If you have any opinions on media ownership and live in the Harrisburg, PA area, there is a public forum you might want to attend this Thursday[UPDATE: It is FRIDAY the 23rd]. Stop Big Media would like you to know that you can speak up on Feb. 23rd starting at 9:00 a.m. at the Whitaker Center for Science and the Arts. There is more at Stop Big Media's web site.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
thanks for posting my message to you!
--jon
I work for NAB in Washington, and I can't be there, so I would like someone to ask:
Local TV and radio stations survive on advertising and must compete they can continue to provide free broadcast services -- however, it's getting harder to compete with cable and online media on their own. Yet if they join with other local stations, they have a better chance of surviving by being competitive for viewers and listeners.
Given this, would looser ownership rules actually be a good thing?
For those planning to attend the FCC hearing in Harrisburg, please note that it's actually on Friday, 02/23/07, and not Thursday.
It would be a shame to miss this opportunity to have one's voice heard by because they went with the posted day instead of the date.
Hey Walter, thanks for posting. We've heard those economic arguments from the NAB before -- that it's impossible for local broadcasters to provide their service without conglomerating with other local outlets. We already have our poster children for consolidation, like radio giant Clear Channel, which went from owning 40 stations to almost 1300 after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 opened the way for an orgy of buying and selling. They've had to spin off their outdoor entertainment division to stay afloat, and have soured an entire generation of radio listeners in the process.
If communities want real local news, culture, entertainment, and public affairs, they turn away from consolidation in droves. That's the message we're hearing all over the country.
Great post, Hannah. Let me mention an additional point to respond to Walter's question.
The government provides monopoly license rights for broadcasting on the public airwaves. So if I got a transmission tower, set it up in downtown Chicago, and started broadcasting a radio signal at 720,000 Hertz (which happens to be the frequency of Chicago's WGN AM radio), I'd be decried as a pirate, prosecuted for breaking the law, and stare down a huge fine and a nice sizeable jail term.
Local TV and radio stations supposedly provide "free" broadcast services, but the broadcast industry rakes in about $70 billion annually in advertising sales courtesy these government-enforced monopoly broadcast rights. I don't hear the NAB complaining about this form of regulation and demanding the FCC to lift this oh-so-onerous rule; on the contrary, they like it a lot.
Still, the question beckons: Who’s the real pirate here?
It's like the Polish saying: "If you steal a loaf of bread, they call you a thief. But if you steal an entire kingdom, they call you a prince."
Hannah: But those economic arguments are good ones! For many news outlets the choice is between merging and going out of business. I don't begrudge your disapproval of what's on TV, in the paper or on the radio -- most of it doesn't suit my taste, either.
And your point about Clear Channel spinning off divisions only helps make my point -- this media age is different and unstable, but it's certainly no irreversible march toward one big company. Economies of scale can work, but large companies can also become inefficient and unprofitable.
Meanwhile, the grassroots can still get its work done. And I'd bet you have more time for it if you stopped worrying about the corporate media! Forget them. Do your own thing.
What I'm saying is, things are better than ever. Really.
Post a Comment