Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
A solution but what's the problem?
Tuesday, June 10, 2003 | No comments posted.
As expected, the Federal Communication Commission this week decided to loosen the rules on the ownership of radio and TV stations. This is an issue Congress should take up and consider reversing.
The rule change will allow greater consolidation of the broadcast news and entertainment media, particularly in big cities. Why does anyone think that would be good for America?
Actually, nobody knows whether it would be good or bad in the long run. Greater consolidation might mean - theoretically anyway - less competition, and this could encourage broadcasters to create a greater variety of programming. Or news on the air could take a more analytical view.
But that's just supposition.
In practice, the change was being advocated by some of the giants in the entertainment business. The reason they were pushing for the change is that they believe it will enhance their business. Translation: More revenue and fewer expenses.
When any change is considered, the public body in charge ought to ask: What's the problem we are trying to fix?
In this case there is no problem, as far as can be seen from here, at least not one that further consolidation can fix.
The growing importance of cable is being cited as one reason the broadcasters must be freer to compete. But it is the big broadcasting companies that are also active in the cable field. Why should the public care if they are competing against themselves?
The old ownership rules date from a time before cable, the Internet and satellite TV. So it's obviously true that they do not take account of technological change. But again, what was wrong with a system in which no two or three giant corporations - let alone one - could be in control of what Americans watch and hear?
Consolidation has been the theme of big business for a long time. But this is hardly a cause for congratulation, despite the efficiencies this might have brought. It also has made the country more uniform and thus more boring.
Watching and listening to what's on the air, it's already evident that local or regional diversity is all but gone. A local TV station in Oregon acts exactly the same in programming as one in Louisiana, for instance. The same consultants are busy everywhere.
But this is hardly a reason for the FCC to go along and make it easier to further homogenize the United States.
The Albany Democrat-Herald
The rule change will allow greater consolidation of the broadcast news and entertainment media, particularly in big cities. Why does anyone think that would be good for America?
Actually, nobody knows whether it would be good or bad in the long run. Greater consolidation might mean - theoretically anyway - less competition, and this could encourage broadcasters to create a greater variety of programming. Or news on the air could take a more analytical view.
But that's just supposition.
In practice, the change was being advocated by some of the giants in the entertainment business. The reason they were pushing for the change is that they believe it will enhance their business. Translation: More revenue and fewer expenses.
When any change is considered, the public body in charge ought to ask: What's the problem we are trying to fix?
In this case there is no problem, as far as can be seen from here, at least not one that further consolidation can fix.
The growing importance of cable is being cited as one reason the broadcasters must be freer to compete. But it is the big broadcasting companies that are also active in the cable field. Why should the public care if they are competing against themselves?
The old ownership rules date from a time before cable, the Internet and satellite TV. So it's obviously true that they do not take account of technological change. But again, what was wrong with a system in which no two or three giant corporations - let alone one - could be in control of what Americans watch and hear?
Consolidation has been the theme of big business for a long time. But this is hardly a cause for congratulation, despite the efficiencies this might have brought. It also has made the country more uniform and thus more boring.
Watching and listening to what's on the air, it's already evident that local or regional diversity is all but gone. A local TV station in Oregon acts exactly the same in programming as one in Louisiana, for instance. The same consultants are busy everywhere.
But this is hardly a reason for the FCC to go along and make it easier to further homogenize the United States.
The Albany Democrat-Herald
The comments below are from users of theworldlink.com and do not necessarily represent the views of The World or Lee Enterprises. Participation Guidelines
Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
Not already registered?
The World welcomes your comments about stories, and we encourage a robust dialogue on this site. All comments must meet reasonable standards of decency and civility.
Please follow these basic rules:
- No defamatory comments about individuals or businesses.
- No deliberately false information.
- No obscenity or racially offensive language.
- No harassment, verbal abuse, threats or personal attacks.
- No information that invades another person's privacy.
- No business solicitations or charitable solicitations.
Comments that violate these standards will not be posted. Users with repeated violations may be banned from future posting.Comments will be approved throughout the day during business hours. After hours and weekend comments may not appear until the following business day. It may take a couple of hours before comments are approved.
The World generally does not edit comments, but we reserve the right to edit any comment that does not meet our standards.
Close Guidelines