PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Media Ownership Debate Slow to Hit TV News



Nija
05-29-2003, 03:09 PM
NEW YORK (Reuters) - When a toxic cloud wafted through the town of Minot, North Dakota, last year, its citizens tuned to the local radio station for emergency information, only to be greeted by computerized music.

So began an ABC World News report on the perils of media consolidation. The report went on to highlight fears that broadcast news outlets have become less responsive to local viewers because they are owned by only a few conglomerates.

Yet, with a critical vote on media ownership rules by the Federal Communications Commission expected in the coming week, that May 15 ABC report is the only primetime network coverage of any kind devoted to the rule changes, according to a news tracking service, and some charge the nation's broadcasters have employed a self-serving blackout on the debate.

"There has been a thundering silence in the broadcast media about the broadcast industry's push to eliminate media ownership rules," said Chris Murray, legislative counsel at Consumers Union, publishers of Consumer Reports.

The pending changes to FCC policy would ease restrictions that bar a single company from owning more than one television station in larger markets or from owning a newspaper and a radio or television outlet.

Under the new rules, the FCC is also expected to permit TV networks to own stations that reach a combined 45 percent of the national audience.

"One of the reasons that it did not get a lot of coverage is the inherent conflict of interest that most of these media companies have," said Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism. "All of them have a stake in the outcome."

For its part, network broadcast news directors say they have covered the issue like any other news event. They also say there isn't as much early interest in regulatory issues.

A February survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press showed that about three-fourths of people polled were unaware of the FCC proposals.

The Pew study was conducted not long after the FCC began holding local hearings around the country to gauge public opinion. Few, if any of these hearings were covered by the broadcast media, say those opposed to the proposed rules.

PBS documentarian Bill Moyers was one of the few exceptions, they say. Moyers has produced several shows on public television devoted to the topic, and is of the opinion that the public is out of the loop on the issue.

"In fact, CBS News and Fox...are owned by the two media conglomerates with the most to gain from this decision. And they have not covered this story," he said on a May 23 show.

CBS is owned by Viacom Inc. while the Fox network is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.

NEWS BUSINESS AS USUAL

Broadcasters reject charges that there has been a conspiracy of silence on the FCC debate and argue that it has adhered to standard news practices.

"It's an issue of great importance to our viewers and importance to the industry in which we work," said Paul Slavin, senior vice president of ABC News, which is owned by the Walt Disney Co.

But he added that time constraints made it difficult to devote a full four minutes to the complex issue, as the ABC World News report did.

"For us, four minutes on the evening news is big. I don't remember when we spent that kind of time on a single subject."

Representatives of CBS and NBC say their networks are preparing segments on the issue leading up to June 2, when the FCC decision is expected.

"The story thus far has been an industry story," said CBS News spokeswoman Sandy Genelius in a telephone interview. "We have been following it closely and as we speak, CBS Evening News is shooting a story."

Indeed, analysts said stories dealing with complex regulatory processes do not usually attract great attention.

"It's not entirely surprising that regulatory stories are not the sort of stories that get heavy coverage on television news," said Andrew Tyndall, who publishes a network news analysis report. "Whether it's the EPA or FDA, or (any other) alphabet soups stories, they're not the bread and butter of television network news."

But critics say broadcasters have acted in a way that has called into question their fairness and impartiality.

"We're talking about potentially the most monumental change in structure of the media industry that the public has seen in decades," said Murray of the Consumer Unions. "The public, we found, has been extremely responsive and concerned about this story, once told this story."
------------------------------------

bastiges....

I already hate clear channel, and now they are trying to deregulate tv....:angry:

Nija
05-29-2003, 06:25 PM
If you would like to send a public comment to the FCC you may do so through this website (http://www.moveon.org/stopthefcc/)

Cantacuzene
05-29-2003, 07:44 PM
Soon all radio will be clear channel and all cable tv will be Fox. I can't wait. It will be all Republicans all the time. So much for the so called leftist domination of the media.

Nija
05-29-2003, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Soon all radio will be clear channel and all cable tv will be Fox. I can't wait. It will be all Republicans all the time. So much for the so called leftist domination of the media.

I was reading a washington post article, and one of the FCC people told Mr. Murdock that there was 3xx hours of conservitive programming found, compared to 11 liberal hours. lemme find the whole article to put into context...

here it is WashingtonPost.com Article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46442-2003May27.html) It's about 3 pages long.

Butch
05-29-2003, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by Nija


I was reading a washington post article, and one of the FCC people told Mr. Murdock that there was 3xx hours of conservitive programming found, compared to 11 liberal hours. lemme find the whole article to put into context...

here it is WashingtonPost.com Article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46442-2003May27.html) It's about 3 pages long.

Yup . . . makes me laugh when people talk about the "liberal media"

guiseppewv
06-03-2003, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by Butch


Yup . . . makes me laugh when people talk about the "liberal media"

They call it that b/c the media is liberal just look at the political contributions breakdown:

http://money.cnn.com/2003/06/02/news/companies/fcc_congress/index.htm

25 largest media companies' politcial donations:
$15767.75k ---Democrats (59%)
$10957.25k ---Republicans (41%)

If these media companies support the rupublicans more why do they give a majority of it the Dems? :rolleyes:

guiseppewv
06-03-2003, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by Nija


I was reading a washington post article, and one of the FCC people told Mr. Murdock that there was 3xx hours of conservitive programming found, compared to 11 liberal hours. lemme find the whole article to put into context...

here it is WashingtonPost.com Article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46442-2003May27.html) It's about 3 pages long.

Actually the person that said it was a senator who is democrat from ND not an FCC official. Also, he was quoting a radio study, that is not mentioned by name which makes it unclear if the study is credible. I can write up a study that will find that eating and inhaling anthrax spores will actually make you stronger but will the study be credible? I doubt it.


Washington Post - Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) cited a radio study that examined the nation's 44 top-rated stations over a week and found that they broadcast 312 hours of conservative talk programming, compared with 11 hours of liberal shows.

FYI: Just so we are clear I agree with John McCain and the other senators that are against this rule change. And I agree with Nija when it comes to hating clear channel.

sbp
06-03-2003, 09:50 PM
Media ownership includes not only radio and tv, but also includes newspapers.

What this is about is the "Walmartization" of media. Its why you turn on different radio stations and keep hearing the same crap. Thats why people have tuned out and sought out alternatives. Same goes with other forums of media.
Ever hear about these radio shows people think are local and aren't? The shows are done in a studio far away and the rest is filled in with banter about local events.

Lets move on...


Originally posted by Nija
I was reading a washington post article, and one of the FCC people told Mr. Murdock that there was 3xx hours of conservitive programming found, compared to 11 liberal hours. lemme find the whole article to put into context...Leftist commentators have tried and have failed miserably time after time in talk radio.

Fatcat Democrats are setting up a liberal radio network. At first Al Frankens name was mentioned as a host, now he's a consultant.

You know its bad when a liberal talk host states their approach will be unsuccessful:
http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/comm/20030307edmc09p3.asp

Johah Goldberg has a good column (http://66.216.126.164/goldberg/goldberg022103.asp) about this subject. Basically liberals are "terrified of offending anybody in their own massive Coalition of the Oppressed."

another link about a new liberal talk radio: http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030520-102249-9575r.htm


Originally posted by Butch
Yup . . . makes me laugh when people talk about the "liberal media" And it makes everyone else laugh at denials about a liberal news media. Washington Post, NYTimes, San Francisco Chronicle, NPR Radio, LA Times and on it goes.