasting ownership chaos and there would be a lot of the same television programs being produced, which is quite the case right now, in lien of the reality television format due to networks owning many channels. The relaxing media ownership rules would also eliminate the possibility of credible and reliable sources of news and television programming from diverse broadcasters and news programs. Although relaxing the ban would help keep newspapers stay alive, but it would create more of a problem with bigger television and media owners to create mergers and monopolize with one track minded media communication programs.

    The lack of minority owned television stations and networks is an issue, which means there are is a lack of equality amongst media communications, and that truth of all of what is going within America is not being reported nor programs to reflect all of America’s truth, which is not being shown. I believe the main reason why big television networks and media ownership corporations want the relaxing of ownership rules is due to the inability to capture ad revenues that cable and satellite avenues are gaining. They are also struggling with the competition of trying to grab the internet audience.

23. From my perspective, FCC regulations is extremely important. The regulations is used and mandated in order to make sure everyone has an equal and fair chance of posting or delivery media to the public on a fair and equal playing board. If the regulations are not up to date, then only the richest monopolies can play in the media. While, the poor cannot, but I am just glad that internet exists nowadays, if not public can be blind by the false and bias news.

Comments are closed.