(originally posted here∞)

Ah yes, the FCC issue. We had a lengthy discussion of this tonight, so I'll try to summarize my viewpoint:

In my opinion, pointing fingers at corporate ownership of media is a cop-out. In looking to enrich their bottom line, CEOs seek out content that appeals to the widest possible spectrum of society (or at least, the most marketable). You could argue that such actions are directly in the public interest (defined objectively by the public itself), but I won't go that far; I'll merely note that the picture is far from cigar-chomping Bad Guys(tm) brooding over what propaganda they'll foist on an unsuspecting populace. In short, a distinct majority of people are receiving just what they want, in such a way that we are in no position to judge them.

Extending this freedom to station owners, we must accept that their decision to affiliate with NBC, or license their radio from CCC, was in the interest of their constituency. Were these choices to come about another way -- via hostile stock takeovers, or fraud, etc. -- there might be a compelling public interest in preventing them, but as it stands we can only make a more general society argument, which I'll address later. Meanwhile, we are forced to note that the changes brought by consolidation were not as drastic as some would presume; after all, they serve the same group of listeners/viewers. In fact, we observe that mainstream stations remained mainstream stations, the only changes occuring behind the scenes, adding efficiency through economies of scale for their owners. (Of course this also made the dirty side effects of the music business more efficient *cough*payola*cough* but redressing those evils is for another essay).

Meanwhile, stations that thrived on their independence made the obvious choice for their constituency -- stay independent. Here in sleepy central North Carolina, there are no less than 7 radio stations and 4 TV stations on my dial whose only support comes from monetary donations, active volunterism (including that of yours truly), and (for 4 of them) university resources. As you'd expect from stations appealing to a minority of the populace, their content "only" reflects minority interests: local artists scenes, extremely progressive politics, community events, classical or jazz or cutting-edge electronica music, and so on. However, I'd argue that this is precisely the sort of diversity that many lament has abandoned the public commons (supposedly) shepherded by the FCC.

Without a doubt, there is a problem of apathy at work -- not enough people seek out such material which, while more complex, ultimately leads to fuller understanding of the world they live in. For better or worse, this aspect of human nature is unlikely to change; we are highly conditioned to accept the "push" model of content distribution, to borrow defunct 1997 terminology. Therefore, many posit, society is obligated to ensure that the major broadcasting modes provide the best possible material (in the case of news, for example, we could cite diverse, non-dichotomous viewpoints). Despite being far from a socialist, I can almost agree, given (1) the public ownership of the airwaves (2) the vast benefit an informed citizenry brings to democracy. However, while I can see immediately that the proposed re-enforcement of ownership rules will hinder the freedom afforded to station operators, I fail to see how it will aid the aforementioned public interest.

First, a reality check. I don't disagree that the current media is in many ways a mouthpiece of Big Business, but suppose we somehow force each and every station to be independently owned. The largest of them (if not all) will still need to subsist from advertising, and will thus continue to pander to the lowest common denominator. The top-down corporate influence might be removed, but is the voice of Little Business so much different, given it'll be trumpeted just as loud? Some might lament that locally-produced TV shows have largely died out, but when I think of the most salient example -- the 10:00 news -- I'm not exactly encouraged. In short, I think it's foolish to assume that "freeing" station owners from the ability to affiliate with whom they choose will cause them to deviate their content from the party line.

Second, the thought of top-down interference from the government makes me cringe more than anything corporations could do on their own. Big Brother > Big Media (yes, this is the closet libertarian in me speaking). Even if there's a compelling social mandate to change the media landscape, using Congress as an instrument of change will only provoke political interests to muddy the waters on their own behalf.

In sum, I'm not as disappointed with the current state of affairs as zAmboni et al. The major outlets produce some pretty foul-smelling tripe on occasion. Meanwhile, there's quite enough alternative content out there to satisfy the more intellectually curious. (I know Caesar has written that the Internet is not yet widespread enough to have true influence beyond an elite subset, but does the ability to hit "seek" on your radio dial enough times to hit the high 80's really require an erudite?) I'm not totally satisfied, but I'm cynical about any fundamental, structural change -- it's been this way since at least the days of Hearst, and probably before. IMO, if it's going to improve at all, it will be bottom-up: the independent media to which I've referred are largely a recent phenomenon, that can only improve along with technology.

back to CollectedWritings