Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #505 > unrolled thread

Former FCC Commissioner warns about media consolidation

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Former FCC Commissioner warns about media consolidation 2phar <none@example.com> - 2014-02-17 23:01 +0000
    Re: Former FCC Commissioner warns about media consolidation Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-02-18 01:45 +0200
      Re: Former FCC Commissioner warns about media consolidation Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> - 2014-02-18 10:01 -0500
        Re: Former FCC Commissioner warns about media consolidation Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-02-18 19:51 +0200

#505 — Former FCC Commissioner warns about media consolidation

"http://www.cjr.org/essay/from_the_desk_of_a_former_fcc.php?page=all"

"While still a commissioner, I went one day to visit the editorial page 
editor of a major newspaper. I had noticed an editorial chastising the 
excesses of big oil companies, and I urged the paper to run a similar 
critique about the excesses of big media. The response I got was a 
negative shake of the head and an explanation that the editor had complete 
freedom to cover any issue—except one. That issue was media ownership."

"Many in the news business told me that the future of our media is not a 
sufficiently compelling popular issue to justify its coverage. Yet how 
well I remember three million citizens writing in to oppose the FCC’s 
loosened media ownership rules that were approved in 2003 over my dissent."

"I believe there is much the FCC should be doing to revitalize America’s 
media. The FCC’s job, by statute, is to protect “the public interest.” The 
idea is that the airwaves are a public resource, belonging to all the 
people. No business, no individual, actually owns them."

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#510

2phar <none@example.com>:

> "I believe there is much the FCC should be doing to revitalize
> America’s media. The FCC’s job, by statute, is to protect “the public
> interest.” The idea is that the airwaves are a public resource,
> belonging to all the people. No business, no individual, actually owns
> them."

Yet another reason to like YLE, the tax-funded Finnish state
broadcasting corporation, which produces and licenses TV programming,
news, talkshows, entertainment etc. It keeps the commercial media honest
and, should the commercial media go bankrupt, guarantees the population
stays informed.

I'm guessing most of the countries in the world have state-sponsored
media. The US seems to be the odd man out.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529

On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 01:45:33 +0200, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net>
wrote:

>2phar <none@example.com>:
>
>> "I believe there is much the FCC should be doing to revitalize
>> America’s media. The FCC’s job, by statute, is to protect “the public
>> interest.” The idea is that the airwaves are a public resource,
>> belonging to all the people. No business, no individual, actually owns
>> them."
>
>Yet another reason to like YLE, the tax-funded Finnish state
>broadcasting corporation, which produces and licenses TV programming,
>news, talkshows, entertainment etc. It keeps the commercial media honest
>and, should the commercial media go bankrupt, guarantees the population
>stays informed.
>
>I'm guessing most of the countries in the world have state-sponsored
>media. The US seems to be the odd man out.

Americans have a not-unjustified fear that state-sponsored media could
be use as a propoganda arm of the government. This is based not only
on what we've seen happen in other nations, but the actions of our own
government, which has frequently attempted to bully publishers and
programmers into spreading the government's approved message. The
civil war that led to the formation of the United States was also
largely inspired by the proddings of the authors of various
newspapers, pamphlets and books, so much so that we enshrined the
right of publishers to operate free of government interference in the
core legislation of the nation. So any suggestion that the government
be the major voice in media distribution will be considered only with
great hesitation.

But the problem in this country is not that our media is sponsored
only by the public; it is that it is increasingly controlled only by a
small percentage of its citizens. When all television, radio and
newspapers are controlled by a tiny handful, there is much less
variation in discourse; rather than a babble of voices, representing
the will and mood of the people, there are just a few loud voices that
speak only a few opinions. Entire areas of discourse can go
unrepresented.

When the FCC was doing its job - back before they started to gut it in
the 80s - it prevented exactly this sort of thing. Media cartels were
limited by law in how many outlets they could control, and laws
enforced a certain balance in entertainment, news, education and
advertising. The government said "spread whatever belief you share,
but do so in a manner that attempts to improve the nation, rather than
simply fill your own pockets". We don't have that sort of protection
now. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#532

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com>:

> Americans have a not-unjustified fear that state-sponsored media could
> be use as a propoganda arm of the government.

Not unjustified, but also not inevitable. Finland has a pretty good
journalistic reputation:

   <URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index#Rankings_and_scores_by_country>

> But the problem in this country is not that our media is sponsored
> only by the public; it is that it is increasingly controlled only by a
> small percentage of its citizens. When all television, radio and
> newspapers are controlled by a tiny handful, there is much less
> variation in discourse; rather than a babble of voices, representing
> the will and mood of the people, there are just a few loud voices that
> speak only a few opinions. Entire areas of discourse can go
> unrepresented.

The government is (supposedly) controlled by a large percentage of the
citizens. Unfortunately, Americans are more afraid of themselves ("we
the people") than the Rich Guy.

> When the FCC was doing its job - back before they started to gut it in
> the 80s - it prevented exactly this sort of thing. Media cartels were
> limited by law in how many outlets they could control, and laws
> enforced a certain balance in entertainment, news, education and
> advertising.

Regulation can be good, but sometimes other means are more effective.
For example, instead of fighting campaign contributions, you could use
taxes to sponsor candidates in a fair manner (as is done in Finland,
BTW) so that private campaign sponsors become less of an issue.

Similarly, you could keep private media honest by providing a reasonably
competitive state media.

Case in point, Manchester City - Barcelona Champions' League game will
be broadcast tonight by YLE, while the pay-TV channel is broadcasting
Leverkusen - PSG. And tomorrow, Russia - Finland ice-hockey in the
Olympics (on YLE). Good times, good times.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web