Media cross ownership rules could be modified to allow even more massive concentration

In the mid 1990s when someone asked me how the Telecommunications Reform Act would help citizens I said it wouldn't, that it would mostly allow for large companies to get much larger. There is no coincidence that afterwards, over-the-air radio got really lousy, as companies like Clear Channel were able to acquire many stations overall and many stations within a specific market.

The way that Ben Bagdikian describes the process of "increasing returns" (he didn't use that term) in advertising revenues for the dominant newspaper in a market is no different for television or radio.

Post-TRA, the Sinclair Broadcasting Company based in Baltimore acquired multiple stations in markets, and even broadcasted a pro-Bush documentary in advance of the 2004 election.

Increasingly, "local" radio and even television stations, don't provide much in the way of local content in terms of news, commentary, and locally-produced programming, or in providing a medium to deliver locally developed acts (in music).

(The Post's Mark Fisher writes about radio and has recently published a book on the topic, although we don't see eye to eye on the impact of scale, consolidation, and the making of national informational markets. From that standpoint, I suppose I am more akin to support the ideas of Robert McChesney.)

I think that local participation and advocacy is dependent on media, the access of alternative viewpoints to being presented in local media, and the variety of outlets that are available within a particular market, recognizing that the first sentence of any textbook on media economics states "the business of media is providing audiences to advertisers."

While it is true that the Internet levels the playing field a bit, by affording access to anyone with views and a willingness to publish them in print, audio, or visual form, the reality is that traditional media outlets get far more reader-, viewer- or listener-ship than yours truly.

So it really matters that the Federal Communications Commission is considering rule changes that allow for massive consolidation of control of media outlets within single markets.

One good example of change is the Examiner newspaper. Sure the articles are short, but more topics are covered than would be if we were solely reliant on the Washington Post, which tries to cover 10 major jurisdictions.

See this piece, reprinted in the Seattle Times, for more about this topic, "The media mogul's dream is a nightmare for citizens."