The Myth of Big Media

Article on this Week's NewsWeek. I think it misses the point on more than one level but I thought I'd bring it to the attention of folk here. Basically a straight recap of Powell's assertions.

Our public debates often fly off into the wild blue yonder of fantasy. So it’s been with the Federal Communications Commission’s new media-ownership rules. We’re told that, unless the FCC’s decision is reversed, it will worsen the menacing concentration of media power and that this will—to exaggerate only slightly—imperil free speech, the diversity of opinion and perhaps democracy itself. All this is more than overwrought; it completely misrepresents reality.

IN THE PAST 30 years, media power has splintered dramatically; people have more choices than ever. Travel back to 1970. There were only three major TV networks (ABC, CBS, NBC); now, there’s a fourth (Fox). Then, there was virtually no cable TV; now, 68 percent of households have it. Then, FM radio was a backwater; now there are 5,892 FM stations, up from 2,196 in 1970. Then, there was only one national newspaper (The Wall Street Journal); now, there are two more (USA Today and The New York Times).

[...]

Available at at http://www.msnbc.com/news/947509.asp

that is at issue?
It doesn't matter if there are a million "media outlets" if they are all broadcasting the same bulshit, and/or are owned by the same asshole.
Sheesh, the ignorance is astounding!

Do these clowns not understand it's not quantity but content

At least Samuelson would seem not to understand.

And there's the fact that they're huge corporate entities some dealing with things other than television or radio broadcasting (ie. NBC-GE..., CBS-Westinghouse-AOL-TimeWarner-UPN... or whatever, ABC-Disney... --I don't think that was the case until the late 80's or, most likely, even the 90's). And the fact that they're all salivating in a mad race for acquisitions the moment the rules are loosened up (which nobody, not even Powell, disputes). And the fact that we can't rule out a much more tightly controled internet (good as it may look at the moment --so the internet, for those who access it, might ultimately change everything or very little at all).

But yeah, 500 channels, if they're owned by half a dozen entities, might very well be beside the point.

.

Forty years ago there were three channels, three networks.

Now there are hundreds of channels but still only about six owners.

Sorry, but as far as free speech is concerned, this is NOT an improvement.