FCC To Loosen TV, Newspaper Ownership Rules (reuters.com) 86
The FCC is planning to vote on rolling back landmark media ownership regulations that prohibit owning a television station and newspaper in the same market and making it easier to acquire additional TV or radio stations. Reuters reports: If approved at the FCC's November meeting, the move would be a win for newspapers and broadcasters that have pushed for the change for decades, but was criticized by Democrats who said it could usher in a new era of media consolidation. The FCC in 1975 banned cross-ownership of a newspaper and broadcast station in the same market, unless it granted a waiver, to ensure a diversity of opinions. The rule was made before the explosion of internet and cable news and Republican President Donald Trump and Pai have vowed to reduce government regulation.
"We must stop the federal government from intervening in the news business," Pai told a congressional panel, noting that many newspapers have closed and many radio and TV stations are struggling. Pai moved earlier this year to make it easier for some companies to own a larger number of local stations. Pai said the marketplace no longer justifies the rules, citing Facebook and Alphabet's dominance of internet advertising. "Online competition for the collection and distribution of news is greater than ever. And just two internet companies claim 100 percent of recent online advertising growth; indeed, their digital ad revenue this year alone will be greater than the market cap of the entire broadcasting industry," Pai said.
"We must stop the federal government from intervening in the news business," Pai told a congressional panel, noting that many newspapers have closed and many radio and TV stations are struggling. Pai moved earlier this year to make it easier for some companies to own a larger number of local stations. Pai said the marketplace no longer justifies the rules, citing Facebook and Alphabet's dominance of internet advertising. "Online competition for the collection and distribution of news is greater than ever. And just two internet companies claim 100 percent of recent online advertising growth; indeed, their digital ad revenue this year alone will be greater than the market cap of the entire broadcasting industry," Pai said.
Win? (Score:5, Insightful)
>The move would be a win for newspapers and broadcasters that have pushed for the change for decades,
No, the product will become even more shit and the viewership will continue to decline, undermining their investments in buying up all the local players.
Re:Win? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but it will probably become more profitable because now operating costs will come down even further. All of the local on-air staff, gone. Local staff that manage programming and other content decisions, almost all gone if not all gone. Engineering staff, no longer need to staff enough to work the studios as there are no studios, probably half or more gone, just limited to staff to maintain a bit of local equipment. Even that might be reduced since it may be possible to outsource that, and multiple stations could end up with the same maintenance partners.
What's funny is that journalism schools already annually graduate more students with journalism or communications degrees than there are jobs in the whole profession. Now that all of your local on-air talent is essentially gone, in my market that could be 50 people, and while my market is a bit larger than most I could reasonably expect any city over 100,000 people to to have at least 25 on-air, with more than 300 metro areas over 100,000, that's 7500 on-air staff losing jobs, plus all of the rest of the support staff.
Frankly it's dangerous for so few people to own all of the press. We're already into an era of Yellow Journalism, and it's only going to get much worse and to polarize people far more. Honestly it could lead to outright civil war when those people that control the media push peoples' buttons in order to drive ratings.
Re: (Score:2)
FCC approves the big brother network, the only network to be allowed access to the internet. Big brother watching out for you, ignorance is strength, truth is fake news and voting is stupid, only nazis vote.
Re: (Score:2)
"No, the product will become even more shit and the viewership will continue to decline"
And the news business will lose customers and influence, and diminish.
As it deserves. If the news business wants to expand its influence and profitability, the competition out there is either unbiased or 'honest' (as in stating up front the bias held), and the mainstream news businesses either reestablish credibility or suffer.
I'm not hopeful, since bias and political activism in the news business is both fundamental -
Re: (Score:2)
competition out there is either unbiased or 'honest' (as in stating up front the bias held)
Bringing you the most liberal news reporting in the nation! This... is CNN!
Real conservative reporting! Fox News is on the scene!
Pai Guy (Score:5, Funny)
Hah, what did you Amercians do to deserve Pai.
He's not even trying to hide being bought by big money.
He should just setup a bidding platform to buy legislation.
Re:Pai Guy (Score:5, Insightful)
Bidding would imply only one winner, so only one payment.
Lobbying lets politicians take money from everyone.
Re: (Score:3)
Now he's building up his brand name so he'll be able to pull in big bucks when he leave government. It is important to have a goal in life. The fact that involves screwing America to get there is just part and parcel of the alleged Administration.
It would make things much more efficient (Score:2)
With fewer companies to coordinate with, it would be much easier to promote a consistent agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
If so, why does that matter?, (Score:1)
Great, now four people are going to own the entire US media rather than six people.
If so, why does that matter? Five of them broadcast identical shit from one viewpoint, the fifth from another. Seems to me at least four of them are redundant.
Especially since the material they purvey smells so bad that their businesses are starting to fail. Maybe, with some more consolidation in a shakeout, one or more of them can survive. B-)
But, seriously, it seems to me that reducing the cost of operation may also mak
Re:If so, why does that matter?, continuing... (Score:2)
(Continuing another hyper-sensitive-touchpad bogus post.)
But, seriously, it seems to me that reducing the cost of operation may also make it possible for others to enter the field. The rule was missing for a century or so, and there was some diversity. Yet, under it, there has been enormous consolidation. Maybe this is one of those good-sounding ideas that have unintended consequences that completely swamp and reverse their intended effect.
Regardless, after the way the media, as a block, savaged Trump, I
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
(and there it goes again)
Regardless, after the way the media, as a block, savaged Trump, I'd expect his guys to be looking for subtle ways to do them a bad turn. Changing rules to shake up their competitive environment (in a way that, as a bonus, looks like they're just going with their ideology and/or doing them a favor) would fit my expectations nicely.
NYTTV (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
For Pete's sake, that's what we have now, or nearly so. News is nearly single perspective now and owned/controlled by a handful of like minded people.
The only fly in the single source ointment is the internet's low cost of entry into the new business. All you need is a couple of dollars and some time and you (YES YOU) can have a web presence like the New York Times... Who cares if you provide accurate information, they certainly don't.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
This is pretty much the end of the USA. (Score:2)
In their next move, billed as a effort to recoup massive loss on infrastructure, the FCC will negotiate sale of the entirety of independent network broadcast corporations to a state-owned Russian company.
Here's why: (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole reason for loosening these rules, and the rules on local ownership, is to pave the way for the far-right Sinclair Broadcast Group to buy even more TV stations across the country. Instead of local news, you will only get stories that reflect the Sinclair agenda.
More centralized control over local media.
https://www.salon.com/2017/10/... [salon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because only the far-right media groups would abuse this. No one else. Nope...
Pretty much. Yes, there will be exceptions, but it will mostly be good news for extremely bigoted, rich, science denying, sociopathic old white guys
,
Re: (Score:2)
Like Soros, Slick Bill, Bernie, Chuck, the rest...
When you describe them as 'bigoted, rich, science denying*, sociopathic old white guys', you cover a broad swath of political leadership in the US.
Don't dismiss this. You chose the brush. This is your painting, I'm just observing.
* - Bring it on, all political movements in America deny science when it suits them. And for the same reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because we need more of this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
The Sinclair Broadcast Group doesn't own newspapers, you fuckwit.
FYI: Citing Salon is just as bad as citing Infowars or Breitbart, and doesn't help your credibility.
Re:Here's why: (Score:4, Insightful)
"The Sinclair Broadcast Group doesn't own newspapers, you fuckwit." Yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I hate to say it (Score:3, Insightful)
People under 50 get their news on the cellphone, and whether that's the Facebook or Twitter or updates, the share of news influenced by old school local news & dead tree papers is bordering on insignificant.
Pai is right, not because of his fealty to the industry, but because the consolidation doesn't impact a significant monopoly of the news market.
Re:I hate to say it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. He might be a genuine idealist, who truly believes in the infallibility of the market and that all government control is tyranny.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, let's talk about that bridge thing. I've got this ICO coming up, and you could really, really cash in. Simple exchange, and BOOM! you're a Blockchain Billionaire!
Keep the Island, I've got a blockchain toll app in development.
Re: (Score:2)
"Except that all of the misinformation in the electorate is from TV commercials."
That's funny. Did I miss the whoosh?
Re: (Score:2)
People under 50 get their news on the cellphone, and whether that's the Facebook or Twitter or updates, the share of news influenced by old school local news & dead tree papers is bordering on insignificant.
People over 50 as well. I do not know anyone who reads an actual "paper" anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
People over 50 as well. I do not know anyone who reads an actual "paper" anymore.
Not daily, but I pick up and read the local paper for three reasons:
The website doesn't include every bit of the physical paper, to see if I know anyone in the obits or criminal/court section, and last, but not least, because the little bitch in charge of killing off the Mickey(s) is careless despite the relative McMansion size of her litter box.
Re: (Score:2)
Are most people just hopelessly addicted, or are people just that dumb? Maybe they're just that lazy? I don't get it. It's like being in Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you noticed that reading diverse news hurts? Sometimes your long-established viewpoints are wrong, and have to change, and it's physically painful?
That's why.
People don't want to be informed; they want reinforcement. They haven't learned to swallow the embarrassment of their failure and enjoy the burning sensation of their mind crying out against a violation of all it's held holy in its own little world, then finally rushing through the sensation of discovery of all kinds of new internal consisten
Re: (Score:2)
"If people get sick of the Internet, going back to radio and TV and newspaper will be nigh well impossible."
The Internet is the new Radio, Newspaper, Television, and some new things. Going back is neither necessary nor helpful. Moving forward and making new media is the solution, if needed.
Beware Net Neutrality. The government would love to regulate the Internet as if it were broadcast technology.
Re: (Score:2)
"People under 50 get their news on the cellphone"
So instead of cheap paper, television, or radio, the youth are using Internet on whatever device suits them.
Same news. Same sources. Same problems. The nail cares not how big the hammer is, or if it's a rock, or your neighbor's dog's head. It's still getting pounded.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be mistaking the two purveyors of advertisements with those looking for and posting the news to the internet.
Re: (Score:3)
In case you haven't noticed, broadcasting media (TV and Radio) has been hitting the skids along with the news papers. One possible exception is "talk" radio. They are all on the same flight path, fighting with online competition and internet alternatives and will suffer the same fate. The writing is on the wall for broadcast TV, trust me.
Increased reputation won't help..
Again.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OK, Hillary, time for bed.
Yawn (Score:2)
Another day, another chip out of the rules and regulations that make us civil and decent to each other.
Nothing good can come of this, which is the hallmark the Trump administration: Just how badly can we fuck this country up in 4 years?
ORLY? (Score:2)
Another day, another chip out of the rules and regulations that make us civil and decent to each other.
ORLY?
Seems to me that, before the regulation was put into place there was an era of competition, and after it there has been nothing but nearly monolithic consolidation.
Seems to me that, if the intent was actually to produce news competition or sweep back a tide of anticompetitive collusion and consolidation, it had either failed miserably or (like the "fairness doctrine") worked to the detriment of what i
Re: (Score:1)
Back in the early 2000s the same thing happened to radio, and basically 90% of all radio got bought up by Clear Channel. Same will now happen with TV
Profitable right-wing talk TV. Replacing unprofitable left-wing lock-step propaganda. And all owned by Mitt Romney.
Interesting concept.
say buh-by to Google News (Score:2)
Step 1: further consolidation of geographically-biased opinion news.
Step 2: further cluster fuck of opinions (you think California being completely out of step with the country is something, wait until every state votes by 75%-25% margin).
Step 3: further financial incentives to suppress opposing view points (left or right -- it doesn't matter -- as long as they oppose the cluster fuck in a particular geo market)
Step 4: complete disregard for whether it is right or wrong to suppress unpopular speech. No nat
Re: (Score:2)
Step 1: further consolidation of geographically-biased opinion news.
Step 2: further cluster fuck of opinions (you think California being completely out of step with the country is something, wait until every state votes by 75%-25% margin).
Doesn't the last election show you that the mainstream media, which was solidly backing Clinton, is utterly impotent to sway elections in the way you describe?
Re: (Score:2)
At this point the US media establishment is a major threat to world peace and security, perhaps the biggest one whilst the US military/security complex is the worst we have seen since the Nazis. People willing to kill millions to earn millions.
This is lunacy, but I don't care to debate as to why. I don't think there is any convincing crazy.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't the last election show you that the mainstream media, which was solidly backing Clinton, is utterly impotent to sway elections in the way you describe?
How do you figure? It was precisely in the last elections that you had very polarized votes by geographic areas. California is just one striking example of that. People who make their living being "normal" don't want to voice opinions which in their geographic areas are considered "crazy". So I don't know how much influence social media has on the news. Most people on social media communicate with people they already know in real life.
Are they nuts? (Score:2)
Still think trump's ideas don't get implemented? (Score:2)
Well ... guess who profits from this, not himself but his 'friends' will.
Sinclair Group lobbying is successful (Score:1)
The Sinclair Group is celebrating it's successful lobbying of Pai and support of Trump today.
They now can proceed with their master plan to buy up as much of the Radio, TV, and Newspaper industry as they can (and with the billionaire Smith family behind them they can buy up a LOT.)
Their stated plan is to create a vertically integrated media empire to challenge FOX News from the far-right and to indoctrinate America in the Smith family's fundamentalist Neo-Fascist/Christian Dominionist viewpoint with onerou
FTFY (Score:1)
Gesture (Score:1)
AShit Pie (Score:2)