Big Brother, will you make my decisions for me?

The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) has a media consolidation review rule bill on their desks now. It all began in June of 2003 when the FCC passed changes granting more relaxed rules regarding media ownership. These rules were overturned a year later in 2004, but the rules are under revision currently. Senators Byron Dorgan and Trent Lott are working a bill to directly dealing with this issue (1). They would need to get this bill in before the December revision committees to halt any action by the FCC. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has pushed for a timetable regarding this issue and it is now set for December 18th (2). The proposed changes would only allow big media companies to own even more media outlets in the same communities. We all know expansive the Clear Channel and Viacom empires have become. This new ruling would allow media conglomerates to own radio, TV, newspaper and cable TV stations in one area, essentially providing a monopoly on the media in the area (3). This could be argued that the big companies would have even more power to dictate culture, public opinion and even the course of political information. Is it ethical to have a few companies dictating our media? This is a question the BECA Department attempts to answer. Power. Money. Opinion. All these go into the decision.
FreePress states the myth of deregulation, “Relaxing or eliminating media ownership rules is characterized as ‘deregulation” (3). “The implication is that the choice is between government regulation or free market regulation, based upon competition” (3). In truth, this practice leads to less competition as argued by Robert McChesney. “In some respects, the global media market more closely resembles a cartel than it does the competitive marketplace found in economic textbooks” (4). McChesney mainly concentrates on the global market being controlled by 7 huge corporations. His writing does explore the problems indicative of the United States media market. His argument is perfectly in tune with his title, rich media make for poor democracies. His argument against deregulation is strong. Can market forces control media? He states that deregulation causes less competition and more concentration within local markets. He gives the example of the consequences of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Clear Channel became a very powerful entity with no competition after this ‘deregulation.’
Compaine on the other hand believes that ‘a few big companies’ are not taking over the media. He also concludes that U.S. companies don’t dominate the global media, that corporate ownership is not killing hard-hitting journalism and that global media does not drown out local content (5). Compaine believes with the history of takeovers, mergers, and acquisitions hinder big companies from taking over a majority of the market. He gives an example of Clear Channel buying up local stations but making sure that local flavor is always aired to continue interest in local music.
So, do big companies like Clear Channel, clearly the company with the biggest advantage after the 1996 Telecomm Act, shrink playlists, recycle same material and ruin the democracy of radio? It can be argued yes, but as always there is a different side.
These new regulation rules will only further the control of the same companies that benefited from the 96 Act. Less government intervention and policing on ownership will only allow big companies to edge out the little local guys. The color or the "Americana" that is signified by the mom/pop joints from Route 66 to the local public access and radio stations that give us 'objective programming.' I use this term loosely.
FreePress.net is urging citizens to get involved by demanding that the FCC listen to citizens and hold official hearings in people’s respective states. If this happens, people need to involve themselves and make their opinion known. Whether they are for further deregulation or for making the rules stricter, make this known to the FCC. The FCC falls victim to public relations nightmares, political red tape and non-objective bias, but with more information and public opinion, the best decision can be made.
Regulators need to hear on clear message: Protect what we have and make sure we can democratically build on it. The PUBLIC media needs to remain so. Public media is part of the public sphere that should be considered everyone’s property and everyone’s decision should matter how it evolves.



(1) http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6492609.html
(2) http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6492368.html
(3) http://www.freepress.net/rules/page.php?n=fcc
(4) McChesney, R. Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times. University of Illinois Press. 1999.
(5) Compaine, B. Global Media. Foreign Policy, November/December 2002.
(6) A link to the 2003 ruling. http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=56&aid=36005
(7)