Of course these different media platforms provide more ‘choices’, but what are you choosing? To be able to get the same information and content owned by only a handful of people in a thousand different ways? That’s choice? It is supposed to be a ‘marketplace of ideas’, not a shopping mall of ways you can ‘choose’ to receive a single idea.

Mark doesn’t seem to understand the concept of vertical integration at all. Or perhaps he does, but because he is in the employ of an organization which actively supports policy to increase the ability of small amounts of media owners to control ever larger amounts of media content, he can’t or, worse, won’t recognize these factors. As the great American Writer Sinclair Lewis once pointed out, ““It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon him not understanding.”

As for vertical integration In the media realm, that is where one single entity controls both the content being produced as well as the delivery mechanisms. Such as a movie company also owning theaters, music producers owning radio stations, etc… Figures such as Barry Diller and noted television producer Norman Lear are amongst just some of the many noted public critics of this ever growing trend and the destructive effects it is having on the health and well-being of our media system and how we get our information (the essential life blood of a democratic society).

His reference to the increasing adoption of new technologies being made available thanks to the revolutionizing effect of the internet, and expanding development of digital technologies is a good point. It is quite correct that these things are creating whole new vistas of opportunity for creation and distribution of information, and do serve as potentially liberating for decentralizing our information and communication processes in our nation.

However, Mark doesn’t seem to want to take something quite important and obvious into account. The very potential he is celebrating here as examples proving his point that media consolidation is a ‘myth’, is negated by the fact that these behemoth media corporations are working continuously to eliminate the public barriers preventing them from taking control over these same new media resources. The battle over ‘net neutrality’ is exhibit A in demonstrating this process at work. Much of this issue has been well-documented on our website at ustvmedia.org, and I invite you to peruse the information for yourself.

What good is it to have a thousand new sources of media and producers of content, if they all have to go through the gatekeeper of a private, unaccountable corporation (complete with their own tollbooth to get on that wonderful new information highway). This private corporation then is free to behave like a mafia boss, deciding who gets preferential treatment, who gets to be seen over whom, who gets to even be on the network or has access to it.

With regard to broadcasters, multiple studies have shown that the diversity of programming formats aired by radio stations has increased significantly in the past decade.

Sure, there are more ‘formats’ available via radio today, thanks in large part to the explosion of internet radio, and with expanding digital broadcasting signals that allow for more channel space over the airwaves. But again, we return to the same point. Who is programming these formats, and what is being included in them? The same company owning all of the stations playing this ‘different’ material, playing the same 100 songs, many of which produced and owned in part or even in whole by the same company owning the transmission outlet? All being pumped in by ‘corporate’ headquarters four states away, to all 35 of their stations they own in your state. Yeah, choice alright.

All of which makes Mark’s last statement most refreshing in how much I agree with it, but also a little confusing…

Local content is the lifeblood of broadcasting. Amber alerts and severe weather warnings are critical emergency services that tv and radio stations provide and all the new choices out there make it difficult to provide these free services. This is the reality and the regulations need to be adjusted to this reality.

Local content is indeed the lifeblood of broadcasting. So why then is the National Association of Broadcasters, which Mark represents, lobbying to see local ownership protections gutted and expanding the ability for megamedia corporations to take over control of your local media services? The BS pushed by the corporations which Mark’s group represents, that somehow stripping local control will enhance the quality of local media services has been proven to be a fraud through numerous studies. One of these, commissioned by former FCC Chairman Michael Powell, was shelved and kept from public view. This was done when the data in it showed conclusively that the effects of eliminating regulations over media ownership caps had the exact opposite effect from what Powell, and interests represented by NAB claimed it would have.

- Andy Valeri
USTV Media

Local content is the lifeblood of broadcasting. Amber alerts and severe weather warnings are critical emergency services that tv and radio stations provide and all the new choices out there make it difficult to provide these free services. This is the reality and the regulations need to be adjusted to this reality.

There are certainly ample reasons for criticism of the FCC these days, as regular viewers and readers of USTV Media can attest to through our voicing of many of them. However, Mark’s statement that somehow the FCC is hindering “local” station’s ability to compete begs illumination.

What he is referring to here isn’t concerning the ability for a locally-owned station to be able to ‘compete’. What he means is a station located in your community to be acquired and used as a resource for the large scale corporate conglomerate to use as an acquired asset and advertising delivery device in order to increase short term shareholder profit. It has nothing to do with that local media resource serving its unique function as a public service entity providing the needed local information, dialogue and voice of, by and for the community.

When Mark says he wants to see the playing field ‘leveled’, he means that pretty much in the same way a B-52 ‘levels’ the field, by wiping out any opposition in its path. A more accurate description of what he means here is that he would like to see the playing field cleared of any obstacles and opposition to increased media asset acquisition by the large telecommunications corporations whose interests he represents at NAB.

After all, who is he trying to kid? He is trying to convince you that your local media resources, television, newspapers, and especially radio, have improved in quality and relevance to your local communities needs since deregulation has gone into effect. Do you think that is the case? He is also claiming through his critique here that these services would become even better if MORE of this consolidation took place. Mark would have you believe that local journalism, radio, etc… would improve if only those ‘onerous burdens’ which prevent one single corporation, located states away, from being allowed to purchase that resource. This would entail the gutting of half of the staff, replacing the local content with syndicated generic material which they can then distribute to numerous outlets, and funneling it in from a single information provider. This corporation can then establish economies of scale to then create a ‘wal-martization’ of information, where its all the same stuff packaged in all the same ways to everyone regionally, even nationally. This is what Mark wants you to believe when he calls for ‘competition.’

As for ‘consumers’ (there is that word again - its never ‘citizens’) having more choices, the premise of his statement is false. Do you have more choices if you now have 1,000 channels to choose from instead of 50, but instead of those 50 coming from 50 different owners, those 1,000 now come from literally FIVE?

NAB has a lot of power, and represents in essence the interests of those 5 major players. They are quite happy to see the power of those entities maintained, if not increased (which is their corporate duty, of course. To increase profit share for their private stockholders). And acquiring more media resources, especially those used in the non-commercial public sector, is essential if they are going to fulfill their one and only purpose for existence… To maximize profit in the minimum amount of time. Providing you with choice, and especially a media system that provides for VOICE, is of absolutely no concern to the major entities represented by NAB.

Consumers have more media choices today than ever before yet the FCC has shackled local stations’ ability to compete in modern day society. It is a myth that the media is too consolidated.

Thanks for the dialogue.

…

This was on CNBC last week.