* I see a huge problem with this US Senate development…
The Senate Thursday night voted to nullify a Federal Communications Commission rule that allows media companies to own a newspaper and a television station in the same market.
The unusual “resolution of disapproval,” sponsored by Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and 26 other senators, was approved by a voice vote. The measures sponsors include both Democratic candidates for president, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois.
Republican FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has described the agency’s action as a “relatively minor loosening” of broadcast media ownership restrictions. The rule was approved by the FCC on a 3-2 party-line vote in December with both Democrats dissenting.
The FCC decision allows one company to own a newspaper and a broadcast station in the nation’s 20 largest metropolitan areas. The TV station may not be among the top four in the market, and post-transaction, at least eight independent media voices must remain. The rule replaced an outright ban on cross-ownership.
* In Chicago, the Tribune is grandfathered into the law so its parent company can own WGN TV/Radio and CLTV. That means the Trib can better weather a downturn in newspaper ad revenues. The Sun-Times, which was once owned by Marshall Field and long ago sold off Channel 32, is not insulated. If you take even a quick look at the Sun-Times Media Group’s financial statements, you’ll see what dire straits that company is in right now. A buyout by a TV station or cable company could save it.
I’m far less worried about cross-ownership than I used to be. The Tribune has shown that it can be a healthy thing for the market.
So, my opinion is either get rid of the unfair grandfather clause, or expand it to everyone else.
What do you think?
- Snidely Whiplash - Monday, May 19, 08 @ 11:31 am:
This one is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, as you said, struggling newspapers would be saved, and markets could potentially be protected from having no major newspaper coverage. On the other hand, you are setting a precedent that could be used to ease anti-trust laws in other industries. Wouldn’t it be fun to sign your paycheck over to a few monopolies each month again?
- Ghost - Monday, May 19, 08 @ 11:38 am:
The future is here, and the phrase is multimedia. The idea that print is disting from audio which is distinc from visual has long since faded away. In todays modern society cross-ownership represent the inevitable merging of content sourced to multiple methods of delivery. People want news viw the web, tv, radio and print papers. There is no reason you can not have a single source seeking to distribute along all of these avenues.
get rid of the rule.
- GoBearsss - Monday, May 19, 08 @ 11:50 am:
What about cross-ownership of Blogs AND Faxes?!?!?!
- wordslinger - Monday, May 19, 08 @ 12:23 pm:
Ghost is right. It’s on old rule from when everyone only had a choice of Cronkite, Huntley and Brinkley and Howard K. Smith for news. Little relevance to today’s media.
- VanillaMan - Monday, May 19, 08 @ 12:29 pm:
The ban is obsolete.
Those against it are also obsolete. This is just another case where Obama proves he really believes next year is 1959, not 2009. Just another political policy of his that reflects the past, not the future. He is so obsolete, he makes Ted Kennedy look like Buck Rogers.
- Levois - Monday, May 19, 08 @ 1:13 pm:
Perhaps the FCC shouldn’t be the arbitor of whether or not a company can own several different media outlets in a market.
- plutocrat03 - Monday, May 19, 08 @ 1:22 pm:
Seems like the old ban had good intentions, but is impractical in today’s environment.
Years ago, there was no other place to get the news outside of the local media. Today if I am not satisfied with the local press, I can get the news from anywhere in the world. The only losers there are the advertisers who advertise in the formerly read publication.
- Ghost - Monday, May 19, 08 @ 2:06 pm:
In todays world advertisers should be allowed the ability to bundle as well; that is require the media to place adds in more then one medium.
- kimsch - Monday, May 19, 08 @ 4:21 pm:
The ban should be removed. I think that the “resolution of disapproval” is more to spank media outlets that the Dems don’t like from having multi-media outlets. i.e. Fox News Channel and the Wall Street Journal are now both owned by NewsCorp and Rupert Murdoch.
- keepin up with jones - Monday, May 19, 08 @ 5:18 pm:
Lets do something before Rupert Murdoch owes everything.
- so-called "Austin Mayor" - Monday, May 19, 08 @ 5:37 pm:
Perhaps the cross media grandfather clause should be applied by market instead of by property. Thus if the Trib has grandfather protection, the S-T can too.
– SCAM
so-called “Austin Mayor”
http://austinmayor.blogspot.com
- Peter - Monday, May 19, 08 @ 5:44 pm:
Seeing how consolidation just inside the radio industry is destroying the quality and service of the industry as more and more independent owners disappear, I tend to stand against relaxing restrictions such as this.
That said, WGN Radio is absolutely the height and quality of radio from both a service and entertainment standpoint. (No I don’t work for them, but I work in radio and know good when I hear it.) Tribune understands how to run a radio station, and the idea that they would have to sell off 720 to another owner - possibly Clear Channel or CBS - is frightening. Whatever the verdict, Trib must keep its clause.
- Arthur Andersen - Monday, May 19, 08 @ 9:52 pm:
I was going to side with the “it’s obsolete, can it” group until Peter’s post reminded me that broadcast deregulation has generally made a mess of radio, AM in particular. (Exhibit A: WGN, Exhibit B: KMOX, shadow of its once great self, Exhibit C: Jim Leach, insert your own line here)
Perhaps there is a middle ground or market-based approach (as SCAM suggests) to this that would protect Tribune, help the S-T, but not have national consequences.
- FlackrBackr - Monday, May 19, 08 @ 11:44 pm:
i can’t say many would benefit from greater consolidation of the media, but also understand economic realities. It’s a tough, unfortunate world. Thankfully, there are blogs for more individuals to express their views, but i must say fewer voices, less divergent views in the mass media is scary.