One of the missions of this site, as put forward by our Content Director Steve Johnston, is to be an outlet for local content here in Philadelphia - an outlet more attentive to that content than larger media outlets.

This article would suggest that, in the near future, there will be a need for that.

I, personally, am in favor of consolidation and this new FCC propsal; I know what media outlets are going through right now with the slumping ad market and layoffs, and I know it makes sense for them to work together in a more effective way - and I know they're looking for that. That's just smart business.

I don't know, at this point however, what that means - or could mean - for sites like ours, what the impact could be.

Read the article and tell us what you think. Are you in favor of consolidation? Or do you think this is something that poses a threat to journalism or media in general?

~Jennifer



All News Media Inc.
By BILL KOVACH and TOM ROSENSTIEL

From the New York Times, 01/07/03

WASHINGTON
Without much notice, the federal government is moving toward the most sweeping change ever in the rules that govern ownership of the American news media.

This shift could reduce the independence of the news media and the ability of Americans to take part in public debate. Yet because of meager press coverage and steps taken by the Federal Communications Commission in its policy-making process, most people probably have no idea that it is taking place.

Having seen how totalitarian regimes moved the world to war through domination of their news media, the government during the 1940's put restrictions on how many news media outlets one company could own, both nationally and in a single city.

Though those rules have been relaxed in the last 20 years, companies are still blocked from buying a newspaper and television station in the same city or from owning more than one TV station in the same market.

Three weeks after it proposed eliminating those rules, the F.C.C. released a series of reports about the current media marketplace. But the reports focused almost entirely on the economic impact of relaxing the ownership rules. They largely ignore the public's interest in a diverse and independent press.

The F.C.C. argues that technologies like the Internet offer Americans access to more information than ever and thus worries about monopolies are unfounded. But studies also show that most Americans receive their news from a handful of outlets. Beyond this, much of what appears on the Internet is repackaged from those outlets. The number of operations that gather original news is small and now may become smaller.

The question of concentration is most acute at the local level. In most communities, even those with television and radio stations, the vast range of activities are covered by only one institution, the local newspaper.

What will happen to communities if the ownership rules are eliminated? Among the possibilities is that one or two companies in each town would have an effective monopoly on reaching consumers by being allowed to control the newspaper, radio, TV, billboards and more — with costly consequences for businesses that need those outlets for advertising. Such a monopoly on information would also reduce the diversity of cultural and political discourse in a community.

The precedent in radio is telling. Since the rules on ownership of radio were last relaxed in 1996, the two biggest companies went from owning 130 stations to more than 1,400.

The F.C.C. chairman, Michael K. Powell, has scheduled only one public hearing, in Richmond, Va., on the proposal, and the public comment period will close at the end of this month. It is a small and brief opportunity, but one that the public should seize if it cherishes an independent press.

Bill Kovach is chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists. Tom Rosenstiel is director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

I dunno. I am no media expert, but judging by what has happened in radio, the results might be horrific. The media more than just a business. There are plenty of behaviors that are "good business" that we regulate because they are bad for people, or because the business community is not good at policing itself or setting ethical boundaries.

We were outraged when WHYY was found to be airing environmental news reports that were indirectly funded with Pennsylvania tax dollars by the state Department of Environmental Protection. Syracuse University journalism professor dismissed the reporting as little more than "public-service announcements masquerading as news" and described the situation as "outrageous." (read the Inquirer article)

Will we even know who is paying to write the news if all the outlets are owned by the same few giants?

Radio's big bully: A complete guide to Salon's reporting on Clear Channel
http://www.salon.com/ent/clear_channel//index.html

Radio's titan hits the skids
http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/200...clear_channel/
In the last year Clear Channel -- well known for its hardball tactics -- has been hit with numerous antitrust lawsuits, petitions to the Federal Communications Commission and pending legislation on Capitol Hill.

*I* was, honestly, outraged by the WHYY situation, no question.

That was a blatant disregard for news ethics, and put the public in a vulnerable position - if the public believed that piece, they were believing (in essence) propoganda.

But is the simple act of consolidation an act of disregard for news ethics? I would argue no.

I think two entities within the same company - a newspaper and TV station, for example - can compete but still provide information that enhances the public trust, and doesn't violate it.

It would be a cultural challenge for businesses, certainly, but I think it's possible.

Thoughts?

~JK

It seems to me that making it easier to consolidate without making it easier to get into the business is bad. What happened with radio is that it is still very hard to get licensing (and cost prohibitive) but the caps on owning stations were lifted. I no longer listen to radio. I think we suffer because Knight Ridder owns both our mjor dailies. I would like to see an independent daily started but that's me. I am not for forcing companies to remain independentif they don;t want to. It's not making coverage any better. The beautiful thing about the internet is that it greatly reduces costs of broadcasting...that is until the RIAA and MPAA get their grubby hands on the broadcasters.

The state of radio is the perfect example of what is to come is restrictions continue to be loosened. One company dominates a market, owning several radio stations in that market. That company converts each station to a formula meant to attract listeners from specific consumer segments. Creativity gives way to playlists and record company incentives.

Radio used to be a place to find out about the latest groups, albums, songs, etc. Now it is nothing more than audio informercials for whatever the flavor of the week is that is being pushed by the record companies. The stations become puppets for the record companies and smaller artists and labels are never heard from. Thus, an informal monopoly is created and competition is stifled. But who wants that?!

We'll ... I'm not convinced of that.

I am in favor of consolidation; it makes business sense. However, I don't think companies will rush rush rush to consolidate ... look at what is happening at AOL. It's a long hard road, one that company has just started to pave. There will be rules written, operations streamlined, PR to manage, etc.

I see the point, that this could water down the content, limit choice, etc.

But it could also mean that you get MORE content for your money ... packages, multi-platform delivery, personalized, the way you want it, etc.

Just my two cents ... the flip side if you will.

~JK

If things were to turn out as they are always promised in these situations, then it would acutally benefit consumers and the community, but that is not usually the case. I fear that consolidation will only lead to prepackaged, over-segmented and over-analyzed content that is targeted towards what my demographic is supposed to want. I guess I am pretty skeptical for a marketing guy. :wink:

http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn...10frnetworking ... check this out from CES, happening in Las Vegas this week. Sony is saying the TV will become the central device in the home, as opposed to the PC, and they are calling for CE companies of all types to let the barriers go and work together more readily.

Perhaps this is a more clear illustration of what I'm referring to when I say I'm in favor of consolidation. This sort of cooperation between companies, as they suggest, is what it will take to create the entertainment and content of the future.

~JK

From TVSpy.com:

Why It Will Matter If FCC Limits On Media Ownership Disappear

By Jeff Gelles
Philadelphia Inquirer

Does it matter to you who my boss is?

Not the one who hassles me when I miss deadline, or the one upstairs who signs my paycheck. I'm talking about the corporate owner, in my case Knight Ridder Inc., of San Jose, Calif., the company that has ultimate control over The Inquirer.

Does it matter who owns the TV station where you watch the evening news, or the radio station you listen to in the car, or your Internet home page?

What if they were all owned by the same company? Say, by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., owner of the Fox television network and the New York Post? What if they were all owned by Comcast?

If you think those possibilities are too far-fetched to ponder, it's time to start paying closer attention. Maybe you missed how the Telecommunications Act of 1996 pretty much destroyed local ownership of radio stations.

Now, the Federal Communications Commission, led by Chairman Michael Powell, is poised to toss out long-standing rules that limit TV-station ownership and bar so-called cross-ownership by TV and newspaper owners
- the rules that, among other things, bar Knight Ridder from buying a TV station in this market and bar Fox from buying The Inquirer.

If Powell gets his way, the results could profoundly and irreversibly affect what you see and hear from local news media. How far Powell plans to go is unclear, since no one outside the FCC admits to having seen a draft of Powell's changes, which are expected to be unveiled next month and voted on soon after.

Powell's proposal has even been withheld from the commission's Democratic minority, including Commissioner Michael Copps, who will be in Philadelphia tonight as part of a series of forums aimed at stirring up public debate over the imminent proposal.

Powell says the FCC's hand has been forced by the '96 law and the courts, which he says demand that the rules be dropped if they can't be proved to be "necessary in the public interest."

But Powell's critics complain that he never really tried and is using the court orders as an excuse to do what he wanted to all along: discard the rules as a relic of an era when many industries - think airlines, phone companies, banks - were more closely regulated by state and federal governments.

That was before cable TV, before satellites, before the Internet, Powell says. Loosen the reins, he promises, and the free market will work its magic, boosting competition and ultimately benefiting consumers.

It's a fine theory, though it's based at least as much on blind faith as market regulation ever was. If you live in a city dominated by a single airline, as I do, you probably have a hard time seeing any deregulation as a guaranteed slam-dunk success.

But, beyond economic theory, there are bigger reasons to be concerned about Powell's single-handed march toward a less-fettered mass media.

The biggest is that we're not talking about widgets here - or, as one of Powell's Reagan-era predecessors so memorably described TV, about "a toaster with pictures." We're talking about the free flow of information and ideas, which the First Amendment wisely enshrined as a cornerstone of our democracy.

Powell and his allies, including many of the nation's most powerful media conglomerates, say loosening the rules will benefit citizens, much as consumers have benefited from new technologies that have blossomed in our free-market economy.

But what's their primary piece of evidence? Ironically, it's the diversity of today's media marketplace as it's grown and flourished - or grown and become more concentrated, depending on your point of view
- under the very rules Powell wants to scrap.

Powell may be right that Americans today have far more options for experiencing what the media produce than ever before.

Consumer advocates counter that five major companies - News Corp. (Fox), Viacom (CBS), Disney (ABC), General Electric (NBC), and AOL Time Warner (HBO, CNN) - own the vast majority of television channels that viewers watch.

Which brings us back to the question of whether it matters who owns this newspaper, and whether you'd benefit if that company could also own TV stations in the same city.

If you read some of the thousands of comments submitted to the FCC on this issue in recent months, you'll see argument after argument that newspaper readers and TV viewers would benefit, as they supposedly do in cities where joint ownership is allowed under FCC waivers.

But there's another possibility, suggested by the obvious question: Once two news organizations combine, do they really need all those reporters at City Hall - the eyes, and ears, and knowledge, and perspective they provide as they keep tabs on government? How about at the statehouse or on the street?

I've worked in the business long enough to know the answer. And I bet you do, too.

To view comments to the FCC in this proceeding, go to www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs , click on "Search for file comments," and type in docket number 02-277. To submit your own comment, click on "Submit a filing," and use the same docket number.

__________________
* Name: Jennifer Kronstain
* Status on PhillyBlog.com: Co-Founder
* Job: Principal / Founder, KMG Worldwide Public Relations (http://www.kronstainmediagroup.com)
* Connect with Jennifer / KMG. Here's how: http://www.jenniferkronstain.com/contact.htm

I think that you and I discussed this before on another topic. This is just what I was afraid of. Radio has been ruined by the looseing of restrictions. TV and Radio could be more than just ruined, they could become even more biased or unreliable than they already are.