|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
Media Monopoly in Champaign-Urbana? How the Nat'l Can Affect the Local |
Current rating: 0 |
by Paul Riismandel
Email: paul (nospam) mediageek.org (unverified!)
Address: Urbana, IL |
26 Jul 2001
|
|
The inaugural issue of the IMC’s newspaper, the public i, debuts this weekend. In it I co-authored an article on media ownership in Champaign-Urbana, calling attention to the dwindling number of owners. Already there's news from the FCC that has potentially large consequences for the local media landscape. |
The inaugural issue of the IMC’s newspaper, the public i, debuts this weekend, with copies available all over C-U. In it I co-authored an article on media ownership in Champaign-Urbana, calling attention to the dwindling number of owners, and how these few owners are increasingly located far away from here. Demonstrating how quickly media consolidation is happening under the Bush Administration, already there’s more news on this topic, that has the potential to affect our local media landscape.
Yesterday, July 25, the Federal Communications Commission paved the way for Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. to buy a second TV station in the New York City market by waiving their twenty-seven year old rule that disallows a single owner from owning more than one major news media outlet in a single market, such as both a TV station and a newspaper. Of course, News Corp already owned one TV station, WNYW-TV, and one newspaper, the NY Post, but it got a waiver for that back in the 80s.
The FCC says that News Corp. now has two years to come into compliance with the so-called “duopoly rule” (and in this case, isn’t it really just a “triopoly rule?”), meaning it will have to get rid of one TV station. But since FCC Chair Michael (son-of-Colin) Powell has made it abundantly clear that he intends to see the Commission do away with that rule later in the year, there will likely be no need for News Corp. to even bother starting to comply.
Doing away with the duopoly rule has been a top agenda item for the nation’s largest newspaper and media owners, with Chicago’s Tribune Company leading the fight. Though neither Tribune nor News Corp. have yet set up shop here in little old Champaign-Urbana, that doesn’t mean that this bit of potential deregulation can’t affect us. Sinclair Broadcasting, which owns WICD TV channel 15 has filed suit against the FCC over this rule because it wants to retain a duopoly it has in Las Vegas. Sinclair also wants to maintain its local marketing agreements (LMAs) in 18 other markets in each of which the company manages and operates—but doesn’t own—two TV stations. They’re probably cheering the News Corp. ruling right now.
Yesterday’s decision to let Fox further erode the duopoly rule probably means that it’s not long until the rule is gone altogether. With Sinclair, and probably every other TV owner, licking its lips over the possibility, we could be looking at some major consolidation here in C-U in the not too distant future. Although Sinclair recently tried to sell WICD without success, the company may find the station much more valuable if it can be paired with another one, giving the company significantly greater control in the local ad market. Or maybe Sinclair will have an easier time cashing out, by selling WICD to a bigger C-U player like Nexstar, which owns WCIA channel 3.
It might also be a good time for Professional Impressions Media Group, which publishes the News-Gazzette and owns WHMS-FM and WDWS-AM, to get into TV, leveraging its local news resources, while simultaneously cutting down local news diversity. Of course, such deregulation can also make the News-Gazzette a tasty acquisition target for the likes of Sinclar or Nexstar.
Oh, the possibilities are endless.
While we can’t quite predict exactly what the owners of our local media will do, it’s pretty likely that their primary motivation will not be improving the quality of news and programming in Champaign-Urbana. Like the stock market, they probably either buy or sell. Local TV stations will increase in value, and bloated media companies will trade and scarf them up like ten-year-olds swapping Pokemon cards. All that money that gets spent on acquisition won’t be available to invest in salaries and reporting.
As limits on ownership dissipate, especially in small markets like C-U we get closer and closer to having fewer media owners than telephone companies—a strange and alarming reversal from just 20 years ago. Diversity starts to mean the choice between “Seinfeld” and “MASH” re-runs, or the same footage of the same shooting, just aired at different times between different commercials.
It can happen and is happening here, and now is a good time to take notice.
Contacting your elected officials, like Senators Durbin and Fitzgerald, is one way to express outrage over such blatant pandering to the broadcast industry. Another way is to communicate your thoughts directly to local media outlets, their owners, and, especially, their advertisers.
And, of course, there\'s independent media. So comment on this story with your thoughts and ideas. Check out the facts, find some news ones, and report back here.
|
See also:
http://www.mediageek.org
|
Comments
|
the hope of the net |
by kayoss
kayoss (nospam) phlem.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
27 Jul 2001
|
The only way out of this mess you describe that I can see is through the net. Especially if this supposed high-bandwidth revolution materializes it is very likely that the internet will eventually replace cable and broadcast as well as print mediums. Sites like Indymedia are a great beginning but by no means the total solution...
The biggest part of the problem with mainstream media that I see is not its news (tho that is also a problem) but the continual dumbing-down of the populace through bland sitcoms, talkshows, etc that are put forth to dull minds and let advertisers take over.
Coming out with our own news is great, but most people do not watch TV for the news but for the so-called "entertainment"
Now, imagine a number of on-line tv channels (when bandwidth gets to where the big corporations want it to be, this is what they plan to start doing) not owned by the big guys, but by those of us who are currently working with pirate and microradio stations, community access channels, etc. These channels would be in some ways modelled after existing TV, only with a different purpose in mind...
Let the guerilla theatre groups come up with comedy and drama shows that do not reinforce stereotypes and regurgitate the same issues over and over, but that are thought provoking. If we can make people laugh uncontrollably at just the image of our "governmental leaders" faces, or corporate logos, we have won...
Let's have talk shows where activists discuss issues and solutions...
Let's have game shows where the questions are based on important information instead of trivia...
not just one station, but a number of them, running the whole gamut of target intrest groups...
Commercials only from organic foods companies, eco-friendly product companies, etc...
Newsbreaks for real news...
(I'm thinking Max Headroom before his accident here for those of you who have seen the movie)
Public Service announcements saying "meat kills more people than all drugs combined times 100" "rise a bike today" etc...
maybe even an all indie-music video channel? (that perhaps has shows with various non-related footage {of demos?} onhand to play along with music from artists who, for whatever reason, do not wish to incur the expense of video production)
The neat thing about net broadcasting is that it is CHEAP (compared to other types of broadcast)
It's hard to maintain monopolies when the means of production are affordable to a substantial amount of the populace....
I know this brings up issues about the "digital divide", but that is inevitable....
Besides, in 5-10 years a internet-ready TV will probably be standard (much like a cable TV is now)...
At least in the US, it seems that only the homeless do not have TV's...
(How many times have you passed by a matchbox house in a slum neighborhood with rotted cars out front and seen a big-screen TV blaring through the window)
And the internet connection required will cost no more than having cable...
(DSL was originated by the phone companies to be able to compete with the cable companies - it not only allows for broadcast but for video-on demand services)
We have the real artists, we can do this and make it look better and be far more entertaining than they can.
We need to start looking forward to this now....
It is going to happen and we need to be prepared...
Start developing ideas with your friends / cell groups / whoever for content that is both entertaining and thought-provoking...
in fact, if you have the resources start working on content now....
We have advantages over them
We will share what we do with likeminded individuals, after all, we are not doing this for profit...
A cool bit of content should be made available to whatever like-minded broadcasters want to distribute it, royalty-free
Because we are not doing this for profit, we also will be far less likely to charge for content, as the big guys are all doing...
their size is their downfall...
|
See also:
http://herdpoisoning.phlem.com
|
|
I'd like to believe in broadband revolution |
by Paul
paul (nospam) mediageek.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
27 Jul 2001
|
Kayoss,
I'd like to believe that broadband 'net will solve these problems, but I think the problems are structural, and not simply tied to technology. Consolidation of control and ownership affects all media--from CDs to radio, TV to magazines--and also hits the 'net. Recent stats show that just a few big money sites like Yahoo and MSN control the vast amount of web surfing traffic. While the 'net is far more porous, allowing the Indymedia sites to take root, they still don't reach a Yahoo or Microsoft sized audience.
And, despite the hype, the 'net, especially broadband-intensive content on the 'net, is not cheap. The more popular a site is, the more it costs to host it. The whole Indymedia network was almost brought to its knees last week as people hit it for news about Genoa. Who's going to pay for all that extra server and bandwidth capacity so that Indymedia can handle such surges?
And video is even more expensive. To send out just 10 simultaneous streams of OK quality 128kbps (jerky, postage stamp sized)video you need a T1 line--at a cost of $1000-$2000 a month, depending on where you live. You want to serve more folks? Just multiply. Starts making a Low-power TV station, at $200,000 to start up, plus $100,000 a year to maintain it sound not so bad, considering that you can reach 100,000 to 1,000,000 people simulatenously with it. (Just for the record, 100,000 simultaneous streams is almost impossible to do on today's internet).
I don't doubt the utility of the Internet in changing the face of media, but it will not work all by itself. The structure of the major media conglomerates and their outright collusion with our elected officials and gov't agencies created the media monopoly. What makes us think that any of them will facilitate it being undone?
--Paul |
See also:
http://www.mediageek.org
|
|
I think you misunderstood something |
by kayoss
kayoss (nospam) phlem.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
30 Jul 2001
|
Paul, I totally agree with you, as of RIGHT NOW, the cost is prohibitive, however, I was looking forward.
about 16-7 years ago I remember being the super elite kid around beacause i bought a blazing 1200 baud modem. At that point almost all services were strictly local in character and the ones that were not local were charged by the minute.
I was talking about possibilities that will be open in 5-10 years from now.... and remarking that we need to be ready to take advantage of it as soon as it is available.
Yes, Yahoo and M$NBC and AOHell get the most hits, but thats because they have an established name and offer various services, however, for the amount of money spent on publicity, I would say its quite likely Indymedia has more hits per dollar spent on advertising than any of the big guys.... and it just keeps growing
And once again, I grant your point that heavy traffic creates a large server load and thus a more expensive site to maintain. However, this as well is a cost that is continuously decreasing as the technology and the manufacturing technology gets in place.
My point was not that this technology is all available now so we should start using it, I was instead intendinng to convey that this technology will be available before long and we should be ready for it - IF we hold off on developing content until the technology to convey that content is available, then we have waited too long....
Another idea that I have had since the original posting was the idea of establishing Indymedia as a force to be noticed alongside Amnesty International and other groups....
What if local high schools kids start setting up Indymedia Centers?
Hold drives for old computers to be set up in their local peace and justice centers or whatever...
maybe even exchange articles for their school newspapers...
as far as video streaming - other than for live events this seems pointless to me - much better to make it a downloadable file and encourage others to mirror it...
Of course, there is no need for indymedia to host everything, in fact, it shouldnt, the more different places that serve the purpose of presenting something outside of the corporate hegemony of culture the better... for indymedia to be seen as the end-all be-all is to go against the decenralization model that indymedia presents.
Another thing that would be interesting -
although the mainstream press is well known to be corporately controlled and heavily biased, many communities do have an independant newspaper that is still locally run, but as they are locally run, usually with a very small budget, they do not cover anything other than local news...
Now steps in Indymedia
suddenly the local presses have a newswire that is not corporately controlled...
has anyone that anyone knows of acted in outreach to these local papers saying "hey, we're here with international non corporate news for you with no editorial oversight, wanna use us for stories and provide us with the ones you feel are important?"
|
See also:
http://herdpoisoning.phlem.com
|
|
Yes, we must use the technology... |
by paul
paul (nospam) mediageek.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
01 Aug 2001
|
Of course I agree that we must use the technology. It has provided opportunities heretofore unavailable. That's one of the curious paradoxes of corporate capitalism -- it's agents would gladly sell us the tools to dismantle it, provided they can do so at a profit. Only when they reach a mass realization that the dismantling has been started do they pull back.
But that doesn't mean that our little revolution can't be squashed.
Just like with the conventional media, we must defend our right and ability to use this technology for something besides selling. If you look at broadcast you can see how the fight has been fought over and over again with some victories and losses at different periods. From the corproate take over of AM broadcasting in the 1930s to the establishment of public broadcasting in the late 60s, to the corporate takeover of that in the 1990s.
We can't take the net and our access and use of it for granted. It will be whittled away if we are not on guard--priced out of reach, seized by corporate imminent domain, or confiscated in the name of the state. Let's not let our excitement over the potential fool us into complacency about the threats against it.
--Paul |
See also:
http://www.mediageek.org
|
|
