Revision of FCC Media Ownership Rules

57 thoughts on “Revision of FCC Media Ownership Rules”

1. I think an adequate answer to the question would require more information on consumption of media by the public, and how it has changed by the internet. It seems that the current regulatory framework is obsolete though. The public interest being protected seems to be the exposure to a variety of points of view, and potentially also protecting more local media outlets, which probably requires a variety of outlets that can sustainable provide journalistic content. A further assumption seems to be that consolidation of tv and newspapers into hands of few owners would reduce the variety of points of view offered, which is not altogether convincing, especially if you consider the theory discussed in the video lecture, according to which media offers content based on what the consumers want (Breitbart anyone?).

   Furthermore, the regulatory framework does not take into account companies like Google and Facebook, that provide their users with content tailored to match their profiles (which also restricts people’s access to points of view the algorithms don’t determine relevant for them), basically piggybanking on content created by traditional news outlets. Facebook and Google are regulated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), whereas media outlets and internet-providers like Verizon are regulated by FCC. This patchwork approach to regulation in companies is the reason why there are no comprehensive regulations guarding people’s privacy in the internet, as shown by the recent senate vote to repeal privacy protection on the account the rules applying to Verizon did not apply to Facebook and Google: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/23/521253258/u-s-senate-votes-to-repeal-obama-era-internet-privacy-rules.

   In short, I think the debate that is framed to consider only ownership, is obsolete, and regulations that protect the freedom of people to access a diversity of viewpoints in the media market should look at internet-based companies and traditional media outlets, and weigh questions like ownership\consolidation, privacy, and financial sustainability of local and national media houses.

   1. I agree that the regulatory framework is obsolete. The article stated that “the regulations are over 40 years old.” We live in the age of information and technology where things are rapidly evolving. A good example of that is the Apple I Phone which is up to number 7. I’m sure the I Phone 8 is being worked on as we speak. If we don’t adjust our media sources to keep pace with the changing world our citizens will not be informed properly, the information we come in contact will be very limited and we won’t be exposed to important facts that keep us competitive with the rest of the world. A variety of outlets is necessary in order for the public to weigh the information they receive and make the most educated choice. America’s existence and democratic way of life is based on an informed citizen. The focus has been on ownership and power. The debate is also about choice. Even if a company does own a newspaper and television station in the same market we are not limited by that company alone which is way we need to retain a variety of media outlets. The real power to me lies in the right to choose, keeping diversity and keep all forms of media alive.

      1. I agree in order to keep up with the ever changing and demanding world we currently live in companies need to take the initive change with the times. If they don’t consumers would tend to gravitate to the ever changing one. Have you ever notice as with your example with the iPhone constantly updating and upgrading every year this increases consumer buying. A consumer can have a perfectly fine working iPhone and because there is an upgrade they will either trade their current iPhones in or get the new phone because it has a new feature. People live for change .

   2. I agree we need to consider how the audience reacts to all these different sources of information. A few years ago, Air America went out of business. It was supposed to be the left/liberal version of conservative talk radio and other media, but it did not get enough people listening/watching to be profitable. I don’t have evidence to prove this but I think this has a lot to do with who consumes talk radio: they would tend to be older and whiter and more male. Younger and more diverse audiences tend to get their information through social media, podcasts, late night talk shows, and so on.

   3. I definitely agree with you that the rules on ownership is obsolete and that we need to re-evaluate the FCC rules and regulations based on how media is used/consumed by viewer especially through the internet. On the other hand, there probably should be more regulations on how companies use or sell consumer’s data on search history on the internet.

   4. Hi
      I agree with you that information like statistics about the use of media, the type of media they have consumed is important in order to better understand and analyze the debate. It is true that the regulations as well as the rules of ownership are absolute and they new to be renew taking into account the internet and how it affects traditional media.

   5. Ownership is an important regulation that protects the public from monopolization. Yes, it may seem obsolete but the FCC ruling remains consistent with its mission to protect the public interest. The public interest is to have access to diverse information to form a public opinion. Newspaper and local outlets remain a critical source of information and there is no question that they are struggling to keep up financially but this is because they fail to make necessary changes to keep up with changing content and views. They need to make the content suitable to the consumer. Further consolidation is not the solution and it will have opposite effect on diversity. There is already lack of diversity in the big media outlets and it remains behind in content when it comes serving the needs of different communities and population.

   6. Good point and sources. My approach is from the larger stand point of allowing companies of becoming too large. Once the power is transferred there are limited ways to maintain order. These same regulations protect consumers from exploitative business practices. Some form of compromise needs to be made where an acquisitions can be made without the threat of dominance.

2. I find it amusing that I am writing this blog post after reading a news story about FCC regulations on an online website which is not bound by FCC regulations. This reminds me of a meme joke that I recently saw on my facebook feed- “there is no currently FBI Director- quick, everyone make copies of VCR video tapes”. This was in reference to the blue FBI warning that used to flash in bright blue at the beginning of VCR movies (if you rewind them completely before watching). Since I do not own a TV (I stream on Hulu, Amazon and Netflix) nor do I have a car to listen to the radio in, the news that I view is completely outside the scope of this FCC regulation.
   However, it is important to remember that many people in this country do get this news from these sources. People listen to morning talk radio on their commute to work, and after the dishes are done, watch the nightly news on their television (perhaps even one without cable). As far as I know, there may be people out there who read the daily newspaper, in paper form!
   Therefore, FCC regulations still play a relevant role in policy. The intention of the policy is sound: to diversify news sources so that it less likely that there will be a monopoly on one perspective. Unfortunately, I do not think that the FCC regulations can work in the same way over the internet. I think that it is impossible to control the internet, and that cyber surveillance is our best tool to monitor crime and/ or fake news.

   1. I agree totally. I think there is much work to be done with regards to understanding the dynamic of the internet and figuring out how to regulate it. However when thinking about large networks merging I can see the immediate harm to the people as there will be a lack of diversity.

      1. I definitely agree that there is still value in FCC regulations, and that they are harder to execute over the internet. I think the point about preventing large companies from merging is key, at least to a starting point in regulating the internet. Allowing too much power to consolidate with one or a handful of companies is dangerous in an era when so many people are getting their news on the internet. Countries with authoritarian or partially authoritarian regimes, like Russia and China, have state-run media that is much more powerful and influential than independent voices. It’s important for democracy to ensure that no one company is too powerful. Whether that company was owned by the government or a private entity, the American people must have access to diverse viewpoints to keep democracy strong.

   2. Interesting Francesca. People often forget that the FCC also regulates our World Wide Web, not just the media. Frankly, these are all confusing terms to me–the media, the Internet–any global information medium where users can watch, listen, read, and write via any electronics nowadays. Everything is connected to the Internet. I don’t know how FCC regulates media ownership without affecting the Internet and other players along the way. Vice versa. I do strongly believe that preventing and penalizing cyber crimes like porn or virus sites should be a priority of FCC.

   3. Hello
      I enjoyed reading your post, you are right we are reading about this debate of regulations for the FCC online instead of in the actual newspaper. I agree that still many people make use of traditional media and as you mentioned regulations need to be made. It is difficult to compete with the internet but I believe that if the FCC make changes to their regulations like increasing the variety in ownership in order for the public to read or watch different aspects of the issues presented might help.

   4. Francesca, your point and your irony are well spoken. I think it is fortunate that there was an opportunity to find this information outside of FCC regulated sources. I am a radio listener and have witnessed the diminishing diversity of New York’s local radio stations. There is no country station, there is only one classical station when there used to be two, and the oldies station plays music only as old as the 70’s.

   5. I agree with you it is impossible to control the internet there is always the chance that internet monitors miss it. For example hackers have been able to evade authority and hack into individuals accounts and other personal information causing harm to many. At the same time we must have updated systems which allows us and authority to faster pinpoint these criminals and stop them before they cause further harm to the citizens

3. I found it difficult to generate an opinion on the matter as the article does not make it clear as to how merging large companies or even allowing large TV networks to own newspapers would somehow curb the affects of the internet. Ultimately I believe that the rules can remain in place for the sake of the people having access to a diverse range of views and ideologies with regard to news. Allowing large tv networks to merge could potentially further monopolize the industry and make it difficult for smaller networks to get their message across and difficult for viewers to have access to diversity.

   Representative Eshoo comments on what the FCC’s focuses should be seems very important . She asserts that the FCC and congress “needs to examine this in terms of what consolidation is actually going to do for the American people”. Ultimately what is lacking from the republican side of the debate is compelling evidence that the merging of large companies and cross ownership would help them compete with the internet. The internet and the ways in which it disseminates information is very dynamic; so dynamic that I fail to see how ABC owning a newspaper (especially given the dying industry of print media) will help the network compete.

   1. We voiced similar sentiments regarding support for Democratic representative Eshoo’s thoughts about the American people getting lost in this debate. I felt like the focus was more on business and power rather than democracy and what was best for the public. In addition diversity is what makes the United States great whether it’s amongst broadcasters, ideologies, views, access to radio and television the internet or the newspaper. Our first amendment right of freedom of speech shouldn’t be limited to how opinions and news are disseminated. It would take away the right of citizens to have access to opposing views. We all don’t have to agree and we should be able to say. Having a homogenous media outlet is not what democracy is about. The founding fathers of the Constitution recognized factions as a necessary part of democracy and understood that they had every right to exist. Hopefully this country can maintain the basic premise of the people being the foundation of our government and not business.

   2. I think relaxing ownership laws is supposed to increase traditional media companies’ competitiveness with internet-based companies as opposed to curbing their growth or readership. I completely agree with your point that Republicans have not made a compelling argument for how allowing mergers increases competitiveness. I see no benefit in allowing large-scale mergers and reducing the already meager diversity of opinion in the media.

4. This issue was in the news just recently as Sinclair, already the largest owner of local stations in the US, neared a deal to buy Tribune Media, bringing their total to 215 stations. This consolidation has serious consequences. Sinclair is one of the most conservative media outlets in the country and ownership of so many local stations means control over local news and programming, which Sinclair has actively used to promote an explicit agenda. NPR reports that:
   “In December, Politico reported that Jared Kushner had boasted to business executives that the Trump campaign had struck a deal giving access to Sinclair in exchange for more favorable coverage, a claim the chain denied.” They have also forced anti-Democratic and pro-war stories across their stations. Arguing that reducing regulation won’t lead to more consolidation is absurd—it’s already happening.

   I also find the line of reasoning that cross-ownership should be relaxed because consolidation is already rampant in other media to be spurious at best. One wrong can’t be used to justify another. In fact, conservatives that use that logic are unintentionally arguing for more vigorous anti-trust laws by pointing out the crowding out of the market in areas such as cable providers and its deleterious effects. Assuming companies will somehow self-regulate without government involvement and we’ll suddenly have a diversity of opinion across media has no basis in reality.

   1. I was just listening to an NPR podcast earlier today and one of the host shared this news of Sinclair potentially buying Tribune Media as the thing he cannot stop thinking about. I agree with you as to how serious the consequences of this acquisition particularly because Sinclair has conservative political leanings. I learned that, based on a study, nearly 60% of Americans get their news from television and of that number, 50% rely on local tv stations. When you have a media consolidation at a local television level, what happens is that they (Sinclair) have a small team of reporters based in Washington who does stories throughout the day and disseminate the same stories everywhere so what the public gets is a homogenized, sometimes partisan view of politics that is seen across the country. So that can only hurt democracy.

      Another thing to be concerned about with this acquisition, which will be made possible by the new rule change from the Trump appointee FCC chairman is that it will allow Sinclair-Tribune to reach about 45% of households, exceeding the current cap by 6%. But I think the worst part of this news is the owner of the Sinclair, David Smith, a Republican and an ally of Trump. He’s also known to use his stations to bring forward the Republican’s agenda. Some are even entertaining the notion that Sinclair could challenge FOX. Who knows? But this concentrated media ownership should really concern everyone who cares about democracy.

   2. It’s downright comical to think that the large media conglomerates should receive any relief due to their inability to put a strangle hold on online media consumption. If anything, there should be regulatory action against broadcast groups like Sinclair because the television market has shrunken and their needs to be a recalculated view of competition. There needs to be more initiatives put into place to fight for independent sources of news and to further encourage diversity in voices and though.

5. I think regulation is still necessary to prevent a monopoly of media outlets. Deregulation will reduce the diversity of opinions, views, and perspectives that frame the stories and information disseminated by the media. Though technology has made information more accessible through the internet and social media, majority of the public still tune in to television and radio as reliable sources of information so it still important to maintain those regulations. Increased consolidation have the potential to diminish the quality, credibility and accountability of information conveyed to the public, which is terrible for democracy. To better serve democracy, the FCC should actually consider new regulations to open the floodgates for more minority media to participate.

   Most media outlets have already expanded their platforms through the internet, social media, and even podcasts. If the FCC were to deregulate media ownership rules now, wouldn’t that simply empower them to elevate their influence in the media and monopolize other mediums?

   1. You raised a great question Kathryn. It’s so easy to view the Internet and social media as one term, embedded with various categories of media outlets that people don’t often distinguish. I don’t believe that happens by accident. I think there are a lot of eyes and hands behind in planning this interconnected web of information. Theories are also supported by history confirming human are information seekers. Whoever makes it easiest for us to get access to that information is often the winner. So I would definitely agree that the deregulation of FCC media ownership rules will only give rise to dominance of media power and control. I would expect more mergers and acquisition happening down the road. Examples can be Disney purchasing ESPN, and there are rumors that it’s going to acquire our favorite streaming service Netflix too.

      1. to add to that I would say it will make those giants more powerful to want to dictate to us what type of news to hear and which persons they will show on their network. The internet like you said seem to be free for all but there are actually invincible hands behind it manipulating and feeding the internet with the news people want to hear.

   2. You’re right, it’s very hard to see who deregulation would benefit except for corporate shareholders. It would pretty clearly lead to an even further concentration of ownership and therefore reduce diversity of opinion.

6. The deregulation of FCC on media ownership poses an interesting question on the dynamics of news media industry nowadays. It is a fast changing world that we live in now. Viewers and readers demand instant gratification of information and will continue to indulge in the convenient access our Internet can offer. I’m not in strong support of that but I believe the deregulation of FCC and relaxation of rules is inevitable no matter the resistance. I read an article recently on Facebook about the rise of late night talk show over the traditional news reporting tools like CBS News or The New York Times. Late night shows are becoming more and more popular in the United States. The late night talk show format was popularized, though not invented, by Johnny Carson with The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson on NBC. One of the biggest appeals of late night shows is that they are generally structured around humorous monologues about the day’s news, guest interviews, comedy sketches and music performances. I also think that one reason why late night talk show is becoming so successful is that it combines the “Strong Effect Theory”, the “Two-Step Flow Theory”, and the “Agenda Setting Theory” altogether. Talk show hosts, like Stephen Colbert or Trevor Noah, are figures who set the tone for an antidote to a reality audience often find hard to absorb. The 1st Amendment also allows freedom of speech and the press to turn heavy politics into comedies and mockery. It’s interesting that late night talk shows are more of a popular format in the United States, but are not as prominent in other parts of the world.

   1. It’s interesting that you talk about Late Night shows in terms of a mainstream news source. It makes a lot of sense though, when I had a TV, I would watch 20/20 weekly. Although that is different from the Steve Colbert show that you mentioned. I have never watched that show, but have seen some clips on You Tube.
      I think it is important that FCC regulations apply to that show because it prevents the spread of fake news, and also, because is enforceable. Network TV is run by corporations that are used to following regulations, and run enterprise by showing commercials. Regulating the internet is less enforceable because nearly anyone can publish a website.

   2. I agree that deregulation of the FCC rules it is inevitable especially under the Trump administration. However, I am afraid that once the rules are relaxed, the major media outlets will monopolize the media market which will lead to less diversity.

7. I do not think it makes sense to relax media ownership rules. I think in today’s political climate especially, preserving and even strengthening regulations on media ownership is more important than ever.

   The perpetuation of fake news is one of the biggest threats to our democracy at the moment. Strong, independent, fact-based news organizations are one of the best tools we have at our disposal to fight back against fake news. While it’s true that larger media conglomerates have more power, money, and influence than lots of smaller news organizations, having too much power in the hands of a few individuals is dangerous. The current regulations still allow a fair amount of media consolidation — Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp and Disney are two examples of media conglomerates that wield incredible influence. There is no reason to relax regulations further except to allow a handful of individuals to amass more unnecessary wealth and influence.

   While I understand the argument that the advent of the Internet and digital news sites has changed the media landscape as a whole, I don’t think that’s an argument for deregulation. I actually think it’s an argument for continued regulation. After the 2016 election, subscriptions to reputable news services like The New York Times and the Washington Post surged. In turbulent times like we’r currently experiencing, most people seem to recognize the importance of reliable fact-based journalism. Legitimate news organizations have also adapted to the new reality of media and have become much more digitally savvy in the last few years. They can, and are, competing well with smaller digital outlets already. I don’t think deregulation will change that much, and I believe the risks of too much concentrated power far outweigh any small short-term gains that could be made from deregulation.

   1. I turn to agree with you on the need to keep the media in check especially in the face of recent news reportage which has pose a threat to decerning viewers and listeners of both TV and radio in the US. the fake news saga being echoed by section of the political divide are trying hard to discredit the news item in the eyes of the general public. On the other hand when the rules are relaxed in terms of media ownership people like Rupert Murdoch could buy out the other giants and now we would be faced with eminent monopoly either TV or radio.

   2. I can’t agree with you more about the fact the bigger media outlets are already competing with smaller news sources digitally. If there’s anything deregulation will do on the digitally front, it will give bigger news establishments the license to dominate their influence in shaping the stories and news being disseminated to the public through the internet and social media outlets, which is detrimental to democracy since many people rely on their smartphones, in this day and age, to consume information.

   3. I agree. These media ownership rules are necessary, if only to preserve the meager space occupied by dissenting voices. I’m not convinced, though, that “fake news” is a big threat. Someone sharing outlandish and unbelievable stories on facebook is not the same as that same person believing the story, nor is it true that they shared that story because they didn’t see the real version in the Washington Post. I don’t have hard evidence for this but when I think of who are the people who share what we tend to think of as “fake news” it’s always that wacky aunt or uncle, or that creepy guy from high school. I don’t know how much influence people like this have on what the country believes as a whole.

   4. Your point that the advent of the internet is a reason for continued regulation is very interesting and I agree. The arguments for cross-media ownership fall short when seeing the recent successes of many print news media sources like NYT and WaPo. I also agree that smaller media organizations can still be quite competitive in today’s climate. I think considering the success of small conservative sites and publications this past election season shows that.

   5. I agree Elora, now more than ever regulation of media ownership is crucial during our current tumultuous political climate. This current administration has personally motivated my search for fact based media outlets, that can provide options to diverse view points to be able to determine my standpoint on a particular topic.

   6. Your post is full of content. I agree with the two examples of media conglomerates. It leaves me wondering how can they regulated or even halted. Regulation will always be in the best interest of the people and its government. Companies do not have an obligation to support the people’s best interest but their own. There’s a film called Too Big to fail, and it shares the sentiments you have made. Wherever there is regulation, there will always be a push for deregulation.

   7. I agree that deregulation won’t do much except for allowing large broadcasting station the ability to over power he small broadcasting stations. If anything the FCC need to push for stricter regulations to minimize one entity owning more broadcasting stations than they should within their marketplace. Consolidation can only hurt the public and like you said democracy

8. What really comes to my mind is President Trump talk about the FCC cracking the whip on media houses in response to recent news reportage about his administration he termed “fake news”. I do not think it make sense for the FCC to relax media ownership rules. The emphasis is on ownership, where if given the opportunity a few media giants would come together to now determine what type of news to air out and which party or personality they want to project. On the flip side, Even the news industry’s free fall probably may not be enough to erase complicated federal rules designed to restrain the power of the media. For decades, the FCC has imposed strict limits preventing any company from controlling too many media houses in the same market. These limits or restrictions were to ensure that communities have choices of newspapers and local TV and radio stations. Congress requires the FCC to review its rules and regulations every four years. The regulations or limits is good to the extent that it prevents media giants like Fox, NBC, ABC and CBS from merging which gives them the power and financial muscle to monopolized the media market. I believe that media owners should be looking at whether or not the restrictions are content related in that the limits do not infringe on what they right. As for media ownership the FCC must continue to be firm and not relax any of their regulations to allow giant media houses to merge. However, rules critics say it reflects a time when the news business was dominated by only just three TV networks and local newspapers before cable, satellite and the internet. It is also becoming difficult to regulate however, the recent surge for internet news as well as blogging whose ownership ranges from individuals to big corporations. Rupert Maddock owners almost all the newspapers in the UK such as the Mirror, the Sun, and sky news for TV and in the US such New York Post, New York Times, Chicago Tribune, etc. whiles for TV we have Fox News and its local TV stations nationally.

   1. You bring up a valid point, that Trump wants to crack the whip to prevent fake news (although surely not his own ‘alternate facts’). Therefore, now may not be a good time to make any changes to the FCC at all until there is a more stable administration.
      The FCC does need to find a time relevant way to regulate the media. However, enacting specific legislation at this time may not include safeguards that are direly need against fake news. I think it is important to prevent a monopoly as well- but most channels are already held by a handful of corporations, and watched on even fewer cable providers.

9. The information which was disseminated about the FCC relaxing media ownership was in opposition to economist Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” theory. In Adam Smith’s theory the market is supposed to be self-regulated based on people acting individually with their own best interests in mind. Although the Communications Commission is a government is a government agency subject to the oversight of regulatory rules. The regulations are over 40 years old and aren’t reflective of the emergence of digital media. Democrat Anna Eshoo brought up a great point why I don’t feel FCC rules should be relaxed. It changed my focus away from finances, power and wealth back to the public and the people with shared power. She said, “what serves the public best, the American people.” Is the debate really about free enterprise, monopolization or should we be focused on how the issues affect our democracy. Enforcing the rights of a democracy would also address other issues such as the lack of diversity among broadcasters by looking at equity. The FCC doesn’t appear closed to amending the rules because they did offer public workshops that “encouraged input from the public, academics and industry stakeholders” and proposed modest changes.” It’s a start.

10. I still believe that FCC rules regarding consolidation and ownership are necessary and should not be relaxed. I don’t believe the sincerity of the argument that newspaper and local broadcasters will continue to struggle without “regulatory relief.” This implies that excessive government regulations are keeping small newspapers and other media organizations from acquiring other broadcasters or publishers. In reality small media organizations are struggling to survive because fewer advertising dollars are going into local newspapers, local radio and tv stations.

    The diversity of opinion on cable news is disgracefully meager. I’m going a bit off topic here but MSNBC won’t stop going on about how the election was stolen because of Russian interference, rather than Democratic incompetence. Fox praises Trump and the GOP for the same malfeasance it would hoot and holler over if Democrats did the same. People think fighting Trump’s agenda is done by making fun of how he scotch tapes his tie, or by pointing out that he has bad taste and lies all the time. If there has been an honest assessment of what Democrats did wrong, or an actual grassroots alternative strategy that shuns corporate lobbying, I haven’t seen it on cable. Then again I don’t know how such a strategy would fit into a popular tv channel’s programming, and who would bother to advertise on that. So what I’m trying to say (in a soapboxy, sorta weird, roundabout way) is that diversity of opinion on TV and Radio is slender, and perhaps further strengthening the ownership rules from an anti-trust perspective would be more appropriate.

    1. Yes, I agree with your post. Those in favor of deregulation frames their argument based on inability to compete with emerging platforms. But in reality, the new emerging platforms are the ones that are unable to compete with these big media outlets in terms of advertising and sponsorships. These new media outlets lack the resources to compete with the big media outlets. FCC regulation intent is to protect further consolidation and allow more media outlets to have an influence over the public. These allows more health diversity of opinions to develop.

11. Industry analyst predict that under the Trump administration the FCC rules and regulations will be relaxed, loosening restrictions on how many broadcast properties one company can own in any given market and lifting the ban on media companies owning newspapers and broadcast TV stations in the same market. Fewer media ownership restrictions would likely lead to consolidation of broadcast and newspaper companies. Major media companies would then be allowed to monopolize the media market, and decrease viewer’s access to diversity and opinions. In my opinion, this would be a bad idea because it would cause the media to have even more influence and control over the content of news. Big companies have a lot to gain with deregulating the FCC rules/regulations at the expense of the public. I do believe that the rules and regulations need to be re-evaluated and changed to reflect how the media is used and consumed especially with the increase use of the internet and social media outlets. The FCC should also look into increasing restrictions on how internet data is sold by major companies like google and yahoo so that the public’s privacy information is more protected.

    1. I agree that the companies that stand to win the most are the large conglomerates that already shape much of the news we consume. I also think you bring up a really good point about privacy protection. Consumers have few options to protect themselves from large technology and media companies selling their personal information or using personal data to the companies’ advantage. The larger and more powerful a company is, the riskier it is to give those companies freewheeling access to consumer data. The FCC should not even consider an inch of deregulation until officials can ensure consumers’ privacy is protected.

    2. Good points Quyen. I also agree that the structure of the regulations should be revisited due to the evolution of media consumption. Interestingly enough, Google is seeing tremendous push back in the EU because of its dominance of the online advertising market and due to concerns of online privacy being threatened.

       https://www.wired.com/2016/07/europe-going-google-hard-google-may-not-win/

12. While I personally dislike the idea of relaxing media ownership rules and guidelines, I do understand the rationale. Online media sites, like Huffington Post, are able to percolate their online news across the country. Additionally the media company releases videos, podcasts, and a digital “print-like” magazine. Meanwhile, media companies subject to the FCC’s regulations are unable to own radio stations, tv news stations, and newspapers within the same region.

    To me, the crucial difference between HuffPo and a traditional media company lies in distribution of information. The internet has no limits on the amount of content one can create and post. Just as HuffPo releases content across many media types, so do other web-based news companies. However there are limits on radio frequencies for radio stations and the amount of television stations that can be supported by antenna. For this reason I believe that the FCC’s regulations on ownership are necessary in preventing monopolies on thought.

13. Well I believe that many people still rely on the traditional media and that is why regulations need to be updated by the FCC in order to compete with the internet but I do not think that relaxing on media ownership regulation is the solution. This proposal would allow one company to own a local paper, two TV stations and up to eight radio stations in a single market. Advocates said that by consolidating the cost will decrease and it benefit in saving local journalism. I do not believe that is true because by having cross-ownership it will simply drags down the performance of both broadcasting and print operations.
    Additionally consolidation will hurt media diversity making the communities look and here only one type of opinion a monopoly of news. That is not the solution to save traditional journalism. It is difficult to know what regulation will actually help the media but relaxing on ownership rules is not it. According to Johs Stearns As media companies are bought and sold, as they go bankrupt and get traded by private equity firms, the people who get hurt are journalists and communities. Journalists lose their contracts or their jobs and communities are left with newspapers whose revenues are used only to pay off debt.

14. There is no doubt that the profound influence media has on public issues. FCC regulation protects the public by preventing one organization hold the majority power as it will have greater influence over public deliberation. Media ownership is an interesting and complex issue. The advocates for deregulation sees the opportunity to compete with new emerging platforms and allow small markets to survive a difficult industry. It also allows smaller media outlets have a bigger voice in the media, but the fear amongst those against deregulation is that it will monopolize the media further. They claim that media is already too consolidated and lack diversity. I believe further consolidation is good for business but in the expense of healthy diet of information. The growing number of new platforms is great for diversity and allows more meaningful deliberation. Ultimately, the right decision is to allow protection to those smaller diverse media outlets from being taken over by big markets and potentially monopolizing the information.

15. I feel as though there is no upside to relaxing FCC regulations, but I can agree that the format of the regulations should definitely be revisited due to the changing nature of media consumption. Yes, the internet has leveled the field to some degree, but like many posters above have stated, traditional TV and Radio are still the prime sources of news for most Americans and those sources are typically ran by a select few organizations. Because they have so much power at their fingertips, the messaging that they choose to display or not display affects a majority of the country. Actually, I would argue that they have too much control of the market.

    Loosening the FCC’s terms, that are already deemed behemoth friendly, would only allow the few organizations that control what we refer to as legitimate news outlets to hold a similarly domineering position online.

    1. Ryan, great points! I agree that there is no upside to relaxing FFC regulations, yet they do need to be revisited to meet the needs of how the public receives information. As the use of the internet continues to increase and is projected to become the main source to obtain information, all sources should be regulated to avoid the dominance of ownership.

    2. I agree that nothing positive can come from relaxing media ownership rules. It will only encourage consolidation and more bargaining power to larger organizations. Radio and Television are some people main source of newsfeed, and how and what these organizations choose to inform the public has the potential to be harmful if given too much power. The FCC should promote diversity, yet there are issues with some channels guilty of discrimination. As Eshoo stated “We need to examine this in terms of what consolidation is actually going to do for the American people.”

16. I do not think the FCC should relax media ownership rules. I believe that the deregulation advocates are stakeholders in large media corporations and attempting to increase profits by acquiring smaller media companies. These companies want to increase their already large share of the market in order to disseminate the new stories they find worthy of publication, their political views and/or potentially dangerous rhetoric to Americans. The consolidation of media sources will only decrease diversity and smolder the possibility of smaller companies getting their messages out to wider audiences. Diversity in broadcasting helps to expand our knowledge and opinions of public issues, broadens the scope of what we routinely hear from our “information cocoons,” and encourages critical thinking.

17. I have a difficult time empathizing with huge media companies that have controlled the public conversation for decades. The internet may be a serious competitor, but being on the internet alone does not guarantee a huge or even significant following. The competition on the internet is greater and online media companies have to make even more of an effort to stand out. The FCC rules and regulations exist for a reason – to prevent any one company from monopolizing information and manipulating the truth. To this day, radio, television and newspaper advertising is far more lucrative than internet advertising. The FCC, however, can do a better job of enforcing these types of rules online to ensure that one internet media company does not control the conversation in that space either.

18. As the media seek innovative ways to inform as much people possible in record speed, there is now even more need to regulate media ownership to avoid the monopolization of the information the American public receives, as well as evade consolidation to allow and foment diversity. The summary of the current media ownership rules is obsolete and requires fine-tuning to meet the needs of the production and dissemination of information to the American public. This will need to include the internet, which has a vast influence in increasing the reach of perhaps an owner of a television channel and several radio stations, with an ideological idea that can be retweeted or reposted to have a wider percentage of coverage to the public. This is highlighted in the FCC’s Review of the Broadcast Ownership Rules: National TV Ownership. It mentions “The rule does not limit the number of TV stations a single entity may own nationwide so long as the station group collectively reaches no more than 39 percent of all U.S. TV households.”, yet those whom now rely mainly on retrieving their information from internet sources, will increase that percentage. Including all forms media outlets will be crucial to strategically revisit the FCC’s Review of the Broadcast Ownership Rules to protect the public’s interest, diversify ownership and ensure we are receiving different frames of references to reach a well-informed opinion.

19. Whenever there is legislation, a push for regulation follows. The FCC has not changed their radio ownership rules since 1996 and for good reason. According to them they have not had enough reason to change it. It can be said the FCC understands the potential outcome of allowing super conglomerates form and the control that would be lost as followed. As it stands the American people do not have much of a choice. Six large media companies control %90 of what we read, watch and listen to. To the point of Rep. Anna Eshoo this type of concentration limits diversity and ideas in the marketplace. She also poses a relevant question “would consolidation benefit the American people?”

    As an advocate for regulation (to some degree), the FCC policies are not out of date. There should be protection from monopolies, high prices and poor service all of which can result from this consolidation. A little research found that in 1983 media was owned by 50 companies. In 2011 media is owned by only 6 companies. A strong concentration such as this could potentially mean less credible news according to Bernard Lunzer. The FCC should not be fazed by the claims against them. They are the ones defending the American people from the negative effects of capitalism.

20. The arguments stated here sound as if those who want less restrictive cross ownership rules want to have their cake and eat it too: the Internet allows for another way to access information, so more cross ownership is needed; or, media outlets have to compete with the Internet, so more cross ownership is needed. So, which one is it really? The answer is neither. The programming and accessibility options afforded by the Internet provide a competitive advantage in the information market place, and this is good for consumers. We need a way around homogenized information. Yet, the ownership restrictions on more traditional media outlets have existed for a period that long precedes the Internet as we know it today. It does not make sense to further relax media ownership rules because any threats to healthy marketplace competition (and the flow of information derived from it) existed before the Internet and still exist today. Since when was a little competition bad for the consumer? The Internet is not the issue, market share is.

    Competition for market share intensifies as media conglomerates merge or buy each other up and their service areas expand and overlap, as documented and described in the articles here: http://www.globalissues.org/article/159/media-conglomerates-mergers-concentration-of-ownership#MediaConglomeratesMegaMergersConcentrationofOwnership. In 1983 there were 50 media conglomerates providing our entertainment and information needs. That number was down to nine such entities in the 1990s, and now six. I am concerned by the apparent turnaround time required for the FCC to review licensing and consolidation agreements. The tone of the articles suggest that the FCC is losing pace and that demand for information and industry growth will overwhelm the agency.

    To argument “a” I say the information that is available on the Internet still must be posted by some webmaster or other manner of information gatekeeper. Not everything gets posted, and threats to net neutrality mean that there could be external pressures placed on which information is available without restriction. If there are reductions to Internet neutrality, sustaining a diversity of traditional media outlets will become that much more important.

21. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an agency that was created to regulate interstate communication by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. What this means is that the FCC provides fast, efficient Nationwide and world-wide wire and radio communication services to the people of the United States, no matter their race, sex, religion and or ethnic background and decide on the rules on media ownership, as in the number of broadcast station one entity can own, along with common ownership of broadcast stations and newspapers.
    Based on the articles provided for this post, the rules are set up for the benefit of the public and if it does not, as required by Congress, it should be repeal or modify to meet the desired expectations. It is for this reason why the public and government officials are taking a different stance on this. They are saying the rules are not set up in the interest of the people
    Clear Channel is hurting the public more than doing its job by providing the services the community expect from it. In the Los Angeles Times article, a listener talks about a particular station and clearly stated that Clear Channel broadcast nothing that is of value to the community except for racism and stereotyping, but Clear Channel representative deny this and stated that Clear Channel encourage diversity through the work they do.
    There is talk of consolidation that some people like Eshoo is skeptic about it and claims that consolidation will only “limit diversity and ideas in the marketplace,” while others stated it just will not work. The focus here is on more minorities as owners of television stations, which statistic shows that there are only 3% of minorities who own TV stations.
    That being said, would it make sense for the FCC relax media ownership rules? Based on a NY Times article it will not be a good idea and I support this. Relax media ownership rules will only allow more mergers of broadcasting stations, leading to consolidating. What this means for the public are more expensive consumer fees due to providers passing on “ever higher fees from broadcasters and content creator to subscribers,” (de la Merced et al, 2017).

    The purpose of the media ownership rules is to promote diversity in media ownership, promote localism and competition by restricting one entity owning a number of broadcast stations. Relax media ownership rules will change what the FCC was created for in the first place.

22. I agree that the regulatory outline by the FCC is obsolete. Being that the regulations are over 40 years old there should definitely be changes set forth. In this new age of information and technology where things are rapidly evolving there needs to new new regulations that meet these ever demanding and changing times. Members believe by making changes it would affect their quality services provided to listeners, I believe this would rather enhance it.

Comments are closed.