Congress Weighs Even More Media Consolidation
This week the House of Representatives convened the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Communications and Technology to discuss further dissolving the ownership rules governing media in the United States regulated by the FCC. At question were rules that limit local television news organizations from owning local newspapers, and limitations on radio companies from owning more stations. Though the relaxing of the ownerships rules have been at the root of robust media consolidation, representatives from the media industry say it is still not enough to compete in a world with internet publishers and alternatives to radio such as satellite radio and Spotify.
The subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (R) asserted that the FCC’s ownership regulations were outmoded, and didn’t take into consideration the new realities of the Internet. “The media-ownership rules persist as if the Internet simply did not exist,” Walden said. “I don’t think you guys get it.”
Meanwhile Rep. Anna Eshoo (D) said, “We need to examine this in terms of what consolidation is actually going to do for the American people,” stating that further deregulation of the media was more about making outmoded business models work instead of making sure the media and the FCC are fulfilling the public’s interest.
The FCC’s Chief of the Media Bureau William Lake represented the FCC at the hearing, and stated that the commission had not seen any evidence that the 1996 Telecommunications Act rules governing radio ownership needed to be revised. The FCC was also criticized during the hearing for not delivering a 2010 review of the ownership rules that had been requested by Congress to be accomplished every four years. Furthermore, the next ownership review supposed to be delivered in 2014 will not be finished in time, and instead is expected to be rolled into a report scheduled to be finalized and delivered in 2016. The lack of the FCC’s report leaves Congress lacking information on the real impact of media consolidation and what they might be able to do to resolve the concerns of both regulators and the media industry.
Also during the hearing Paul Boyle, the Vice President of the Newspaper Association of America, admitted that relaxing the ownership rules would result in a “massive wave of mergers”, but said that it may be necessary to keep the industry afloat, while The President of the Newspaper Guild Communications Workers of America Bernard Lunzer said, “Further concentration will mean less credible news … We need real innovation and investment … consolidation of existing organizations will not get us there.”
A look at the excerpts below first published by The Frugal Dad of The Forefathers Project in an info graphic entitled “The Illusion of Choice” illustrate just how much American media has consolidated in the last 30 years, especially after consolidation was sent into hyper drive with the passing of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Though a lot of concern was shown by both sides in this week’s Congressional hearing, the conclusions seem to hint that until the FCC delivers their delinquent report on media ownership and concensus can be found on certain issues, not much may be done to either offer relief to the struggling media industry, or stave off the massive media consolidation that looks to concentrate what people see and hear in the hands of a very select few.
June 14, 2014 @ 12:51 pm
I think this is the actual problem, underlying everything we complain about. It’s easy to talk about how country music and mainstream music in general has gone bad, but media consolidation is the biggest factor that got us to this point. And things aren’t going to change for the better anytime soon, because like much of our government, the FCC is a corrupt revolving door.
And yet, when people discuss the problems underlying the rise of “bro-country” and the general poor state of mainstream country music, they blame the decline of the entire human race, the devaluation of music itself, or alleged problems with Generation Y, all of which are broad, sweeping problems that are next to impossible to diagnose, much less do something about. Don’t get me wrong, those kinds of complaints could have a kernel of truth to them, but I still think the most important problem is the fact that the relatively open radio / media environment which allowed country music’s classic era to take place no longer exists. How can country music as a genre thrive when leading lights like Brandy Clark or Kacey Musgraves, not to mention an independent artist like Sturgill Simpson, don’t get a reasonable opportunity for their music to be presented to a mainstream audience? The mass of consumers don’t get the opportunity to make actual choices, but we just throw up our hands and say, “It’s probably just the kids these days, they must be stupid.”
Yet, it is doubtful that an article like this one will receive half the views or comments that the recent one about Taylor Swift received. I think people just want to attack the heads of the Hydra, but not strike at its heart, so to speak.
My two cents.
June 14, 2014 @ 2:10 pm
Of course, the problem is that many SCM readers themselves hold strongly anti-regulatory views and thus would likely oppose any restrictions on media consolidation.
June 14, 2014 @ 3:36 pm
I wouldn’t make any blanket assumptions about my readers. I would like to think the majority make their decisions not down any party lines, but per the subject being addressed.
In the case of FCC regulation, this is not like guns, or certain bureaucracies, or other regulatory hot button issues, there MUST be regulation of the public frequency waves, or it would be mass chaos, and not televisions, radios, cell phones, CB’s, or other over-air devices would work. It would just simply be a race of who could make the most powerful signal. Since there is only a finite of frequency waves that can be used to transmit data, there must be both national, and global regulations. That is why the FCC exists. The idea of deregulation is to decentralize power, but when you’re simply decentralizing it somewhere else, it is a lose lose for consumers and the public interest. I actually do think that old media has a point that they’re being governed by outmoded rules, but that also doesn’t mean that consolidation isn’t just as big, if not a bigger problem. I think there are ways to make sure newspapers and local TV can still compete in the internet age, but make sure that the 6 companies that control 90% of media don’t continue to consolidate until there are two, which is where we a re headed at the moment.
June 14, 2014 @ 1:22 pm
Did someone say….Hydra???
Why yes, it is impossible to attack us by cutting off our head. If you do that, then two more shall take its place!!!
HAIL HYDRA!!!!!!!
June 16, 2014 @ 8:59 am
LOLOL this had me cracking up
June 14, 2014 @ 1:48 pm
I hate to get political, but… whether they’re Democrat or Republican, Congress and politicians in general are only good for creating smear campaigns for their opponents around election time.
MY two cents.
June 14, 2014 @ 2:17 pm
Despite the general corruption in politics, there are genuine ideological differences between the parties, especially on issues of whether corporate control over the economy should be regulated. It is important to note that this new push for deregulation of media consolidation is being spearheaded by Republicans.
June 14, 2014 @ 2:53 pm
When it comes to corporations like these guys federal politicians on both sides are bought and paid for. They work for their donors who these companies are. With enough money they can do anything.
June 14, 2014 @ 9:12 pm
as Trigger said above
“consolidation was sent into hyper drive with the passing of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.”
Signed sealed and delivered by President Bill Clinton.
June 14, 2014 @ 9:21 pm
It was passed by a Republican congress and signed into law by a Democratic President all of whom were bought and paid for. Same as today as long as these huge corporations are able to give money and gifts to these politicians for their political campaigns, personally and for other things they work for the donors not us. Comcast is the second highest political donor to both parties after a large military contractor Thus when they ask for things like the end of net neutrality or a massive merger they get it. Clear Channel and Cumulus do the same thing. That is how the deregulation act was passed in the first place.
June 14, 2014 @ 10:53 pm
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
Not quite. Lots and lots of unions on this list of the major political donors.
June 15, 2014 @ 4:57 am
Michael, I’m agreeing with you.
There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between Republican and Democratic parties.