Green Mtn
location: Observing the Progressive madness with considerably less amusement.
listening to: Grandchildren, the best reason for saving the future.
registered: 2004.04.03
posts: 2617
[view all posts]
[view all posts]
Media Mergers Are Damaging U.S. DemocracyFrom Financial Times , June 21, 2006
By Michael CoppsAmericans have always been crazy for news. When Alexis de
Tocqueville toured the nations back roads nearly two
centuries ago, he marvelled at the astonishing circulation of
letters and newspapers among these savage woods. De
Tocqueville chalked this up to our uniquely local politics.
Under a centralised government, a handful of national
newspapers might have been enough. But America offered the
utmost national freedom combined with local freedom of
every kind.Today, the US is richer and more powerful than when de
Tocqueville visited. But do we still have media capable of
keeping democracy strong? Not by a long shot. Newspaper
competition has died in most cities and towns. Radio,
television and the internet have replaced them but these are
primarily national, not local, and geared towards selling
products through entertainment. In the last off-year elections,
more than half of local newscasts contained no campaign
coverage at all.Why and how has this happened? A leading culprit is the
staggering consolidation among communications companies
in recent years. A handful of conglomerates now controls
nearly all the mainstream media. An even smaller group of
network providers controls internet access. These two trends
are not typically thought to be related. But both are attempts
at stifling competition by seizing control of content and
distribution.It is pretty easy to see how media consolidation smothers
local news. It is a lot cheaper to develop a single slate of
national content and ship it off to local television and radio
outlets. But local news and community events are democracys
lifeblood. Economists have documented, for example, that
when stations provide Spanish-language local news, voter
turnout among Spanish speakers increases significantly.Even worse is the trend of cross-ownership, where the local
television station also buys up radio stations and the local
newspaper. This gives one company far too much influence in
a community. It also removes any incentive for one part of a
media empire to compete for customers by outdoing the
others.The dangers of internet consolidation may be less obvious but
are equally troubling. Today, the internet is a ray of hope for
those of us who care about the ideals de Tocqueville
described. Just look at the new crop of political blogs having
such an impact on both sides of the aisle. The tragedy is that,
in a consolidated world, a handful of broadband barons is
poised to destroy what is so precious about the internet. The
danger arises because one or two companies (telephone and
cable) provide the last mile internet connection to virtually all
American homes.These companies are already talking about extracting fees
from anyone who wants to reach their millions of customers.
That translates into an internet dominated by the big
companies that can afford to pay. Already, virtually all of the
top 20 internet news sites are owned by the usual suspects.
When independent voices and innovators have to pay large
sums just to get through to you and me, the problem is only
going to get worse. It might be clever business strategy, but it
would be terrible for our democracy.The really scary part is that matters could get much worse.
Today, the Federal Communications Commission will begin a
wholesale revision of the nations media ownership rules.
These limit how many television stations, radio stations and
newspapers one company can own in a single market. Three
years ago, against my objections, the FCC tried radically to
loosen its rules. Thankfully, a federal court sent these ill-
advised rules back to us. Now we have a second chance to get
them right. But it will take concerted citizen action to check
big medias hunger for still more consolidation.As for the internet, we desperately need so-called net
neutrality rules. These would prohibit broadband providers
from giving preferential treatment to information and data
based upon its source. The creators of the open internet never
envisaged it being littered with gates and toll-booths. Anyone
expecting the internet to reverse media consolidation should
understand that it is heading down the very same road.The fight against consolidation is not liberal versus
conservative or red state versus blue. It is a grassroots, all-
American campaign to preserve the very democracy that de
Tocqueville saw in America. Every citizen is a stakeholder in
the outcome and every citizen should be part of the decision-
making.— The writer is a Democratic memberof the US Federal
Communications CommissionThis article is from Financial Times . If you found it
informative and valuable, we strongly encourage you to visit
their website and register an account to view all their articles
on the web. Support quality journalism.
~~~
Biography of
FCC Commissioner
Michael J. Copps
http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/copps/biography.htmlMichael J. Copps was nominated for a second term as a
member of the Federal Communications Commission on
November 9, 2005, and sworn in January 3, 2006. His term
runs until June 30, 2010. He was sworn in for his first term
on May 31, 2001.Mr. Copps served from 1998 until January 2001 as Assistant
Secretary of Commerce for Trade Development at the U.S.
Department of Commerce. In that role, Mr. Copps worked to
improve market access and market share for nearly every
sector of American industry, including information
technologies and telecommunications. Mr. Copps devoted
much of his time to building private sector-public sector
partnerships to enhance our nation's success in the global
economy.From 1993 to 1998, Mr. Copps served as Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Basic Industries, a component of the Trade
Development Unit.Mr. Copps moved to Washington in 1970, joined the staff of
Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC) and served for over a dozen
years as Administrative Assistant and Chief of Staff. From
1985 to 1989, he served as Director of Government Affairs for
a Fortune 500 Company. From 1989 to 1993, he was Senior
Vice President for Legislative Affairs at a major national trade
association.Mr. Copps, a native of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, received a B.A.
from Wofford College and earned a Ph.D. in United States
history from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He
taught US history at Loyola University of the South from 1967
to 1970.Copps is married to the former Elizabeth Catherine Miller of
New Orleans. They have five children and reside in Alexandria,
VA.
–--
“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions.” Wm O. Douglas
“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions.” Wm O. Douglas
G
Green Mtn
(view)
Media Mergers Are Damaging U.S. DemocracyFrom Financial Times , June 21, 2006
By Michael CoppsAmericans have always been crazy for news. When Alexis de
Tocqueville toured the nations back roads nearly two
centuries ago, he marvelled at the astonishing circulation of
letters and newspapers among these savage woods. De
Tocqueville chalked this up to our uniquely local politics.
Under a centralised government, a handful of national
newspapers might have been enough. But America offered the
utmost national freedom combined with local freedom of
every kind.Today, the US is richer and more powerful than when de
Tocqueville visited. But do we still have media capable of
keeping democracy strong? Not by a long shot. Newspaper
competition has died in most cities and towns. Radio,
television and the internet have replaced them but these are
primarily national, not local, and geared towards selling
products through entertainment. In the last off-year elections,
more than half of local newscasts contained no campaign
coverage at all.Why and how has this happened? A leading culprit is the
staggering consolidation among communications companies
in recent years. A handful of conglomerates now controls
nearly all the mainstream media. An even smaller group of
network providers controls internet access. These two trends
are not typically thought to be related. But both are attempts
at stifling competition by seizing control of content and
distribution.It is pretty easy to see how media consolidation smothers
local news. It is a lot cheaper to develop a single slate of
national content and ship it off to local television and radio
outlets. But local news and community events are democracys
lifeblood. Economists have documented, for example, that
when stations provide Spanish-language local news, voter
turnout among Spanish speakers increases significantly.Even worse is the trend of cross-ownership, where the local
television station also buys up radio stations and the local
newspaper. This gives one company far too much influence in
a community. It also removes any incentive for one part of a
media empire to compete for customers by outdoing the
others.The dangers of internet consolidation may be less obvious but
are equally troubling. Today, the internet is a ray of hope for
those of us who care about the ideals de Tocqueville
described. Just look at the new crop of political blogs having
such an impact on both sides of the aisle. The tragedy is that,
in a consolidated world, a handful of broadband barons is
poised to destroy what is so precious about the internet. The
danger arises because one or two companies (telephone and
cable) provide the last mile internet connection to virtually all
American homes.These companies are already talking about extracting fees
from anyone who wants to reach their millions of customers.
That translates into an internet dominated by the big
companies that can afford to pay. Already, virtually all of the
top 20 internet news sites are owned by the usual suspects.
When independent voices and innovators have to pay large
sums just to get through to you and me, the problem is only
going to get worse. It might be clever business strategy, but it
would be terrible for our democracy.The really scary part is that matters could get much worse.
Today, the Federal Communications Commission will begin a
wholesale revision of the nations media ownership rules.
These limit how many television stations, radio stations and
newspapers one company can own in a single market. Three
years ago, against my objections, the FCC tried radically to
loosen its rules. Thankfully, a federal court sent these ill-
advised rules back to us. Now we have a second chance to get
them right. But it will take concerted citizen action to check
big medias hunger for still more consolidation.As for the internet, we desperately need so-called net
neutrality rules. These would prohibit broadband providers
from giving preferential treatment to information and data
based upon its source. The creators of the open internet never
envisaged it being littered with gates and toll-booths. Anyone
expecting the internet to reverse media consolidation should
understand that it is heading down the very same road.The fight against consolidation is not liberal versus
conservative or red state versus blue. It is a grassroots, all-
American campaign to preserve the very democracy that de
Tocqueville saw in America. Every citizen is a stakeholder in
the outcome and every citizen should be part of the decision-
making.— The writer is a Democratic memberof the US Federal
Communications CommissionThis article is from Financial Times . If you found it
informative and valuable, we strongly encourage you to visit
their website and register an account to view all their articles
on the web. Support quality journalism.
~~~
Biography of
FCC Commissioner
Michael J. Copps
http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/copps/biography.htmlMichael J. Copps was nominated for a second term as a
member of the Federal Communications Commission on
November 9, 2005, and sworn in January 3, 2006. His term
runs until June 30, 2010. He was sworn in for his first term
on May 31, 2001.Mr. Copps served from 1998 until January 2001 as Assistant
Secretary of Commerce for Trade Development at the U.S.
Department of Commerce. In that role, Mr. Copps worked to
improve market access and market share for nearly every
sector of American industry, including information
technologies and telecommunications. Mr. Copps devoted
much of his time to building private sector-public sector
partnerships to enhance our nation's success in the global
economy.From 1993 to 1998, Mr. Copps served as Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Basic Industries, a component of the Trade
Development Unit.Mr. Copps moved to Washington in 1970, joined the staff of
Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC) and served for over a dozen
years as Administrative Assistant and Chief of Staff. From
1985 to 1989, he served as Director of Government Affairs for
a Fortune 500 Company. From 1989 to 1993, he was Senior
Vice President for Legislative Affairs at a major national trade
association.Mr. Copps, a native of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, received a B.A.
from Wofford College and earned a Ph.D. in United States
history from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He
taught US history at Loyola University of the South from 1967
to 1970.Copps is married to the former Elizabeth Catherine Miller of
New Orleans. They have five children and reside in Alexandria,
VA.
–--
“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions.” Wm O. Douglas
“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions.” Wm O. Douglas
