Public File, 6-21-06

[MikeRadknowski]

Copied from Radio & Records, June 20, 2006.

Also available at Radio & Records

16 On Hill Warn Martin On Media Ownership Rules

Lead by Congressman Maurice Hinchey, a group of 16 House members have sent a three-page letter to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin asking him to not loosen the media ownership rules.

In fact, in their June 7 letter to Martin, the group wrote that not only does it not want the current ownership rules diluted, they said, "We hope that the Commission will strengthen existing rules and not further damage an already weak structure intended to protect diversity in American broadcasting. Put simply, we believe that any action on media ownership similar to what was proposed by the FCC in 2003 would be an unmitigated disaster."

They added, "Since the 1996 Telecommunications Act we have seen a significant relaxation of the media-ownership caps limiting the number of outlets that one company may own in a single market. The unfortunate effect has been consolidation of newspapers, television channels, radio stations and other media under the control of a handful of giant media conglomerates. The resulting monopoly situations have forced independent broadcasters out of business, limited minority ownership and denied the American public the wide array of content they deserve."

The group, which includes Co-Chairmen Bernard Sanders and Sherrod Brown along with Marcy Kaptur, Lynn Woolsey, Henry Waxman and Peter DeFazio, is part of an alliance called the Future of American Media Caucus, which was founded and is chaired by Hinchey.

In their letter, the "deeply concerned" Congressmen tell Martin that had the FCC's 2003 ownership proposal to expand a company's ownership potential in a single market gone through, it "would have delivered a fatal blow to our media-ownership infrastructure." The group concludes that the FCC "should fulfill its intended role as a strong defender of diversity in broadcasting. We hope that the FCC will move to strengthen existing ownership rules to guarantee an array of content and wide variety of viewpoints for everyone seeking news, information and culture across our country."

— Jeffrey Yorke, R&R Washington Bureau Chief

It's my opinion the House members' advisory, while commendable, will have little effect on the Commission. As Julius Caesar said upon crossing the Rubicon, "The dye has been cast." Regretably, there's no simple way to reverse the effects of the Telecom Act. Radio as an industry appears to be in serious trouble. The issues go much deeper than the threat of satellite radio, voice-tracking and the lack of format diversity. These are merely symptoms of deeper financial problems. Public radio and non-commercial radio face the same challenges confronting commercial radio.[/Mike]

 

[Mark_Giardina]

Let’s hope that your opinion about public radio does not come true because that's the only reason I bother listening to the radio anymore is because of NPR. And I sure as hell would hate to give that up as a means of both information and entertainment. While some public stations are in dire need to 'revamp' their local programming, others have actually excelled when it comes to local content.

It might be hard to believe, considering the numerous postings I have written on the subject, but I still hold out a glimmer of hope for radio. Not that the FCC (Federal Clone Commission) or lawmakers will do anything to make the proper corrections. After all broadcast companies are in the business to make money, and as long as the general public is willing to swallow this pabulum being spoon-fed to them, one will continue to hear voice-tracked automated similar formats from Maine to Hawaii.

What needs to happen, and what has already begun, is that listening public grows tired of the lack of repetitious formats and starts using other devices or means to listen to their favorite songs or to gather news and information. My son and daughter's generation is a perfect example. Neither of them listen to the radio anymore and instead play CD's or listen to songs over the internet.

Also take into account that the radio personalities may of us grew up listening too, or worked along side of, are either retiring, or have left the business with a severance check in their pockets. Ron Radio, voice-tracked from Abilene isn't going to attract much of a local following in suburban Williamsville, no matter how much promotional dollars the station's owners put into local advertising.

Here in Rochester for example "Rover" is in the doghouse when it comes to generating ratings. (Sorry for the pun) Meanwhile the stations that have generated good ratings are the ones featuring local hosts, especially during morning drive. (Gee you think I might have stumbled onto something here?)

 

[Mark_Giardina]

?????

Pardon the use of space but when I went back in, after just a few minutes, to correct some mistakes I made on my original post, I got an error message saying that the time for me to correct changes had passed. Gee I wasn't aware that the clock was ticking. So here is my corrected version.
Note to moderator. Wouldn't a one day grace period be ideal for a poster to make corrections instead of ten minutes?

Let’s hope that your opinion about public radio does not come true because that's the only reason I bother listening to the radio anymore is because of NPR. And I sure as hell would hate to give that up as a means of both information and entertainment. While some public stations are in dire need to 'revamp' their local programming, others have actually excelled when it comes to local content.

It might be hard to believe, considering the numerous postings I have written on the subject, but I still hold out a glimmer of hope for radio. Not that the FCC (Federal Clone Commission) or lawmakers will do anything to make the proper corrections. After all broadcast companies are in the business to make money, and as long as the general public is willing to swallow this pabulum being spoon-fed to them, one will continue to hear voice-tracked automated similar formats from Maine to Hawaii.

What needs to happen, and what has already begun, is that listening public grows tired of the lack of repetitious formats and starts using other devices or means to listen to their favorite songs or to gather news and information. My son and daughter's generation is a perfect example. Neither of them listen to the radio anymore and instead play CD's or listen to songs over the internet.

Also take into account that the radio personalities many of us grew up listening too, or worked along side of, are either retiring, or have left the business with a severance check in their pockets. Ron Radio, voice-tracked from Abilene isn't going to attract much of a local following in suburban Williamsville, no matter how much promotional dollars the station's owners put into local advertising.

Here in Rochester for example "Rover" is in the doghouse when it comes to generating ratings. (Sorry for the pun) Meanwhile the stations that have generated good ratings are the ones featuring local hosts, especially during morning drive. (Gee you think I might have stumbled onto something here?)

 

[Radknowski]

I too, dig NPR. I like their style in morning and afternoon drive. Sometimes they're too hip for the room, but for the most part, they offer a refreshing alternative to the yelping and spinning that passes for news-talk on Clear Channel and other Corporate Clone stations.

Here in Buffalo, we're fortunate to have TWO NPR radio stations, WNED-AM and WBFO. Both offer provocative programming. Neither is perfect. And that's a not altogether bad thing.

This having been said, NPR has demographic issues just as most news-talk stations. It's largely "top heavy" with aging-baby-boomer-white-guys-in-the-suburbs (or in my case, South Buffalo) comprising the bulk of its listenership. If a radio station can't attract substantial 25-44's in ANY format, it's doomed!

You mentioned your kids' use of radio (or lack thereof.) You're not alone. Most kids think news-talk is a farce and any FM radio station that has the temerity to call itself "new music" or "new music first" faces a 120dB group guffaw from 12-34 year olds who know where to really hear new music. Hint... it ain't on the radio.
[/Mike]