Appeals Court Tosses FCC's Media Ownership Rules

from the does-it-really-matter? dept

You may recall that, four years ago, the Kevin Martin FCC pushed through (despite massive complaints from people) some incredibly meek media ownership rule relaxations. As you may know, there were existing rules that said the same company couldn't own a newspaper along with a local TV station. The reasoning behind this was the fear that a single operator of both the paper news and broadcast news would dominate the local news dissemination business and could influence the public too much. Of course, in the age of the internet, that seems really silly. And the FCC's rule change was incredibly minor. As we wrote at the time:
In the top 20 media markets, newspapers can merge with a single radio or TV station -- but not if that TV station is one of the top 4 stations in that market. In other words, newspapers who are struggling to get beyond just being newspapers can finally expand into other media areas. I can't understand why people are freaked out about this. At best, a newspaper can now own a tiny radio or TV station. The fear of only one point of view getting through is totally laughable for a variety of reasons. First, there are more sources of media than ever before in history -- by a long shot. To think that a single TV station or newspaper can dominate the conversation is laughable. Second, since it can't involve a top 4 TV station, it's hard to believe that this new entity will have all that much dominance in the market.
But people still went crazy about this and lawsuits were filed. Over in the Third Circuit, a court has now dumped the new rules on what appears to basically be a technicality. Apparently, the FCC ""failed to meet the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act" to make this change. The standard procedure requires 90 days of response time, but Kevin Martin only gave people 28 days to comment.

Again, this whole thing seems pretty silly. Even if people still rely on broadcast news, this simply isn't going to have that big of an impact.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Lous Loria II, Jul 8th, 2011 @ 5:50pm

    Broadcast What?"

    Again, broadcast what? None of our media would exist if it couldn't sell copy in one form or another, truth and reality don't sell, drama and hype do. Therefore, I will take my knowledge from experience and not the media.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Javarod, Jul 8th, 2011 @ 8:14pm

    What's interesting about this is that while the promise is that the merger would only be with a smaller station within a market, here in Phoenix, Gannet (owner of the Arizona Republic, USA Today and around 60 local papers) has a deal with the local NBC station (merger, partnership, ?) that started with a website, azcentral.com While its not exactly a threat since as this article states there are a lot of other news sources, it challenges the claim that such connections will be limited to local papers and local stations.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Daddy Warbuck, Jul 8th, 2011 @ 8:45pm

    Future concerns?

    Point taken, itís a minor issue in the present.

    Now extrapolate into the future, say 5-10 yrs. What unintended consequences could arise from consolidated "media"? I use the term media lightly due to probable changes in the term used by the courts and some yet unforeseen platform.

    Could Wireless or WiFi or unused spectrums become a media defined by legal maneuvers?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    Scott Yates (profile), Jul 8th, 2011 @ 9:24pm

    I could not dis-agree more

    I think we should step back and realize that the number of people who get their news online is tiny compared to the number who get news via major media. This is a VERY real problem.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jul 8th, 2011 @ 11:47pm

    Re: I could not dis-agree more

    I think we should step back and realize that the number of people who get their news online is tiny compared to the number who get news via major media. This is a VERY real problem.

    (1) Define "tiny". While I agree that a majority of people still get news from major media, I think you underestimate the actual ratio and the trend line.

    (2) Even if your first statement is true, you don't explain why this is actually a "problem."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    Scott Yates (profile), Jul 9th, 2011 @ 12:18am

    Re: Re: I could not dis-agree more

    From a Frontline piece on media:
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/part3/stats.html

    On a typical day...
    57% of Americans watch TV news
    54% watch their local news
    34% watch cable news channels
    28% watch the nightly network news
    23% watch the morning news programs (The Today Show, Good Morning America, etc.)

    40% of Americans read a newspaper

    36% of Americans listen to news on the radio

    23 % of Americans get news online
    18% visit news aggregators (Google News, Yahoo! News, AOL News, etc.)
    14% visit national TV networks' sites (CNN.com, MSNBC.com, ABCnews.com, etc.)
    14% visit newspaper Web sites
    4% visit news blogs
    3% visit online news magazines (Slate.com, Salon.com, etc.)



    I admit that these stats are a little old (2006), but it bears repeating: We (online news readers) are NOT the majority.


    The reason it seems like a problem to me:

    If one company owns all the local (and possible a majority of national) news outlets (tv, radio, newspaper, etc) they get to decide what gets covered. Nothing that makes THEM look bad of course. Nothing that goes against their owners views. No political ads for the guy they don't like that might be running for senate. If they OWN all the local media, that seems like an AWFUL lot of undue influence.

    Do we really want fox news to own ALL the local news outlets for example?

    Am I really missing something here?

    Does this not seem like a bad thing?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Jul 9th, 2011 @ 12:37am

    Re: Re: Re: I could not dis-agree more

    Two words: Fox News.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Scott Yates (profile), Jul 9th, 2011 @ 12:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: I could not dis-agree more

    Exactly my thought

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Jul 9th, 2011 @ 2:20am

    Given that people tend to watch the news that reflects their views, and not watch news that doesn't, I don't really see how this means anything at all anyway. If all the tv/newspaper etc news in an area is putting forward one point of view, then people who agree will read it and say "yes, you're right!" and people who don't will either not read it, or read it and say "no, that's complete BS!"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    Scott Yates (profile), Jul 9th, 2011 @ 3:48am

    Re:

    And if they are telling you things that are not true? Or are slanting a candidates political position on something? Without the chance for a dissenting opinion and in news, it becomes much like a "company town" mentality.

    Does that make sense?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Tmax48, Jul 9th, 2011 @ 7:45am

    FCC

    You want to see what this FCC ruling can do?
    Look at Great Britain right now. Their media is dominated by Murdock and it has allowed an uncontested viewpoint backed my big money. This story has yet to totally unfold.

    The ruling itself was pushed through against everyone's attempts to get the proper hearings. I'm curious as to what Kevin Martin might have gotten for his efforts to bypass proper procedures.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    Gene Cavanaugh (profile), Jul 9th, 2011 @ 10:42am

    Kevin Martin's proposed rules

    So, seniors are becoming a major sector of the population.
    Seniors, generally, don't use the internet that much, and rely on TV and newspapers.
    Seniors are more likely to vote, and so have a disproportionate impact on the vote.
    But, merging all the news media into a Murdoch-type media outlet does not have a significant effect?
    Why? Because you don't want to believe it, so you close your mind?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 9th, 2011 @ 4:09pm

    Re: Kevin Martin's proposed rules

    "Seniors, generally, don't use the internet that much, and rely on TV and newspapers."

    What makes you think this stereotype will remain unchanged as the group referred to as senior becomes populated with more people accustomed to news gathering on the web?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This