news conglamoration (1996 Telecommunications Act allowed this....and that is when the real problems started showing up!)....but is now outdated and would not do the job.
Obama believes the consequence of consolidation has been less diversity, less local news and the parroting of stories across multiple outlets. That, he said, needs to change.
In other words, the media is on notice: The potential new sheriff is in town, and he believes there’s plenty of cleaning up to do.
Q: You signaled that you would put the teeth back into antitrust enforcement. What would that mean for media companies that want to merge?
A: There is a clear need in this country for the reinvigoration of antitrust enforcement. Our competition agencies, the Department of Justice and the FTC , need to step up review of merger activity and take effective action to stop or restructure those mergers that are likely to harm consumer welfare, while quickly clearing those that do not. Specifically, for media mergers, the Department of Justice and the FTC should closely scrutinize all mergers for their implications for competition and consumer choice. The FCC should more seriously evaluate the impact of proposed mergers on the ability of divergent communities to participate in the national media environment.
Q: Where do you stand on the merger of XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio, the only two satellite-radio companies?
A: I am waiting for final resolution by the regulatory agencies and would want to ensure that the merger does not give the new firm excessive market power or unduly limit the choices consumers have for satellite-radio content.
Q: You have said network neutrality would be a priority in your administration. Why and how would you go about ensuring a neutral Internet while still allowing networks to manage traffic?
A: The Internet is a powerful, democratizing tool. There are very low entry barriers for the delivery of services over the Internet, and public debate is unfettered by either the network owner or any single dominant voice. The neutral nature of the Internet makes that possible, and it is something we should defend. Up to now, legislation has focused on protecting against the discrimination against or in favor of any single voice or legal service. All have made allowances for objective, nondiscriminatory network-management practices.
Q: What prompted you to weigh in on media ownership and diversity at an FCC field hearing in Chicago (
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6480419.html ) last year?
A: I strongly favor diversity of ownership of outlets and protection against the excessive concentration of power in the hands of any one corporation, interest or small group. I strongly believe that all citizens should be able to receive information from the broadest range of sources. I feel that media consolidation during the Bush administration has had the effect of eliminating a lot of the diversity of information sources available to persons who have to rely on more traditional information sources, such as radio and television broadcasts and newspapers.
Q: What ill effects has the country suffered from media consolidation, if any?
A: This country’s media ownership rules that both chairman Powell and chairman Martin have wanted to dismantle protect us from excessive media concentration. However, even under current rules, the media market is dominated by a handful of firms. The ill effects of consolidation today and continued consolidation are well-documented -- less diversity of opinion, less local news coverage, replication of the same stories across multiple outlets, and others. We can do better.
Q: You co-sponsored the Dorgan bill to block the FCC’s media-ownership change, which Martin has argued was a moderate compromise that took into account the input of opponents to consolidation. Why block it?
A: Chairmen Martin and Powell both argued that their previous effort to deregulate the media market was moderate, as well. Both the courts and a majority of the Senate disagreed the first time. And a few weeks back, the Senate disagreed with chairman Martin again. While he argues that the rule is no longer in the public interest, the public response has heavily weighed in against him. And common sense tells us that the consolidation of outlets in local markets will lead to fewer opportunities for diverse expression of opinions.
Q: You have complained about the influence of special interests on Washington. What kind of FCC chairman would you appoint, and would you look beyond the traditional lobbyists and lawyers for your pick?
A: I think FCC commissioners must be committed to service, averse to drama and capable of bringing disparate communities together. They must have a combination of technical and political expertise and solid relationships in Congress, with industry and with the public-interest community.
Q: How would communications policy be different under your administration compared to the current president?
A: I think communications policy must be more focused on the public interest, more inclusive of nonindustry voices and analysis, and maximize opportunities for the expression of a diversity of views. These issues go beyond simple economics to involve a set of core principles of an informed and empowered citizenry that need to be recognized in government’s approach to this important segment of our society.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/96754-Barack_Obama_s_Media_Agenda_An_Exclusive_Interview.php
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
