The changes in FCC regulations that relaxed limitations on concentration of media ownership were supposed to have gone into effect last week but were blocked, as a whole, by a judge who ordered a suspension of the implementation until after the resolution of a suit filed by a group of radio stations against the FCC.
From the CNET article:
The rules that were blocked by the court include one that would permit the same company to own newspapers and broadcast stations in the same city and another that would allow a company to own as many as three television stations and eight radio stations in the same market.
The article doesn't really explain exactly what the radio stations were suing over, but apparently their suit is based on a derelection of duty charge of sorts against the FCC. The view that the changes weren't appropriate seems to be popular in Washington, at least when one considers that both the House and the Senate have introduced legislation aimed at undoing some of the rule changes.
I just don't accept the argument that the internet is the great equalizer of media access. For one, the internet is only accessible to those people who have computers, internet access, and are sitting at the computer in order to read news on a computer screen. Radio is media in transit, and the TV is community passive reception. A newspaper is portable and easy to read. Combined, I find it hard to believe that they don't constitute a majority of media exposure for a majority of people. Allowing a single company to control nearly half of a market, much less a monopoly of all three outlets in a city, just isn't healthy. It isn't inherently dangerous, but it is just too risky. One's opinion of the value of Fox News aside, the impact of the ownership on the editorial slant of the network is indisputable. Do we want a system that permits Murdoch (or even a liberal clone) to control all the news a group of people get?
Yay for democracy!
Posted by Nutrimentia at September 8, 2003 06:57 PM | TrackBack