Big Four Networks Push FCC To Further Erode Media Consolidation Limits

from the merge-ALL-the-things! dept

If you recall, the Trump FCC under Ajit Pai spent several years stripping away popular media consolidation limits established over decades with bipartisan approval. The push was ironically to directly help aid Sinclair broadcasting’s steady consolidation of local broadcast news, which resulted in a homogenized soup of well-funded propaganda and the erosion of real, local reporting.

Insatiable, the big four broadcasters have been lobbying the FCC as part of the agency’s belated 2022 Quadrennial Regulatory Review of the Commission’s Broadcast Ownership Rules. Fox, Viacom/CBS, Comcast/NBC, and ABC/Disney are pushing the agency to eliminate restrictions prohibiting the nation’s biggest four companies from merging:

The Dual Network Rule effectively prohibits a merger between any of the four broadcast networks specifically named in the rule: ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC. According to the FCC, it is needed to “foster competition in the provision of primetime entertainment programming and the sale of national advertising time.” However, dramatic changes in the market for entertainment programming and national advertising in recent years have upended the status quo…

Ironically the same week they issued this filing, two of these companies, News Corporation and Comcast, were busy successfully derailing the FCC nomination of a popular media reformer using a homophobic smear campaign. The goal: to keep the agency gridlocked in perpetuity, preventing it from reversing any of the unpopular policies implemented during the Trump administration.

While it’s true that the big four major broadcasters see significantly more competition courtesy of the streaming evolution, that doesn’t mean that letting these media giants consolidate further won’t be harmful. Outside from the usual massive layoffs (which merging parties will pretend won’t happen… until they do), there’s zero real indication such consolidation benefits the public interest.

At the same time they’re arguing for further consolidation among the big four broadcasters, the National Association of Broadcasters is also calling on the FCC to further erode consolidation restrictions on radio, arguing, again, that increased competition from streaming means that consolidation restrictions are no longer necessary.

In his own public filing, Christopher Terry, Assistant Professor of Media Law at the University of Minnesota, notes that the FCC’s policy approach to media consolidation has been a hot mess for the better part of several decades, consistently resulting in the opposite of the FCC’s stated objectives:

We ask a simple question that we hope the agency will consider in its assessment, “How will more consolidation benefit the public interest?” If the FCC’s local radio ownership limits are to be raised, additional ownership consolidation at the local market level is almost certain to follow. We are skeptical that additional consolidation, a policy likely to result in fewer competitors will result in better competition, to say nothing of the effects that further blind reliance on the benefits of economy of scale by agency will have on localism and diversity.

There’s really no shortage of evidence that mindless consolidation in both broadcast media and telecom has resulted in numerous, well-documented harms, especially in local media markets and particularly among marginalized communities. Similarly, there’s no evidence that industry claims that gutting media ownership limits has ever actually resulted in widespread competition and innovation.

Occasionally the FCC does the right thing. Such as its recent decision to send Standard General’s acquisition of Tegna to an administrative law judge out of concern the local broadcast TV merger would result in layoffs and even lower quality local news (contrary to industry claims, online competitors don’t inherently rush to fill local “news deserts” as media consolidates).

But generally the outlook on this subject doesn’t look great. The FCC spent four years under Trump as effectively a rubber stamp to industry. Now it’s been effectively gridlocked indefinitely by the successful attacks on Sohn, meaning it can’t vote to block mergers outright. The agency specifically built to regulate telecom and media… can’t actually do its job, quite by design.

That likely means further consolidation, less quality local reporting (at a time when we’re drowning in authoritarian propaganda), and more convoluted FCC proposals that, more often than not, don’t actually fix the actual problem. Meanwhile the myopic fixation exclusively on “Big Tech” policy means this stuff routinely flies under the radar, something media and telecom giants surely appreciate.

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Big Four Networks Push FCC To Further Erode Media Consolidation Limits”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
26 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Apples to apples

News venues (radio, TV, internet, streaming, cable, handbills) are not all the same market.

(contrary to industry claims, online competitors don’t inherently rush to fill local “news deserts” as media consolidates)

And it is strange, but radio stations don’t rush in to fill radio news deserts for some reason. Something, something, spectrum allocation…

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Who cares about the main networks anymore?

This is a joke, broadcast TV is dying anyway.

successfully derailing the FCC nomination of a popular media reformer using a homophobic smear campaign.

For probably the third time, no they fucking didn’t. You can be bitter your partisan hack got canned if you want, you don’t get to make up homophobia that didn’t exist, especially not a “campaign” sponsored by whoever.

Jesus fuck what is wrong with you?!?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re:

They are also provided by the same conglomerates.

Some of them, and it didn’t use to be. But yes, I am way more worried about ISP mergers than network mergers.

Honestly the biggest problems with ISP monopoly/duopolies is not that there are only a few companies, but at the local level where there are only one or two in any particular area. Which is….often caused by government regulation.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Are you some all-knowing oracle telling us what is and isn’t factual reality?

You are doing a particularly bad job of it. Just to give some examples of how bad it is:
* https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3845719-lgbtq-groups-condemn-identity-based-attacks-on-gigi-sohn-urge-confirmation/
* https://www.commondreams.org/news/gigi-sohn-fcc-homophobic-attacks
* https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/tell-democratic-leaders-to-condemn-the-homophobic-attacks-on-fcc-nominee-gigi-sohn?nowrapper=true
* https://www.fastcompany.com/90843990/senate-democrats-and-biden-need-to-stand-up-to-homophobic-attacks-on-fcc-nominee-gigi-sohn

I wont give links to the places where these attacks took place because they don’t deserve the traffic.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re:

I wont give links to the places where these attacks took place because they don’t deserve the traffic.

Then you are uninterested in proving your claim. Cuz all the articles YOU did link seem to be just activists pretending any criticism is personal life based. Kinda like how People would claim anyone criticizing Obama was racist.

I have seen no evidence of homophobic attacks nor have you presented any.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Then you are uninterested in proving your claim.

Why should I? You aren’t in the least interested anyway, you are only here to shit all over the place. The links weren’t actually for you, it was for other readers that maybe haven’t had time to learn what a lying asshole you are.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

I would if you could actually show it happened. But you haven’t, you’ve just shown some journalists pretending it happened.

It’s interesting that you think journalists at The Hill would pretend it happened. You know things are bad when even Chris Ruddy speaks up.

And you can always ask Nune’s what he called Gigi Sohn on Truth Social to get a good example of a homophobic attack.

But as I said, you aren’t in the least interested in the truth, your sole purpose is to shit the place up.

Strawb (profile) says:

Re:

This is a joke, broadcast TV is dying anyway.

Right, because as we all know, the four media companies mentioned in the article exclusively do broadcast TV.

No worries, guys, Matthew has solved the problem singlehandedly! Just let the megacompanies merge as they please, since a part of their businesses are dying anyway!

you don’t get to make up homophobia that didn’t exist

They’re not making it up.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re:

They’re not making it up.

Your cited article does not link to the supposedly offending articles, so you need to provide further citations. But just from the text I can tell they’re trying to spin policy disputes about sex work into something “homophobic” and it clearly has nothing to do with Sohn’s personal life, regardless.

So yeah, they’re making it up. Thanks for playing.

Strawb (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Your cited article does not link to the supposedly offending articles

Evidently you don’t understand how proof works, because one doesn’t have to link directly to it to provide it.

They note the outlets and the article subjects in question. Even with your limited mental capacities, you should be able to find the articles with that information.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...