Fascinating Ted Turner article on our horrible media situation

[jpgray]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0407.turner.html

<snip>

Today, media companies are more concentrated than at any time over the past 40 years, thanks to a continual loosening of ownership rules by Washington. The media giants now own not only broadcast networks and local stations; they also own the cable companies that pipe in the signals of their competitors and the studios that produce most of the programming. To get a flavor of how consolidated the industry has become, consider this: In 1990, the major broadcast networks--ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox--fully or partially owned just 12.5 percent of the new series they aired. By 2000, it was 56.3 percent. Just two years later, it had surged to 77.5 percent.

In this environment, most independent media firms either get gobbled up by one of the big companies or driven out of business altogether. Yet instead of balancing the rules to give independent broadcasters a fair chance in the market, Washington continues to tilt the playing field to favor the biggest players. Last summer, the FCC passed another round of sweeping pro-consolidation rules that, among other things, further raised the cap on the number of TV stations a company can own.

In the media, as in any industry, big corporations play a vital role, but so do small, emerging ones. When you lose small businesses, you lose big ideas. People who own their own businesses are their own bosses. They are independent thinkers. They know they can't compete by imitating the big guys--they have to innovate, so they're less obsessed with earnings than they are with ideas. They are quicker to seize on new technologies and new product ideas. They steal market share from the big companies, spurring them to adopt new approaches. This process promotes competition, which leads to higher product and service quality, more jobs, and greater wealth. It's called capitalism.

But without the proper rules, healthy capitalist markets turn into sluggish oligopolies, and that is what's happening in media today. Large corporations are more profit-focused and risk-averse. They often kill local programming because it's expensive, and they push national programming because it's cheap--even if their decisions run counter to local interests and community values. Their managers are more averse to innovation because they're afraid of being fired for an idea that fails. They prefer to sit on the sidelines, waiting to buy the businesses of the risk-takers who succeed.

[jpgray]

1. Kick. This really is an excellent article (nt)

[LastDemocratInSC]

2. Here's how Clear Channel took over one small station in my area

This was a small station in a small North Carolina town. It was a mom-and-pop station that featured local programming and advertising. The station also carried the Limbaugh program and that was a major money maker for the owners because of the advertising revenue it generated. So, Clear Channel, who was trying to gobble up stations in the region, and who owns Premier, who syndicates Limbaugh, told the station that if they didn't sell that they would stop providing Limbaugh to their station and give it to the neighboring station Clear Channel had just bought.

Well, there was nothing the owners could do. It was a choice of sell or just go out of business. Better to cut one's losses.

I remember when the purpose of radio was public service, because we all own the radio spectrum, and the right to operate on a given frequency, and make money from it, was contingent on serving the best interests of the public. Today, a radio station is just another commodity like a washing machine. What a loss.

[Rebellious Republican]

3. Well Duh! N/T

[ldf]

4. well, ted

then why don't you help do something about it?

help al out.

get together with soros and start a new network.

rich liberals must step up to the bat. there are plenty of them.

but they care more about protecting their lifestyle than fighting to retake the soul of america.

[jpgray]

5. I don't think a liberal network is the answer

I think encouraging localism and multiple points of view is the answer. Setting up two monolithic ideological entities who lob bricks at each other so we can try to discern objective fact from the rubble that's left over doesn't make any sense to me. A direct ideological counter is necessary to the right wing media, but really we need more media to focus on objective fact, and media that have an ability to take risks--the media networks today are so large that taking risks is unnecessary and frowned upon.