Media Curmudgeon

« Moyers’s Media Myths | Main | Media Coverage of Chinese Product Failures »

November 20, 2007

Wrong, But Right

Greg Todd, a smart lawyer and friend, wrote in an email to me:

"Section 257(b) of the Federal Communications Act (as amended by the 1996 Telecommunications Act) says that in issuing regulations, the FCC shall 'seek to promote the policies and purposes of this Act favoring diversity of media voices, vigorous economic competition, technological advancement and promotion of the public interest, convenience and necessity.'

"'Localism'" is addressed in section 614 on television stations. The FCC is directed 'to afford particular attention to the value of localism' in determining television station broadcasting requests.

I think you can keep watching Bill Moyers in reasonably good conscience!"

So the words "competition," "diversity," and "localism" did appear in the Act, even though my search didn't find them. I was wrong.

But I believe I am right in suggesting that Moyers twisted the words in and intent of the Act to fit his own agenda. In his "Bill Moyers Journal" video he did say the FCC's "charge" was to "ensure" these elements. As Greg Todd wrote, the Act says to "favor" diversity and vigorous economic competition and "afford particular attention" to the value of localism--not to ensure them by means of strangling regulation.

I believe FCC Chairman Martin has considered the Act's guidelines. Certainly there is vigorous economic competition. Jack Myers, whose economic forecasts have been more accurate than any I know of over the years, predicts advertising spending for newspapers will be off 4.6 percent, local and national spot television will be off 6.0 percent, and terrestrial radio will be off 2.0 percent in 2007. The Internet is having a significant impact on these media. Martin is right--for newspapers to survive in the long run they need the profits from TV, radio stations, and, of course, their online versions.

The only reason there are three newspapers in New York (diversity) is because Rupert Murdock is willing for The New York Post to lose an estimated $30-40 million a year. His News Corp. owns two television stations in New York that make enough money to support the Post's losses and its fanatic approval of the Iraq war and the Bush administration.

Diversity is a nice concept, but what does it mean? Does it mean diversity in ownership (which I think the intent of the Act was) or does it mean a diversity of voices and editorial position, or both?

Diversity in ownership is a good idea, I suppose, but is there any evidence that diverse ownership serves the public good, convenience and necessity? Do owners who are not part of a big media conglomerate serve the public better or do more news and public affairs programming? Do they do higher quality programming, more investigative journalism, less celebrity coverage? I taught at the University of Missouri School of Journalism, so I can claim I'm from Missouri--show me and I'll believe it.

As far as diverse editorial voices, what media outlets other than newspapers editorialize anymore? And how much good does it do to have diverse opinions on the airwaves if no one views or listens? As George Bernard Shaw suggested, you've got to hide a message in a palatable meal to get people to swallow it. It doesn't work to try to push it down their throats. Successful, experienced broadcasters understand this principle, most local idealogues don't.

I don't care who owns a radio or television station, which is what the FCC regulates, as long as the stations serve the public good, convenience, and necessity. Public service should be the issue, not ownership, that Moyers, the Free Press organization, and the public should focus on.

Posted by Charles Warner at November 20, 2007 11:56 AM

Comments

Post a comment