- Friday, 27 November 2009
- INQ Mobile
- RSS
The quicker a phone's answered in sales, the slower it's answered in customer services - Brownridge's Law
US media ownership wrangle puts FCC chairman in hot seat
TODAY, U.S. FCC chairman Kevin Martin and four commissioners spent a few hours in front of a Congressional Committee. They expressed their different views on whether to allow newspapers to buy up radio and TV stations in a local area, effectively controlling the total flow of news to the public.
Much was made of the Internet's delivery of information to a broad cross-section of the American public. However, it was pointed out that over 95 per cent of that information is simply rehashing of somebody else's words. Less than three per cent of the so-called Internet news is produced by independent scribblers.
Members of Congress and the public are protesting the proposal of the FCC Chairman. Observers say today's U.S. House of Representatives hearing, and next week's hearing in the Senate, will send the embattled FCC Chairman a clear message: back off plans to relax media ownership restrictions.
As one Washington DC pundit said, "If he doesn't, he's politically dead." The close-knit community of Washington media, lawyers, lobbyists and policymakers were all watching C-Span.org today as Martin and fellow commissioners appeared before the House Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee.
Representative John D. Dingell, Michigan Democrat, said the federal media regulator "appears to be broken."
Only 3.2 per cent of media owners are either women or from the minorities that make up one third of the US population.
Community news is not covered by conglomerate owners of radio and TV stations. Local radio news rooms have been closed. Local artisans are not invited to perform on the radio or TV. Local emergency information is often not broadcast over local radio and TV because the programming is controlled from afar.
Minority groups and Representative Bobby Burns said relicensing problems are now glossed over. In the past every three years there were 14 guidelines the local TV and radio stations had to meet. Now they are relicensed every eight years and do not have to meet any of the previous criteria.
Representative Burns said delaying minority media ownership is effectively controlling the flow of minority information to the larger community.
Mr. Dingall said "In recent months, we have heard about many FCC agenda meetings postponed all day while closed-door negotiations on important public matters are conducted. We have witnessed too much sniping among the five commissioners, and we have heard too many tales of a short-circuited decision-making process."
Mr. Dingell and other Democrats on the committee said they were concerned that Mr. Martin is rushing a vote on his proposal to roll back a ban on ownership of newspapers and broadcast stations in the same market. Mr. Martin has scheduled a vote on his media ownership proposal for December 18.
"Media ownership in general is obviously a very contentious issue," claimed Mr. Martin, who said that the commission has undertaken a "lengthy, spirited and careful reconsideration of our media ownership rules."
Representative Jane Harman told the commissioners that all the conversation about media ownership will be moot if every TV set goes dark in February 2009, as a result of the poor job the FCC has done of educating the American public about the upcoming change over to digital TV. Martin said the commission needs more tax dollars to do a better job of educating the public about moving to digital TV.
On C-Span.org Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) discussed his opposition to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's proposal to loosen media ownership rules before the end of the year.
Senator Dorgan has introduced legislation, along with Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS), that would direct the FCC to conduct a separate proceeding on "localism" and media concentration, and create an independent task force on minority and female ownership.
FCC Commissioner Martin's troubles are far from over because next week he will face a less than friendly Senate committee. The same tale will be gone over again, again, and again. µ
Share this:
ShareBusiness Intelligence Software
Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
Enterprise Accounting Software
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
Enterprise Systems Management
Dear Mr. Oram
Your article regarding concentration of media into a few hands seems to follow the general guidelines imposed on the electronic and print media.
The giants of media are funded by various financial groups who hold sway in the propaganda operations of the industry. The people operating the various media outlets are far removed from the minutia of propaganda operations; they have title to the properties and manage the physical aspects (commercial sales and technical operations), but have no control over editorial content. In some cases the financial supplier also dictates who the Gnus Director will be (pun intended) thereby insuring that that media property will dispense the correct propaganda.
Now the entire network of affiliated television stations in the U. S. A. that have Gnus Departments receive a style sheet or standards and practices publication every month. These stations are contractually obligated to follow the orders dictated by the network propaganda departments. Hollywood takes care of the propaganda incorporated into the programming.
We in the industry have known for years that a broadcast license was analogous to a license to steal. The principals that have title to the properties could care less about the disinformation that is used to control the American population; they will make a ton of money if they cooperate with the people who make it all happen, the capital markets.
Employee theft is rampant in the broadcast industry and it is in the millions in a mid- size market. The Gnus Director will run a separate operation from the station. This is a complex theft of services from the station that includes producing documentaries, news stories, sports interviews and even sports programming that is sold to various agencies. The station will not receive a penny from these operations.
Commercial production is another venue for employee theft that is aided and abetted by the accounting department as well as the General Manager. The rationale is that the operation supports advertising revenue. Of course the revenue (exceeding 1 million in a mid market) generated here doesn’t go into the station books. Another part of this operation is the duplication of various programs that will be sold on the open market.
Commercial sales are an opportunity for theft on a grand scale. The sales staff sells commercial time that replaces promos, public service announcements, and legitimate commercials on the operating log (the station log is a separate document). The accounting department will run a separate set of books to handle the separate flow of revenue. The general Manager is the prime mover and shaker in this endeavor.
Despite the employee theft, the media giants garner such high profits that it they will overlook misdeeds by the ones who deliver their obscene profits. 
Everyone is fat and happy; the financiers make their money, the misinformation is dispensed, the media owners are happy, the employees are happy and the government is happy.
So why worry about further media concentration; the same people are getting their way and the operation will remain the same no matter how many owners are involved.
The only people who care are the ones waiting to die at the hands of the billionaires who control our governments and gladly lie down and die because they have been convinced it’s the right thing to do.

Deacon
This process is being conducted at breakneck speed with only lip service being paid to the required public consultation. The Administration and their operative in the FCC know that if they delay much longer this is going to be a dead issue -- nobody apart from the media conglomerates wants this so there's this indecent haste to ram it through before the window of opportunity closes for a generation.
Deacon:

What sort of "deacon" are you?

Having watched 1st hand the local radio news rooms and local newspapers get shut down. Along with the freaky era of right-win neonutso TV organizations refusing to announce the names of dead War Heroes. 

I wonder who you are talking for?

I think you sound a lot like a corporate attorney for a Media Conglomerate that buys out small low profit new organizations. 

What do you personally or your employers stand to gain by what your advocating?

Come clean deacon of the what evers & tell us all who you REALLY are ...