The FCC presents a Notice Of Inquiry on Ownership Rules. Since we have an abundance of thinkers and writers here, it's certain more than a few people will be interested. The line forms to the right.
-
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
Open For Comment
- Thread starter JustPastBuffalo
- Start date
I have to admit that I'm kinda torn. On one hand, wireless Internet access may make ownership limits moot anyway. On the other hand, dominance of "old media" by a few companies doesn't strike me as reasonable, especially when they're the ones who are most ready to distribute and profit from content distributed via "new media".
I don't think that cross-ownership is a real issue anymore. In fact, I'm in favor of multiple platforms for a single media company. At least that may help support the core of people who create and aggregate meaningful content. The content may not be the same on all the platforms, but the combined staffs of radio, TV, and newspaper could certainly extend the capabilities of ALL outlets considerably. Yes, it would mean an overall reduction in the number of people, but I'm fearful that real journalism - a core component of our political system - is in danger of collapse if newspapers can't find alternate ways to monetize their product.
What I'm not interested is in putting more outlets on the same media platform in fewer hands. We need more, not fewer voices, whether we're talking about old or new media. Less competition means less quality. If only one media company is doing news, then there's only one story told, and everyone is at the mercy of a single viewpoint. Most of us know that different people see the same events differently, and details that one reporter misses may completely change the meaning of a statement or series of events.
I don't think that cross-ownership is a real issue anymore. In fact, I'm in favor of multiple platforms for a single media company. At least that may help support the core of people who create and aggregate meaningful content. The content may not be the same on all the platforms, but the combined staffs of radio, TV, and newspaper could certainly extend the capabilities of ALL outlets considerably. Yes, it would mean an overall reduction in the number of people, but I'm fearful that real journalism - a core component of our political system - is in danger of collapse if newspapers can't find alternate ways to monetize their product.
What I'm not interested is in putting more outlets on the same media platform in fewer hands. We need more, not fewer voices, whether we're talking about old or new media. Less competition means less quality. If only one media company is doing news, then there's only one story told, and everyone is at the mercy of a single viewpoint. Most of us know that different people see the same events differently, and details that one reporter misses may completely change the meaning of a statement or series of events.
Hello, It's Me (ya...Rundgren etc)
Pastrick...how to take back the thunder!! Even being on the same page...you bask in the glory! Ego jocks (geeze) ;D
What ? Me not comment? (had to switch to Coors to read 38 frickin pages of regulatory rhetoric...what did you expect?)
Here it is....
They're looking at the wrong rules! I have NEVER eluded to the fact that station execution or regulations interfered with the problems or issues at hand. What they convene about, discuss, run through the grinder, waste taxpayer money on...is a moot point. The rules & regulations are NOT causing the exodus that radio is experiencing.
That said...can the FCC "force" people to turn on the the radio? Nope. It's the Almighty Switch on the radio receiver that says "ON" that is problematic.
Back to the rules. There is a whole new set of rules in this game. And I have ungraciously exposed myself on these boards to get some thought provoking commentary going here. The FCC rules are what they are (to keep the post within context - no digression ;D) If they change, so be it. It's a raincoat in the shower folks.
That was all, for now
Pastrick...how to take back the thunder!! Even being on the same page...you bask in the glory! Ego jocks (geeze) ;D
What ? Me not comment? (had to switch to Coors to read 38 frickin pages of regulatory rhetoric...what did you expect?)
Here it is....
They're looking at the wrong rules! I have NEVER eluded to the fact that station execution or regulations interfered with the problems or issues at hand. What they convene about, discuss, run through the grinder, waste taxpayer money on...is a moot point. The rules & regulations are NOT causing the exodus that radio is experiencing.
That said...can the FCC "force" people to turn on the the radio? Nope. It's the Almighty Switch on the radio receiver that says "ON" that is problematic.
Back to the rules. There is a whole new set of rules in this game. And I have ungraciously exposed myself on these boards to get some thought provoking commentary going here. The FCC rules are what they are (to keep the post within context - no digression ;D) If they change, so be it. It's a raincoat in the shower folks.
That was all, for now
I would be in favor to a limit of the amount of ownership of broadcast properties in a market. The larger markets like N. Y. C., Chicago, or L. A. maybe a total of 5 stations. Maybe 3 Fm 2 AM. I would not have a problem with a cross ownership of a TV station or newspaper. In a smaller market like Rochester or Buffalo maybe 3 stations and again cross ownership of other media would be permitted within reason - not a monopoly.
I believe in this arrangement, we would still have strong companies and promote competition and allow other players into the business.
I believe in this arrangement, we would still have strong companies and promote competition and allow other players into the business.
As noted, "we have an abundance of thinkers and writers here," Heyday. You make a valid point. The bell cannot be un-rung, (the genie is out of the bottle, the horse out of the barn, etc.)
Still, the Commission deserves to hear from people on both sides of the table. Do I think it will make a difference? My first inclination is no. But much depends on who writes, how the case is framed and how it's argued.
For example, SirRoxalot offers a legitimate consideration as it might apply to multi-platforms in relation to news"papers." The value of "news," particularly in relation to WBEN-AM-FM-TV & The Buffalo Evening News has been discussed here by noteworthy local contributors such as Bob1370 and others. Yet, I'd offer that given the opportunity to explore and take advantage of multi-platform exposure, most companies in the game today wouldn't, or they'd do it on the cheap. Or bungle it completely.
And guys like Bob Savage, who've invested more than their money in making a local news, community service and revenue-generating operation work, might get eaten or brushed aside. No disrespect to Bob and his professionalism, expertise and years of service. But look what he's up against with the monoliths peddling I-Hash. Yes, it could be argued that he'd be free to enter into an agreement with the D&C or boldly affiliate or merge with any one of the TV stations, which might lead to him swimming in gold.
Let's bring this back to the topic at hand. With all due respect to the many professionals who labor under very trying conditions at Channel 7, is there a radio operation in town that wants to be affiliated with this TV station in its present condition? It might very well be the answer to some AM-FM news operation's problems. This is a question, not a statement.
The bell having been un-rung, the days of WKBW-AM / TV as it operated during the CapCities era, when Irv, Tom and Rick were consistently #1 are not to be seen again. Understandably and agreeably, because it's 2010, not 1990.
As two Buffalo operators have proven beyond a measure of a doubt, trying to own everything all at once doesn't necessarily lead to serving the listeners, advertisers and shareholders any better than they were served prior to the Telecom Act of 1996.
Your non-confrontational response is welcome.
Still, the Commission deserves to hear from people on both sides of the table. Do I think it will make a difference? My first inclination is no. But much depends on who writes, how the case is framed and how it's argued.
For example, SirRoxalot offers a legitimate consideration as it might apply to multi-platforms in relation to news"papers." The value of "news," particularly in relation to WBEN-AM-FM-TV & The Buffalo Evening News has been discussed here by noteworthy local contributors such as Bob1370 and others. Yet, I'd offer that given the opportunity to explore and take advantage of multi-platform exposure, most companies in the game today wouldn't, or they'd do it on the cheap. Or bungle it completely.
And guys like Bob Savage, who've invested more than their money in making a local news, community service and revenue-generating operation work, might get eaten or brushed aside. No disrespect to Bob and his professionalism, expertise and years of service. But look what he's up against with the monoliths peddling I-Hash. Yes, it could be argued that he'd be free to enter into an agreement with the D&C or boldly affiliate or merge with any one of the TV stations, which might lead to him swimming in gold.
Let's bring this back to the topic at hand. With all due respect to the many professionals who labor under very trying conditions at Channel 7, is there a radio operation in town that wants to be affiliated with this TV station in its present condition? It might very well be the answer to some AM-FM news operation's problems. This is a question, not a statement.
The bell having been un-rung, the days of WKBW-AM / TV as it operated during the CapCities era, when Irv, Tom and Rick were consistently #1 are not to be seen again. Understandably and agreeably, because it's 2010, not 1990.
As two Buffalo operators have proven beyond a measure of a doubt, trying to own everything all at once doesn't necessarily lead to serving the listeners, advertisers and shareholders any better than they were served prior to the Telecom Act of 1996.
Your non-confrontational response is welcome.
- Status