65 thoughts on “Revision of FCC Media Ownership Rules”

1. To begin with, I did not realize that such restrictions were put in place with regards to issues such as broadcast TV/newspaper ownership, newspaper ownership, etc. To this end, I do find these rules fascinating on how the FCC tries to regulate media ownership. In terms of media ownership rules, I do not believe they should be relaxed. As Republican Greg Walden points out, these rules have been in place for several decades and it is worth updating these regulations if there seems a need to be. However, I do not think deregulation will be beneficial to public discourse as it means, in theory, that newspapers and other media outlets will be consolidated under similar ownership. My main concern is that these consolidations will narrow the public discourse by narrowing the types of focus and view points that are involved in journalism and news broadcasting. Granted, news outlets should not allow view points and be subjective, but that is not the world we live in. The consolidation of newspaper paper or news outlets will limit the different journalistic styles of view points to be had, which I believe is vitally important to the advancement of public discourse.

   1. I agree with your point that there must be steps taken to ensure that smaller news outlets are not just scooped up by larger ones to create even less options for viewing than we currently have. Relaxing the regulations will simply create greater opportunities for these conglomerates to grow larger and impart their viewpoints on the public with little competition.

   2. I agree with you that having access to a wide variety of news sources is important for the advancement of public discourse. As we’ve talked about in previous classes regarding deliberation, we need access to as much information as possible in order to have effective deliberation and come to the best conclusion. If we consistently consume media that have the same viewpoint, we will not be able to truly deliberate anything.

   3. I agree with your statement. Rules are put in place for protection. I like how you give example about Republican Greg Walden setting rules and regulation which helps in check and balance.

   4. I agree with your point that consolidations would narrow the public discourse by limiting other opinions and that it is important to have a wide array of sources, to encourage deliberation. Consolidation would also hurt peoples wallets as, it would be encouraged multinational media corporations to inflate the prices of their products due to the lack of other sources of news.

   5. You make a strong point about the concern of narrowing the focus of journalism and broadcasting if the number of media companies is consolidated. One of the best ways to become informed is to not rely on one source of information, but to look across the board. There is definitely a concern that we will lose our ability to truly understand what is going on in the world if the information we are given is limited and/or skewed by one outlets perception.

2. As with many people, I was not aware of the strong FCC regulation of media that currently exists. However, I do not support further deregulation of broadcast TV, newspaper and radio ownership. To the point of cross-ownership, I believe it is best if strict regulation remains and this area of media ownership continue to be regulated. Although I agree with Walden’s remark that the regulations “need to reflect today, not the Ford administration,” allowing large media outlets to control multiple forms of media will skew the public perception and disallow diversity in the way we view important issues. As Jessica Gonzalez stated listeners of Clear Channel stations are “fed a steady diet of racism and stereotyping”… The duo [The John and Ken Show], she said, “have mercilessly targeted Latinos, Korean Americans, Native Americans, gay men, and the poor.” By broadening the variety of viewpoints and outlets for media consumption, consumers are able to form opinions and mostly shape their own thinking based on seemingly endless sources of information.

   I do understand much of the opposing viewpoint, in regard to the aging regulatory guidelines still in place. This point is especially pertinent in a time when much of our world is controlled by media and technology and such great advances have been made in a short period of time. I cannot seemingly agree or understand Lake’s comment that there is not enough evidence that the 1996 rules need to be revisited; it has been nearly 20 years since these rules have been adopted and technology has rapidly changed since.

   1. As you stated, I do not believe many of us knew that the FCC held such strict rules on the media ownership. The regulation that shocks most people is probably the cross ownership rule, as you mentioned. These rules have been in place since the 1970s, which may make them seem out dated. As noted by Walden, all regulations should be up to date with the current world we live in, which I do not believe is a partisan point or an area with much disagreement. However, these regulations will hurt the general public and only benefit the large conglomerates of media corporation owners already. As you mentioned, our current system provides a variety of view points in which consumers can take in different types of opinions to form their own opinions. However, with deregulation, that means many of these outlets will be combined under only a few owners thus creating less view points on the whole.

   2. I also was not aware about how strictly regulated the media are by the FCC. I agree with you that further deregulation would not be beneficial. Jessica Gonzalez’s quote points out the dangers that could come if we deregulate. That one radio show displays racist and discriminatory attitudes, but what if that was the public’s only option for radio? We need access to a wide variety of sources so that there can be a check on these kinds of attitudes.

   3. You make a great point regarding the importance of maintaining strict FCC regulations regarding cross ownership within the media. Although I felt that updating the laws was of paramount importance, your point about making sure the public does not get a completely biased and skewed version of the truth, which is what would happen if these regulations were loosened a bit, is definitely a priority over anything else.

3. I do not support further deregulation of the media ownership. First of all, the traditional media sector is struggling in earning as much profit as in the old days because it is no longer in the expansion phase of its business life cycle. To sustain profitability, the traditional companies that own tv network and newspapers will have to understand how to integrate new media with their existing products. A better business model is in need to generate new sources of income and cut down the expenses. Keen competition due to the advance of technology and the emergence of the digital market forces the traditional media companies to improve their efficiency in order to survive. And I do think such competition is a good thing.

   Secondly, not only in the media industry but also many other private sectors are subject to regulation and antitrust policy. From my study of industrial organization and regulatory economics, I get to know that high concentration of media ownership will only benefit the giant companies themselves but is not necessary good for the interest of the public. Currently the industry has been structured as an oligopoly, as 6 corporations control 90% of the media in the U.S. In fact, FCC is promoting diversity and minority in this highly concentrated industry. To relax the rules of consolidation will make any smaller company is even more difficult to establish itself and grow in a market dominated by mega-corporations.

   Last but not least, an even more consolidated media sector will make certain political players easily “inject” biased opinions to the public for political purposes. It is risky for the audience not be able to access to unbiased and objective information.

   Whether consolidation in the media sector create more or less jobs is unclear. Proponents of consolidation say that in a free market economy, the best players win. But regulation and antitrust laws are to promote and protect competition. The idea behind these rules and laws is that in every market there should be robust competition.
   In his article, antitrust attorney William Markham (2006) concludes that if in a market there are many sellers busily competing against one another to sell a particular kind of product or service to paying customers, no sellers will be able to take unfair advantage of the buyers. Each seller will be obliged to offer its goods or service on attractive terms, and each will be responsive and efficient in its dealings with buyers, who otherwise will simply turn to another, better seller.

   1. I agree with your point about business adaptability. Newspapers, especially in the mid 2000s, were having a hard time staying profitable due to the rise of the internet and new media content. The business model they used was becoming outdated. However, I believe that several of these newspapers a few years later are finally adapting to this new age of information with thing such as paywalls for certain content, ads to help pay for websites, etc.

      I also believe your point on media consolidation is spot on. This market is already well concentrated between several owners already. The deregulation of this industry will essentially allow trusts to develop and create a lack of diversity in our media market in terms of ownership and outlets.

   2. I agree with you completely. I also pointed out the current oligopoly that exists in the media market, and how de-regulation stands to benefit their interests. I have found it quite ironic that people champion de-regulation because it promise more choice and less government infringement, when in actuality de-regulation has resulted in less choice in many sectors. Since de-regulation’s inception in the late 1970’s we have seen more and more M&A’s that have significantly reduced consumer choice. This can be seen in many sectors ranging including banking, media, telecommunications, and airlines. I like your last point regarding competition, the FCC and all government regulatory agencies should strive to increase competition instead of holding unto some pre-conceived notion about regulation hurting businesses.

      1. I like your point that in this case government infringement actually ensures that we have more options and choices. Limitations in this case are a good thing as they allow for multiple sources of information and media.

   3. I think you did a great job connecting anti-trust laws to media monopolies. When certain organizations are able buy multiple outlets, smaller industries get pushed out. I agree that the FCC should still maintain their stance on how much influence one network should have.

   4. I could not agree more with the points you raise about large companies and political players controlling the media and pushing their own agendas. As with any industry, those with political and financial power will abuse the systems we have in place so long as they are unregulated. I also enjoyed the information you provided regarding the economic perspective on free markets; these regulations are in place not to hinder the best players but to protect competition and ensure the public good.

   5. While I theoretically agree that small firms need to adapt to 21st century demand to stay competitive, we have to remember that their lack of both capital and economies of scale limits their ability to evolve. Content generation is the hardest thing for them to keep up with. Can the Youngstown Ohio Gazette afford to hire a Columbia journalism grad and send him/her to Syria to cover the civil war? Can the Gazette send a correspondent to Washington, or the state capitol? And can the Gazette do these things while still providing interesting coverage of local news? Sadly the answer is probably not, so both the firm’s ownership, its employees, and Youngstown will be better off if the Gazette has the option of being acquired.

4. The Federal Communications Commission is a board that regulates the media ownership rules. The FCC has to review its rules regarding the media ownership at the span of every four years. In the year 2014, the FCC was taken to task by the Republicans and the Democrats for their long standing rule of not allowing one media company to allow newspaper and TV station in the same market. These rules are not complimentary with the emerging trends of Internet entering the world of media. The rules created over more than 30 years needed to be scrapped out as giving way to the media companies to strive in the market where news is readily available at cheaper cost and from various mediums.

   The Chief of the commission’s media bureau represented by William Lake was also taken to task when the FCC failed to complete its quadrennial review of the year 2010 of ownership rules as was mandated by the Congress. The new chairman Tom Wheeler is aiming for the completion of the review of 2010 in 2016. Republicans subcommittee chairman also stated in his opening statement that the rules of media-ownership are stagnant and have failed to recognize the Internet. He also added that newspapers and local broadcasters would struggle if the rules remain unchanged.

   In my opinion, the FCC need to change the existing stagnant rules about media ownership, as this would provide the companies to stay longer and secured in this fast changing digital world, where Internet rules. Also, the newspaper readers and broadcasts have now taken the course of Internet where news and advertises are cheaply available and a result of that, newsrooms and newspapers have taken up protection against bankruptcy. In a way, it also makes sense when media companies argue that FCC’s ownership rules are no longer comprehensible and should be relaxed. Looking at what Bernard Lunzer president of the Newspapers Guild- Communications Workers of America had to say, also points out that there are still companies that do not want FCC to revise its rules.

   1. I like the point you raise regarding a changing digital age. I agree that the regulatory rules on media need to be reviewed and edited appropriately. As our society develops and changes, new forms of media are becoming prevalent in our everyday lives. Aside from traditional tv and radio, we are bombarded with sources of information through all of our daily technologies; it is important to think about these new sources of media as they relate to our current regulatory policies. Who is protected and how can we as consumers be insured that a diverse range of ideas are presented to us?

   2. It really is true that the media outlest that the FCC is regulating are slowly being pushed out of favor due to the ever-increasing use of the internet. Although the rules have functioned well up until the point and serve a very important purpose of maintaining a certain level of fairness between the big and small newspaper and TV news companies, it really cannot be denied that with such vastly changing times, the FCC must also evolve in order to not be deemed completely irrelevant in our current technological age.

   3. You have explained very well why the media should emphasize on editing and publish the accurate news.

5. I think that the FCC holding on to rules that limit a company from owning a newspaper and a tv station in the same town is arcane and should be reworked. While the threat of a monopoly exists I think there are ways that the FCC can change their regulations in order to meet with the changing demands. The time has passed where people are digesting the majority of their information from local tv broadcasts or newspapers. As the internet has made reading, listening, and absorbing information easier than ever the FCC should put more focus on protecting the American peoples access to as much diverse news outlets as possible. Regulating or deregulating newspapers and television broadcasts is important, but to ignore the rapid rate at which information is shared on the internet is only dooming the agency to failure.

   1. As you mention that “there are ways that the FCC can change their regulations in order to meet with the changing demands,” in fact the goal of FCC is to promote competition, diversity, and minority. This is exactly the opposite of the “demand” from the giant media companies who pursue higher profits by consolidation.

      It is worth noted that new media and the emerging digital media market is not a bad thing to our society as a whole. It makes our life more convenient and improve the efficiency for the public to acquire information. As a strong competitor, it makes the traditional media companies hard to survive. But it is unwise to deregulate solely to save these giant corporations at the expense of the public.

      1. I meant more that the the demand for how the public wants to get our information is changing and that should be a driving force, I was unclear on that. I agree that companies have consolidated in order to gain more profits and that is why we have so few companies operating the majority of the news outlets. As more people are turning to the internet for information I think the FCC should fight to beat back corporations who wish to limit that access for their own benefit. My intention was not to say that corporations should be able to gobble up every organization to save themselves, but rather that the internet needs greater focus from the FCC.

         1. I agree with you that it is important that these rules need to be reviewed. I can’t believe that they just failed to do its mandated quadrennial review! While I’m not a proponent of complete deregulation and consolidation, I do think that the rules should at least take into consideration the role of the internet.

   2. I agree with your point that new forms of media must be addressed by the FCC. It shocked me to not only learn that many of the FCC’s regulations are more than 40 years old, but they just skipped their review process in 2010. Whether one supports increased regulation or deregulation, the FCC should at least conduct a comprehensive review every 4 years as planned.

   3. Undoubtedly the internet has changed the equation of the current media business. FCC should adapt to new policies to face the challenge Internet offers. But I don’t think it will help FCC to adapt by allowing giant companies to acquire small companies via more mergers which will ultimately kill the diversity. Information is power, sometimes the most powerful political entity. I think, this fear is in the core of the current FCC regulation, so that no individual company can own the absolute power.

6. I just want to start out by stating that the very notion that the media is a competitive market is borderline crazy. Currently six companies control 90% of what we read, watch, or listen to. This is in stark contrast to 1983, when 50 companies controlled what we read, watched, or listened to. This has obviously been the result of more and more mergers by increasingly larger and powerful corporations. These six companies together have enough money to purchase every NFL team 12 times. These companies represent an oligopoly that must be regulated, in some cases they are even a monopoly. The new merger of Comcast and NBC guarantees that one out of every five hours of television is of their programs.

   De-regulators always argue that regulation stifles competition and hurts small business. This is another bogus claim. DE-regulation stifles business in a competitive market, the media industry is clearly not a competitive market, the players are small, and the barrier to entry is high. The companies that stand to profit the most from de-regulation are the current six large corporations, because they have such market power, the smaller local stations (the 10% that exist) cannot afford to acquire another station. Capitalism is the built on the idea of choice, currently we have little choice, and there are six companies that control virtually all media we consume. The FCC should embrace capitalism and require rules that allow for many owners in the media industry, not just a handful, on that note, they should reject any rules that make lessen ownership requirements.
   Here’s a link about media ownership http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6

   1. This is all true until you consider the internet. High barriers to entry are eliminated online, allowing a proliferation of news outlets of every type and persuasion. If you don’t deregulate traditional media ownership rules, you’ll end up with more economic damage and fewer choices either way. By deregulating, the best of the small papers and stations will survive through acquisition. In the long-run the bloated media giants will falter and small papers and stations will likely spring up all over again. Just like beer! If you told a beer executive in 1980 how many breweries would be operating in the US today, he’d have laughed. But, the big companies got bloated and lost the consumer’s loyalty with a boring product line. Result: craft breweries proliferate and the big guys lose more market share every year.

7. Surprisingly, I agree with Greg Walden’s point that the FCC must move away from strict regulations regarding media ownership. This is not to say that there should be no regulations concerning cross media ownership. I believe that local media outlets should be able to reach out to their audience through multiple platforms. Radio stations and hardcopy newspapers/magazines are becoming increasingly less popular. If companies that operate through these platforms are unable to diversify their outreach strategies, then they will surely fail.

   I do see how this could potentially be detrimental to the public. Representative Anna Eshoo pointed out that if local media outlets are consolidated and owned by only a few companies, it creates a lack of diversity. While I agree with this point, I believe there is a way to combat this problem. If large media corporations clearly identified and branded which shows fall under their umbrella, it may help the public realize that all of these supposed “different programs” are actually coming from one source. In todays society we associate different networks with political ideologies. For example, many people associate Fox news with the Republican Party and MSNBC with the Democratic Party. If consumers could easily identify what company was producing the show, they may have an easier time separating propaganda from honest reporting.

   The most important regulation that must stay in tact is that no TV station should reach more than 39 percent of all U.S households. Their will always be networks that use their reach to promote various agendas. By limiting their potential audience to no more than 39 percent, the FCC is giving independent stations with no agenda a chance to strive.

   1. However, it maybe easy to identify propaganda and honest reporting, this also creates separation within the public. Republican are more likely to watch Fox more, and likewise, democrats are more likely to watch MSNBC.

   2. Your suggestion regarding branding, I feel, will not solve the underlying issue. It will only show the public who controls what. The tv stations, newspapers, magazines, etc. that are out there will still fall under a range of acceptable opinion as dictated by the owners of the media companies.

   3. The cross-ownership argument does not hold water, because it is based on a sliding scale, which allows more cross-ownership in bigger markets. Even in the smallest market a company can own 2 t.v. stations and 1 radio station. There is no outright ban on cross-ownership. For example the NY post is owned by News Corporation, which also owns FOX. The same can be said for Viacom which owns CBS as well as radio 770am. De-regulation would only empower the already large companies to expand, smaller companies would not have this opportunity. Newspapers and radios are failing because the business model is outdated. The NY Post actually loses money, but New Corporation and Rupert Murdoch are so profitable, they don’t care. Murdoch as expressed this view, stating how he personally loves the tabloid paper and does not want to see it go away. Smaller papers can not afford to this, if anything this example shows that cross-ownership benefits larger companies, because they can suffer long term profit decline and stay in business, while a small paper without the capital to diversify will have to shut down. When this happens the larger company will have an even greater share of the market. In fact, this is what we have seen occur over the last forty years, due to the reduction in regulation.

   4. Interesting points. But I would say that even if networks were transparent about who is the producers of certain shows, that does not mean that there will be a more diverse media marketplace that includes minorities. That is, even if there was this transparency, majority brands and ideologies will continue to dominate, since minorities comprise a smaller percentage of the population. If we eliminate their opportunity to partake in ownership, then there is no other avenue for them to participate in the media.

      1. I agree, even if shows were to state who the producers, sponsors and owners are most people wouldn’t even think to look and I can see them briefly mention it in the credits or something were the every day person wouldn’t care to look. The only way to restrict monopolies in the media is to maintain or even expand upon the regulations in place.

8. I was not aware of the strict rules that the FCC had on cross-ownership of newspaper and TV stations. After reading the article, I agree some regulations or rules should be updated, and some regulations should be kept. As Greg Waldon has mentioned, “ regulations should reflect today, not the Ford administration.” In other words, newspaper and TV stations are not the only ways the public get their news. New platforms, from the internet, create competition in the media business, and, even more so ,for local newspapers and broadcasting stations. Thus, I support relaxing the cross-ownership rules of newspaper and TV because, as Paul Boyle said in the article, relaxing this rule, instead of taking it out, would help struggling local newspapers and broadcasting stations stay in business. On the other hand, the FCC should continue to prohibit the merging of two major networks. Deregulating this might shrink the current six corporations, which control 90% of what we see and hear, to an even smaller number of powerful corporations. Giving big corporations more power will limit how and what news is broadcasted to the public.

   Another point that was focused on in this article is that there is not enough minority ownership. According to Rep. Bobby Rush, “Currently, only 3% of TV stations are owned by minorities.” The FCC should do more to help minority groups. If the FCC relaxes the rules on cross-ownership, in my opinion,this can actually help to somewhat solve this issue because many local newspapers and TV stations do present stories about minorities.

   1. I think the point about increasing minority ownership is important in order to have better diversity in the media. If more people can attain ownership and use that to voice the opinions of otherwise stifled people then it can only help the population as a whole. Allowing many opinions to be heard on a topic is often times the best way to have meaningful discourse

   2. I agree with your main points about the risk of deregulation of cross ownership. But I doubt that relaxing on cross-ownership could help minority groups. Most of the independent minority tv stations and newspapers have very little financial resources to expand. They do not have the money to expand even without the cross ownership. As a matter of fact, the restriction on cross-ownership aims to protect them from being acquired by large corporations.

      In fact, FCC has been trying very hard to facilitate any transactions that will result in new minority- and women-owned stations. However, due to the financial crisis, not just the large corporations but also independent companies suffer a drop of their profits. As the general economic environment is weak in the recent few years, any change of the policy from FCC cannot help much on the sustainability of the minority-owned companies.

      1. Good points, but I think that even if there are little resources for minority communities, they should still have the opportunity to partake in ownership if possible. If we de-regulate these media outlets, then that opportunity is lost. I think that this is really important if as a society we continue to value equity in media access.

   3. I completely agree with the fact that more tv station should be owned by the minorities. FCC can come up with a quota, and ensure that set percentage of tv stations should be owned by minorities. In real world, there are always conflicts of interests between the majority who own the media and the minority group. As a result, the media broadcasts and manipulate news in such a way, minorities may get deprived of their inherent privilege or right. The scenario would definitely change if the minority group had their own mass media ownership to raise their voice.

9. I think that deregulation would not be a good idea. If we have no regulation, one or two companies could end up owning all the major media outlets. I believe that this is very dangerous for democracy. The public would only have one major source for news, so they could easily be receiving news that is biased, not truthful, or that is missing important aspects of the story. It is very important that the public has a wide variety of news sources to choose from so they can make sure they are receiving the most accurate news possible. It is also very dangerous for one major corporation to be in charge of the news because what if that news source becomes corrupt and censored? What if they only choose to inform the public about certain stories, and completely leave out others? The argument saying that we should deregulate because the public has access to a wide variety of news makes some sense, but I think that many of these news sources are also owned by big corporations. When looking for news, most of us look for reputable sources such as the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. The public has access to other news outlets but do they trust these sources? How much does the public really read/ trust news that is from sources not owned by big corporations?

   In the article, I thought it was interesting how they mention that only 3% of TV stations are owned by minorities. Deregulation would be harmful to minority populations and issues that are important to them. Without regulation, that 3% could go to none. It is important that the voices of minority populations are heard and that issues that are important to them can be brought to the forefront. In order to get the most accurate news, it is important that the public has a wide range of news sources with perspectives from a wide range of people. Without regulation, the public will lose access to a wide variety of news sources and viewpoints, and ultimately democracy and deliberation would be harmed.

   1. I agree with you that the ideal of one or two companies own all the media sectors is a dangerous idea. This limits how and what information will be reported. Thus, limit public knowledge. The wider the range of media outlets, the more diversity it creates for the public.

      1. I agree with both of you. I really do think diverse sources of knowledge are what provide us with opportunities for deliberation. If we are restricted to just a few, similar, sources of information, we are essentially limited to what we perceive as valid. I think eliminating these restrictions will limit our ability to conduct our own research or even continue to ask why. Due to these limited sources of information, the public will most likely only begin to accept this information (from these few sources) as fact, without any hesitation.

   2. Your point about the effects of deregulation on minority t.v. stations is an important one to note in regards to this issue. Considering that a media company’s objective is to appeal to the broad mainstream, issues that don’t appeal easily to the mainstream, such as those dealing with minority groups, will largely be invisible in a media climate with one or two companies controlling everything.

   3. Deregulation could be detrimental to the availability of information to the public. As the media exists now, the industry is heavily intertwined, with very few neutral parties contributing to the conversation. The possibility of a media monopoly if regulations were lifted is very likely and could really limit the unbiased news available.

   4. i like that you mention the idea if one or two company occupied the whole media industry will be dangerous . This hampers to gain knowledge for public.

10. The point about the FCC supposedly acting as if the internet doesn’t exist is an interesting one, something that I haven’t given to much thought to. I find it an intriguing thing to bring up in talking about the diversity of the modern media landscape.

    With that being said, deregulation of media by the FCC is still a horrible idea. Despite the increasing visbility and popularity of the internet, I feel that traditional media still carries a lot of influence in our public. Any move to deregulate will allow for consolidation, and therefore to less diversity of opinion, giving the average person a skewed view of the news, which will ultimately be harmful to society at large.

    1. I agree with you Danny. In the height of social media and the internet (maybe it’s because I am 90s baby) I feel that we still need to rely on traditional sources of media to receive our information. It reminds me of using an eBook versus a traditional written text. We need to both have traditional and modern sources of information, to ensure that we are truly receiving adequate information from a reputable source.

       1. I agree, the only way to keep the larger media outlets honest is to have the independent watch dogs blogs and newspapers running and not be able to be bought out by later corporations. A few years ago when Rupert Murdoch was under investigation, Fox News barely reported on the situation because he owns them. Luckily there were other news agencies but if you deregulate if could all fall under one umbrella.

11. I was not aware of the strict rules that the FCC had on cross-ownership of media companies and the restrictions placed on them such as a capability to reach only 39% of the T.V households. As to the relaxing of rule, i would say that the wording of the language has to be changed due to the multiple sources of media that have emerged since the law put in place.
    I think that deregulation should take place for certain industries such as newspapers due to the competition that have emerged. Newspapers in today’s climate faces a tougher market and giving them other outlets for their products would help it but there should be strict regulations on the cross ownerships of new media. For example, there should be a ban for certain companies gaining control of the market as it is happening with

12. It is clear that FCC’s media-ownership rules play a pivotal role in regulating the ownership of media by large organizations. By relaxing media-ownership regulations, it appears that there will be a further consolidation of ownership by few companies. Although this would acceptable under an open-market system, arguably the media should not be a capitalistic market. TV, radio, etc. all are all elemental to the public’s access to information. As Flint emphasizes, If we continue to consolidate that information, then we run the risk of excluding minority inclusion. For the sake of protecting minority inclusion in the media, we need to continue to maintain relatively strict regulations of those outlets. However, the four-year review process helps to ensure that some of these rules are not arbitrary.

    1. I think you explain some important points in regards to consolidating information. Its quite interesting that having consolidation would provide the risk of excluding minority inclusion. Having strict regulation are important because it protects minority inclusion. As I read more on FCC is becomes quite interesting that they have some much power, restriction and ownership of media companies.

13. I was not aware of the strict rules that the FCC had on cross-ownership of media companies and the restrictions placed on them such as a capability to reach only 39% of the T.V households. As to the relaxing of the rule, i would say that the wording of the language has to be changed due to the multiple sources of new media that have emerged since the law was put into place.

    I think that regulations should stay in place because it would prevent consolidation of the market as has happened with other industries such as the airline industry. Instead the FCC should allow new sources of media to acquire a stake in the media by further reducing the stakes that the current six media companies can control and placing restriction on the cross ownership as has taken place with NewsCorp acquiring the Wall Street Journal, The NY Post while also controlling Fox Corp, which limits the deliberation process. The restrictions on cross media ownership would prevent such mergers as the one between Timer Warner and AOL, had AOL been successful as Google.

14. Similar to most of my classmates, I too was not aware of the FCC regulations. However, now that I am aware of this regulation, I do not support the deregulation of media ownership rules, because I think these regulations give some guidelines and structure to prevent media consultation. They also provide some opportunity for diverse news sources and outlets for information. Even though minority ownership is a shocking rate of three percent. I fear that if these regulations are removed, the mass consolidations will eliminate minority ownership altogether. Additionally, it may have the same effect on small and local newspapers or broadcasters. With that being said, I do feel that these regulations should be updated to reflect modern times, such as the use of the internet as a source of information. Similar, I find that some of the points of the advocates valid, such as the need to consolidate to compete with the internet Nonetheless, I feel that with the removal of this regulation, the large media outlets will dominate of media sources, and the voice of the average citizen will be overlooked or forgotten.

15. I am not shocked that both Democrats and Republicans attacked the FCC. It is unacceptable that the commission failed to complete its mandated quadrennial review.

    I see both sides of the argument. I would worry that with deregulation there would be more monopolies and less diversity of media and information supplied to the public. I think it would only harm us if we keep slimming down to less and less viewpoints and sources of information.

    I do agree that the internet has become a huge source of information for the public and can see how this forms a challenge for media outlets in the sense of competition and growth. However, I do think that most important point is to protect the public rather than protecting the profitability of businesses. In fact, I think that keeping the regulations will help ensure the success of smaller and more diverse media outlets who risk being swallowed without these regulations in place.

    I do think that the rules need to be reviewed and it’s possible some small changes could be made, but overall I do not support large amounts of deregulation.

    1. You make a great point about protecting the public rather than business. In looking at these articles, I tended to look at the perspective of the businesses (especially the smaller businesses), but failed to really consider the public. The importance of having a variety of media outlets expressing different points of view is extremely important and cannot be understated.

16. I feel like the regulations should not be relaxed in any way shape or form. We are already seeing in today’s world the effect of corporations owning several media outlets and the result is that a few people, the owners of said corporations, have the ability to project their ideas and limit the ideas of others. For example, CNN had an online poll after the first democratic debate and the online poll said Bernie Sanders won, however, this poll was soon after taken down and CNN reported that Hilary Clinton won. It was later found that the owners of CNN were Clinton supporters. This “selective” censor ship must be stopped.

17. This is definitely not a clear-cut issue. Even in the LA Times article there were so many different stakeholders with totally different priorities affected by this issue. Having to pick a side however, I’d have to side with relaxing the FCC regulations. It is true that with the internet, more and more people obtain their news through self-selected sources, and there are more sources of news than ever before. I’ve even seen research that suggests an enormous number of Americans simply receive their news from their friends and family, by way of posts in their social media feed from the most politically minded person in their network.

    There’s also serious issues with the business model of local papers and radio stations with limited markets. Moving forward, it’s just increasingly difficult for small news outlets to produce good content and keep the doors open. If the model is unsustainable, which it is increasingly so, then the small papers are just going to close down anyway. In that instance everyone loses. The local media market, the folks who lost their jobs, and even the owner whose asset becomes worthless. If they can be bought by a larger media company with economies of scale, and more interesting content, there’s less economic loss as some jobs will be maintained and at least the owner gets to sell their company rather than having it close.

    For all these reasons I’d say relax the regulations, but maintain the policy of a quadrennial review. If deregulating leads (and I don’t think it will) to a Citizen Kanesque media monster, then the FCC can revisit the problem and act accordingly.

18. It’s a very interesting point that some lawmakers think that the FCC is “acting like the internet doesn’t exist”– and then moving to capitalize on the lack of regulation in this media market (see the net neutrality fight of earlier 2015). I think this speaks to the fact that, in the absence of regulation, media entities will seek a monopoly that serves their interest, not the interest of the public. In this fight, the FCC is the only voice the public has to maintain a free and independent press. And while that concept itself may be a new-ish one, the neutrality of the internet is important to preserve – especially when all other media sources are so monopolistic. Future FCC fights will center around internet neutrality, and it will be to the detriment of our democracy as a whole if it goes the way of other media sources.
    People may be getting news from the internet, but broadcast and print media still holds a lot of sway with setting the agenda. It is important to keep a multitude of voices, and the rules regarding stakeholders in markets reflect that value. Relaxing the regulations would allow Rupert Murdock to control everything.

    1. I agree that allowing internet service providers and content providers to control access to the internet could be especially detrimental to how we consume media. Regulation certainly needs to be in place to prevent conglomerates like News Corps and Time Warner from collectively owning a large share of content outlets across different forms of media.

19. As seen in the LA Times articles, the supporters in favor of deregulation can be divided by their intention. This is not uncommon that the corporation recruit lobbyist to change policy and regulation which eventually give than an upper hand over the competitors. There can be people who are biased and motivated to change the strict regulation so that big corporation can own more companies by merger. In contrary, there are people who strongly believe to change the current regulation policy would be in favor of public interest.

    Personally, I think the current regulation should survive for many years to come. This is evident that without regulation few giant corporations will own all the media business and diversity will be lost. And power corrupts people. If few companies own the media business, instead of providing the real news to public, they will generate news which will benefit them.

    I would like to conclude my opinion by referring Rep. Anna Eshoo, the ranking Democrat on the committee. I completely agree with the concern She expressed that further deregulation would benefit big media but wouldn’t better serve the public. Eshoo noted that 10 companies own close to 700 local television stations across the country, and that more consolidation would limit diversity and ideas in the marketplace.”We need to examine this in terms of what consolidation is actually going to do for the American people,” Eshoo said, adding that she wondered if the panel’s debate was about better business models for media companies or serving democracy.

20. While I was aware that many regulations were in place throughout the media industry, I, like many of my classmates, did not realize just how strict they were. After reading the LA Times article, I believe that a balance needs to be found between continuing regulation, but also moving forward with the times; this is especially so considering the decrease in newspaper sales and the increase in internet and mobile app usage.

    I am unsure of how regulations that were put into place 40 years ago could effectively apply to the world we are living in today (although something could be said for the fact that the Constitution was created over 200 years ago and is still relied on today).

    That being said, I do think that certain strict regulations must remain in place in order to prevent the top firms from wiping out the smaller businesses that help support our economy. However, I would also note that it might be the case that some de-regulation would enable the smaller businesses to diversify and thereby grow. Either way, there needs to be some reform to the current rules. Times are changing and the FCC must keep up with those times and adapt to the technological world that we are living in.

21. This was all very interesting to me because I had no idea that there were such stringent rules in place regarding the media to begin with! After reading both the FCC’s website and the LA Times article, I do have to say that the ownership rules are a bit antiquated and it would be prudent to update them a bit to be more relevant to modern times. That’s not to say that they should completely relax the ownership rules, because then it would just be a free-for-all and of course the big conglomerates would instantly buy out the small independently run TV and radio networks. Of course, we don’t live in a perfect world and this already is the case on some levels, but the FCC’s ownership rules do play a role in keeping at least a small degree of fairness between the big and small media outlets. The major downside of not wanting to stray from these traditional and untouched rules is that they are holding traditional media back from evolving and adapting to society’s technological changes. My opinion would be to update the rules, which would include some relaxation regarding the restrictions places on ownership, so that the FCC can serve its purpose of guiding and protecting traditional media outlets rather than enforcing irrelevant rules that are leading traditional media to its grave.

22. Jerin Choudhury
    In “Introduction Faming Political Issues In America”, authors Callaghan and Scheme emphasizes on different types of farming. Episodic framework is one of them and it is practiced regularly in the current news channel. Recently in the shooting for Bernardino, California, many news channel started to depict as an ISIS attack before the real investigation. Their news headline is “Intelligence officials hunt for link to terror groups as ISIS praise San Bernardino attack by Muslim”. This news article eventually aims to associate the shooting with an ISIS attack. They utilized this framing to explain how ISIS can be connected with it. This system assisted them to get the attention of enormous extent of viewers especially those people who have fear of ISIS attack rather than another domestic terrorism. Furthermore, they refer that the shooter likes to read religious books rather than regular book. This shows me that how mass media can practice the framing to show a specific message. Although this shooting can be another domestic terrorism, how the news channel showed two gun mans are Muslim by indicating frequent times will eventually effect the Muslim community in the county. This frame for Muslim’s ISIS attack will make a negative outlook about muslims.

23. I’m strongly opposed to further deregulation, but I do believe the current regulations in place are a kind of band-aid holding together a system that is in need of more permanent solutions. The regulations in place are imperative to keeping a small amount of diversity in the media but are too outdated to withstand technology changes and the money of media conglomerate lobby groups.

    In recent changes, I do think the FCC made the correct choice in supporting net neutrality and not allowing service providers to discriminate internet speeds based on competing content. Allowing service providers more opportunity to control an already one-sided market (consumers often have very few options, and in some cases aren’t really being provided with the internet speeds they sign contracts for), could be detrimental to the information-gathering public.

    Technology advanced much quicker than the FCC could determine how to regulate it. Eliminating the existing regulations would most certainly monopolize media even further, but without the FCC taking decisive action and determining the best way to handle increasing ownership, the pressure from conglomerates and lobby groups on their behalf could win the battle for deregulation in the long run.

Comments are closed.