 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
What Technology Giveth, Mergers of Media Taketh Away
COMMENTARY By NORMAN HOROWITZ Looking back on our Nation's history, it seemed reasonable to have regulations that prevented a concentration of media ownership in the United States. It made sense or at least it appeared to make sense that if you owned a newspaper in a market, you were precluded from owning a radio or television station in that same market. These cross-ownership restrictions prevented a single voice from dominating the distribution of information and entertainment in a single market. Diversity of ownership creates opportunities for diversity in content. Concentration of ownership has historically led to a reduction in creativity. This occurs when content control rests in the hands of a few. The FCC has stated in the past that they are interested in "...encouraging diversity and competition in the media". How can further consolidation possibly result in diversity or competition? Certainly the passage of time and the miracles of technology have evolved to give many voices the opportunity to be heard in each market. Sadly, many of the voices are considerably "louder" than other voices. The Internet allows each of us who have access to it, an opportunity to speak, at least in theory, to the remaining citizens of our country. While newer technology opportunities do exist to supply news, information, and entertainment access to all Americans, larger corporations have their "hands around the throat" of free access to these systems. As a nation we have not taken advantage of these newer systems and they remain the captives of major American corporations. These corporations control the cable and satellite systems that could deliver diverse content and don't. It is unlikely that the delivery systems and program services will experience a greater diversity of ownership in the near term. Having experienced the incredible consolidation of power in the over-the-air delivery services, the FCC is marching full-speed ahead to remove the regulatory impediments that prevent further consolidation of the broadcast industry. For a bonus to the American people, the FCC is looking to eliminate cross-ownership restrictions. It would appear to be foolish to explain why one company should not own and control three over-the-air broadcast networks serving this country. Additionally, the same company could own an unlimited number of radio stations throughout the country, own cable and satellite broadcast networks, and look to own newspapers in the cities that they service. I would be pleased if FCC Chairman Powell would explain to America why such consolidation is beneficial to the interests of those Americans who are not shareholders of these giant companies. Does Chairman Powell believe that program diversity can emanate from these vertically and horizontally integrated corporations? Does Chairman Powell believe that these consolidations will encourage valid criticism of our government as it pursues activities that an independent media might not think are in the best interest of its citizens? The media in our country has grown under the control of a politically motivated regulatory process. What we have done under the battle cry of "deregulation" is to concentrate the power of the media into the hands of a few. They include: the Walt Disney Company/ABC, Newscorp/FOX, General Electric/NBC/CNBC/MSNBC, Viacom/CBS-UPN, and AOL/TimeWarner/CNN/theWB. Viacom's Sumner Redstone and Mel Karmazin are anxious to improve the profitability of Viacom, not the diversity of media in our country. Would they like to own more television stations in addition to their existing massive holdings and duopolies? Most certainly. Would they like to own and control the NBC network, stations, and cable holdings? You bet they would. Would they be happy controlling all of the media in our country? I would think, yes they would. Can we trust the television networks? They testified before FCC that if the regulations covering financial interest and syndication were removed, they would not attempt to control prime time programming that was scheduled by their network. One might ask, "Did they do what they promised to do?" No, they did not. They acted in their own self-interest and acted a manner contrary to their promises to the FCC. For me, this is what networks do and have invariably always done. Should our country give the media powerful more power and influence than they already have? Probably not. Should other voices be heard along with these existing powerful voices? Most certainly. I believe that media decisions should be governed by the public interest, not corporate interest. Seventy-five years ago, when the FCC was established, the airwaves were to be licensed to those who would use them for the public benefit. It does not benefit the public when the FCC permits ownership of media outlets by just a few companies. Diversity of ownership promotes diversity of thought and America has thrived on diversity of thought for over 200 years. A solution to this difficult series of issues would be for the FCC to "sunset" these media ownership and cross-ownership provisions in 2020. This provision may not suit the interests and profitability of Michael Eisner, Rupert Murdoch, Bob Wright, Steve Case, or Sumner Redstone, but it might just suit the best interests of the citizens of the United States of America. Norman Horowitz is a media consultant and former president of Columbia Pictures Television Worldwide Distribution, Polygram Television and MGM/UA Telecommunications, as well as a former CBS/Viacom exec.
© 2000-2006 Norman Horowitz Company. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
