• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Loosen rules on newspaper/station cross-ownership?

raccoonradio

raccoonradio

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/15/b...n-examining-looser-cross-ownership-rules.html

In terms of Boston...Herald680? Globe96.9? Phoenix--no wait, they're OUT of the business! (I know
in the past there were grandfathered rule loopholes etc.)
Those who want "diversity" may say it's bad because of Big Bad Corporations moving into radio
(though I suppose if the paper were closer to the political views, hmmm...) Others say it could be a good thing

>>But the media landscape has changed significantly in recent years. With increasing numbers of people obtaining their news online, newspapers have suffered financially, and many have shut down. Supporters of a relaxed ownership rule believe that broadcasters might offer financial support to newspapers in some markets if the two could share resources.
 
I never have understood how that rule was applied. The old Herald was forced to sell WHDH AM/FM/TV. But not very long after that case, the Globe was allowed to buy (in partnership with Kaiser) WXHR AM/FM/and whatever Channel 56 was at the time. I guess partial ownership by a newspaper was allowed, but not total control.
 
In 1990 Rupert Murdoch was forced to sell Ch 25 if he wanted to hold on to the Herald. Ted Kennedy, no fan of Murdoch, tried to make it so this would have to happen. Jerry
Williams talked about it on air and who should call in but the Senator himself ("your sarcasm
is unbelievable, Senator," said Jerry...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-aFqSvUZM
(Ted calls him "Rudolph" Murdoch. "I've been listening to some of that dribble of yours....
First of all we should consider what was done...to perpetuate the existing rules and regs that
apply to every TV station, radio station and newspaper...We saw the FCC abandon the
Fairness Doctrine. Do you think they consulted with Congress? No.")

Ted talks about the "Crossover rule". He actually claims he helped save the Herald.
"He has had that waiver for two years," says Sen Kennedy. He says the people don't
want a monopoly (i.e. Murdoch owning both the Herald and 25)
 
Under the waiver process they have to make their case to the FCC that the cross-ownership is somehow good for the community. My concern with giving a carte-blanche to the top 20 markets is that the newspapers will just purchase Mix stations and the like to boost their bottom lines, or start buying talk stations full of conservative blow-hards or sports-yackers and then give us a perfunctory local half hour on Sundays at noon. Newspapers of public record are held to a higher standard and receive certain privileges from the government (deserved or not). That doesn't mean cross ownership is always a bad idea, just that it should "make sense". The waiver process allows a case by case examination of each purchase to take place. If the Globe wants to set-up or buy a 24 hour news channel, I say let them. But just to put out radio-disney off the bird? No way.
 
Or in the case of the Globe or Phoenix, liberal blowhards...I know what you mean re: papers
buying stations to put on Mix (or dare we say a no-DJ Harbor) to boost bottom line

>>If the Globe wants to set-up or buy a 24 hour news channel, I say let them. But just to put out radio-disney off the bird? No way.

There are some Globe and Herald columnists, etc. who have shows or make guest appearances
on sports talk/talk stations. I think NECN has a Globe connection right? The debate about regulation goes on: does the FCC weigh a station's public service/public affairs record or give it a pass? There can be an LPFM for a small community but do they really serve the community or just serve as
a translator/booster for a station from near, or FAR (think Idaho religious outlets). I believe 91.5
has a translator for WERS. OK good but does it serve the Cape Ann community with local
content? No, but it relays WERS. So should the FCC say sure, put up some translators and
they don't have to necessarily do local stuff, or should we over-regulate? But am getting off the subject a bit here.
 
PandoraLover said:
Under the waiver process they have to make their case to the FCC that the cross-ownership is somehow good for the community. My concern with giving a carte-blanche to the top 20 markets is that the newspapers will just purchase Mix stations and the like to boost their bottom lines, or start buying talk stations full of conservative blow-hards or sports-yackers and then give us a perfunctory local half hour on Sundays at noon. Newspapers of public record are held to a higher standard and receive certain privileges from the government (deserved or not). That doesn't mean cross ownership is always a bad idea, just that it should "make sense". The waiver process allows a case by case examination of each purchase to take place. If the Globe wants to set-up or buy a 24 hour news channel, I say let them. But just to put out radio-disney off the bird? No way.
Click to expand...

How is a company that owns a newspaper any different or worse than another company? What is inherent in the newspaper company that changes its interests in owning a radio station?
 
Some people are afraid of too much power--a big newspaper buying a station and having too much of a stranglehold on local media. You know, like how the same company can own a bunch of stations in the same market. In Portland OR they're complaining about Clear Channel switching the prog talk station KPOJ to Fox Sports...liberals upset that CC (whom they link to a recent failed presidential
candidate) are keeping on 2 (IIRC) conservative talk stations in town but flipping progtalk
to sports.

The whole media-ocracy deal--big companies who control too much in the local media and shut out "diverse voices".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership

>>Consequently, if the companies dominating a media market choose to suppress stories that do not serve their interests, the public suffers, since they are not adequately informed of some crucial issues that may affect them.

For example suppose the Herald went out of business. There may be stories on corruption,
scandals etc that wouldn't see the light of day. How many times have talk hosts said "we're
the only ones mentioning this, you won't see it on CNN or read about in the Globe?" or
whatever. Some people object to concentrated power.

Re: radio, from the Wiki above:
>>Another concern is that consolidated media is not flexible enough to serve local communities in case of emergency. This happened in Minot, North Dakota, in 2002, after a train filled with anhydrous ammonia derailed (see Minot train derailment). None of the leading radio stations in Minot carried information on the derailment or evacuation procedures, largely because they were all owned by Clear Channel Communications and received automated feeds from the corporate headquarters in San Antonio, Texas.

Sat Night Live did a controversial animated piece about "Media-opoly". Done in a spoof of
Schoolhouse rock, it mentioned companies--like NBC--that may squelch stories to protect their
own interest (NBC-GE link)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3JLKw0q4kY

"You contribute to this when you buy a product mentioned on this show/
That's what NBC doesn't want ya to know!"
 
That's not what PandoraLover was claiming. The original worry was that a newspaper would simply put on what is already on the dial. I don't see how that is a problem.

As to the claim of too much power, what commercial radio station currently operating challenges the Globe in terms of investigative reporting? The Globe doesn't need to buy radio stations to silent voices because there are no voices to be silenced.
 
Right but again people will complain about the cross-ownership. Agreed, they may just put on something like The Harbor to make money, something already on the dial.

So who knows, maybe if they DID put on investigative reporting etc--a possible Boston Globe
or Boston Herald Radio--could be good, could be bad depending on your view.

There is lots of media out there. If prog talk radio, for example, fails, don't worry--such views may be found on college or NPR, or papers like the Phoenix or Globe, or a whole bunch of websites, or
movies, or music, or...
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom