The past twenty years have seen an unprecedented number of media mergers spanning TV, radio, film, publishing and online holdings. An oligopoly has emerged whereby a half-dozen massive corporations control enormous numbers of media outlets. In 2006, combined revenues from these companies were larger than many countries - even individually, their economic might is daunting:
- Viacom ($11.5 billion in revenue) and owner of Atom Entertainment, BET, Comedy Central, MTV, Nickelodeon, VH1, Paramount Pictures, Paramount Home Entertainment, publishing company Famous Music and music game developer Harmonix, in addition to the Viacom 18 joint venture with the Indian media company Global Broadcast news.
- CBS Corporation ($14.3 billion in revenue) owns the CBS Television Distribution Group, CBS Television Network, the CW joint venture with Time Warner, Showtime, Simon & Schuster book publishers, as well as 27 television stations and CBS Radio, Inc, (composed of 140 stations across the country).
- Walt Disney Company ($34.3 billion in revenues) and owner of the ABC Television Network, A&E, ESPN, the Disney Channel, Lifetime, SOAPnet, 227 radio stations, multiple music and book publishing companies, media production companies Miramax, Touchstone, Walt Disney Pictures, Pixar Animation Studios, the cellular service Disney Mobile, and numerous theme parks.
- Time Warner ($44.2 Billion in revenues) owns the America Online (AOL), Cartoon Network, Cinemax, CNN, the CW (a joint venture with CBS), HBO, MapQuest, Moviefone, Netscape, TBS, TNT, Warner Bros. Pictures, Castle Rock, and New Line Cinema, as well as over 150 magazines, including Time, Cooking Light, Marie Claire and People. Time Warner Cable also controls roughly 20% of all cable broadband subscribers and increased its subscriber base by 3.5 million (to roughly 15 million total) with its acquisition of Adelphia with Comcast.
- General Electric ($164.3 billion in revenues) has media-related holdings including Bravo and the Sci-Fi Channels, Focus Features, MSNBC, television networks NBC and Telemundo, Universal Pictures, and 26 additional television stations in the United States.
In opposition to these massive media conglomerates is a growing coalition of civil rights, public interest, consumer, and local media organizations. According to Ben Scott, Policy Director for Free Press, media conglomerization "is not a left-right issue -- it unites a wide variety of organizations concerned about the impact of concentrated media on the diversity of opinion a democracy requires." As it turns out, in addition to "the usual suspects" that one might expect to join the fight against big media (for example, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Free Press, Independent Press Association, National Federation of Community Broadcasters), everyone from the American Federation of Musicians to the National Council of Churches, and from Rainbow Push to the National Hispanic Media Coalition has joined the "Stop Big Media" Campaign (www.stopbigmedia.com).
The only requirement to joining Stop Big Media is agreement with the principles of the coalition. The core element of the campaign is a belief that "a free and vibrant media full of diverse, local and competing voices is the lifeblood of America's democracy." And the straightforward goal of Stop Big Media is to "ensure that
our media system is, in the words of the Supreme Court, 'an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will prevail.'" To that end, Stop Big Media focuses on advocacy efforts aimed at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Congress.
At it's heart, Stop Big Media focuses attention on the stark outcomes of media conglomerization. As a case in point - and, perhaps, a reason why many civil rights organizations have joined the Stop Big Media Coalition - as mergers and acquisitions have run rampant throughout the industry, minority ownership of media has shrunk. Inez González, Director of Media Policy for the National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC), puts the current situation bluntly, "There has been no progress on the diversity issue in media ownership...[diversity] doesn't seem to have been a priority for this administration or the current FCC chair...It was only until Free Press released their studies that we confirmed what we all knew that the numbers are just unacceptable." Currently, while racial and ethnic minorities constitute 34% of the U.S. Population, the own only 7.7% of full-power radio stations; 3.15% of television stations. "Women are similarly under represented in the media ownership landscape"states, Beth McConnell, executive director of the Media and Democracy Coalition. "When diverse communities are shut out of media ownership, their voices and points of view - as well as issues that matter to their communities - is poorly reflected, or not reflected at all."
As González points out, "For Latinos there is a great urgency to deal with media consolidation because the issue has now become very personal. Hate Speech in media has always existed but it has increased to a scary degree and its being propagated by owners that are not interested in serving the public interest - Clear Channel, for example, syndicates Michael Savage, a hate speaker, all over the country. This is the type of business strategy that is harming communities of color."
"Media consolidation limits the number of voices heard in the media, affecting both the political left and right," writes McConnell. "The more diversity of ownership, the more diversity of view points. That's why organizations and policy makers from both ends of the political spectrum have spoken out against weakening media ownership rules."
As González makes clear, civil rights groups are fighting against interests with deep pockets and strong lobbying arms. "The most prominent opponents of the Campaign are the broadcasters and newspaper companies that desire the combine in local markets," says Scott. "These companies and their trade associations spend millions lobbying in Washington to scrap public interest limits on media ownership." And these millions have had an effect.
On November 13, 2007, FCC Chairman, Kevin Martin, wrote an op-ed in the New York Times claiming that a "relatively minor loosening of the ban on cross-ownership of newspapers and TV stations in markets where there are many voices" was vital "to improve the health of the newspaper industry." According to Martin, this allowance for further conglomerization "would help strike a balance between ensuring the quality of local news while guarding against too much concentration." McConnell has a very different take on this, pointing out that Martin and others "argue media mergers, particularly among newspapers and broadcast television stations, are needed to boost their bottom line; but no credible evidence exists that media mergers create healthier news outlets that produce better reporting or programming."
As Scott explicates, "The Stop Big Media Coalition was a response to the FCC's decision to loosen media ownership limits to permit further consolidation of ownership in local markets." In response to Martin's op-ed, Free Press, the organization coordinating the Stop Big Media campaign, released an 18-page report discussing at length 10 facts that contradict Martin's public statements. As the report concludes:
- FACT #1: Martin's 'modest' proposal is corporate welfare
for Big Media. Martin's plan would unleash a buying spree in the top 20 markets, making it easier for companies like Belo, News Corp. and Tribune Co. to push out independent, local owners.
- FACT #2: Loopholes open the door to cross-ownership in any market. Under Martin's loose standards, cross-ownership waivers could be approved in hundreds of smaller cities and towns.
- FACT #3: Loopholes allow newspapers to own TV stations of any size. The same technicalities could permit top-rated stations in any market to combine with major newspapers.
- FACT #4: FCC history shows weak standards won't protect the public. The current rules forbid cross-ownership, but the FCC hasn't denied any temporary waiver request in years.
- FACT #5: Cross-ownership doesn't create more local news. The latest studies - using the FCC's own data - show that markets with cross-ownership produce less total local news, as one dominant company crowds out the competition.
- FACT #6: Cross-ownership won't solve newspapers' financial woes. Claims that the newspaper industry is about to "wither and die" are greatly exaggerated, and no evidence shows that cross-ownership would make things better.
- FACT # 7: The Internet is an opportunity, not a death sentence. Mergers and consolidation are not the answer to the financial problems of the traditional media.
- FACT #8: Martin's plan would harm minority media owners. Nearly half of the nation's minority-owned TV stations are lower-rated outlets in the top 20 markets, making them a target for Big Media takeovers.
- FACT # 9: A broken and corrupt process creates bad policies. The FCC's lack of transparency, flawed research and secret timetable have tossed aside basic fairness and accountability in the rush to change media ownership rules.
- FACT # 10: The public doesn't want more media consolidation. Martin's actions ignore the millions of Americans - and 99 percent of the comments in the FCC docket - who oppose letting a few media giants swallow up more local media.
On December 18, 2007, however, disregarding most of the hundreds of thousands of comments filed by the public in opposition to allowing further media mergers, the FCC passed rules to allow further media conglomerization. This decision meant that the Stop Big Media Coalition had to go directly to Congress to fix the problem. In anticipation of the FCC ruling, Senators Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Trent Lott (R-Miss.) introduced the bi-partisan "Media Ownership Act of 2007" (S. 2332), which would mandate public comment on (and an unbiased analysis of) any new FCC rules and would create an independent task force to investigate the stunning lack of minority media ownership.
The Senate passed S.J.RES.28, a joint resolution with much the same impact as S. 2332, by a near-unanimous voice vote on May 15, 2008. For the Senate Joint Resolution to go into effect, the House of Representatives needs to pass a similar resolution. The Stop Big Media Campaign is now focusing its efforts there - working to get 100 cosponsors on the House resolution over the summer - and expects a vote this fall.
This is not just an issue for major metropolitan areas. For local municipalities and constituencies, the on-the-ground media ownership rules ultimately boils down to the question of how diverse the opinions expressed in local media will be and how representative of topical issues the local news will be. As Scott emphasizes, "Concentrated media freed of ownership limits create unprecedented control over the local news media by one company. That kind of power over public information without accountability or competitive forces is a danger to any local government official concerned with robust public information."
"Local artists cannot be found on most radio dials, as corporate station owners like Clear Channel prefer national play lists that eliminate the need for local dee jays" McConnell points out. "Similarly,
as large out of state corporations look to increase profits in news rooms, they slash staff and force reporters to do more with less. That means less investigative journalism, less watchdogging of local government, and more easy to produce stories about fires, crimes and weather." For local communities, a lack of local ownership "affects the quality and availability of local news, art and culture."
As Scott sums up, "The Coalition aims to stop consolidation and pursue policies that provide opportunities for minorities and women to gain access to media markets." And this is only one facet of a large and growing movement. Across the country, dozens of allied campaigns and initiatives are leading the charge to empower local communities and increase participatory media. "In Philadelphia, local groups like the Media Mobilizing Project are fighting to ensure poor residents have the tools and resources to access the Internet," writes McConnell. "In North Carolina, the Mountain Area Information Network is deploying a wi-fi network to compete with the big, expensive cable and phone companies. Rural communities across the nation are coming together to demand policy changes to meet their broadband needs." As it turns out, the FCC's recent decisions around media ownership run counter to what the general public appears to want.
Sascha Meinrath is the Research Director for the New America Foundation's Wireless Future Program and a regular contributor to Digital Communities.
Photo by Matt Callow Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic
