General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFCC To Break Up Big TV Stations
Overriding intense Republican opposition, the Democratic leaders of the Federal Communications Commission voted Monday to crack down on media consolidation. The new rules bar multiple broadcast TV stations in the same market from sharing a single advertising staff. Democratic FCC officials argue that major TV companies around the country are using joint sales agreements to undermine the agencys media-ownership caps. The FCC bars any company from owning more than one of the top four TV stations in a market. By selling ads for multiple stations, companies have been able to dodge the FCCs ownership cap while effectively controlling several stations, the agency officials said.
The goal of the TV ownership cap is to ensure that viewers have access to a diverse range of views in the media and that no single corporation is able to dominate the flow of information. While the TV stations serve local markets, major media companies such as Sinclair own dozens of stations around the country. The commission has long imposed limits on concentration of ownership for use of the publics airwaves, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said. Today, what were doing is closing off what is a growing end run around those rules.
More here: http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/fcc-to-break-up-big-tv-stations-20140331
http://theobamadiary.com/
RockaFowler
(7,429 posts)The whole grouping of these stations is getting out of hand
Sinclair owns like 25% of the stations in the country
Heck we are down to maybe 15 media groups across the country. This is getting just as bad or worse than the major networks
calimary
(81,566 posts)Something along the lines of - there once were 600 companies owning stations. Now, it's six. SIX. Six mega-conglomerates own it all. And those pushing to get rid of the ownership restrictions just absolutely swore up and down and ASSURED us all that this would lead to MUCH more competition and choices for the listener. HAH! Too bad too many of the gullible swallowed it whole, and kept (keep) on voting for these jackals.
erronis
(15,450 posts)Were the politicians who are used to swallowing when their moneybags are a-coming.
(Maybe I should self-delete?)
kag
(4,079 posts)Please don't self-delete. You're comments are spot on.
calimary
(81,566 posts)Glad you're here! And don't you touch this (your post, that is)! Thus having established what they are, then I guess we're just quibbling about the price
riqster
(13,986 posts)" Thus having established what they are, then I guess we're just quibbling about the price
"
corkhead
(6,119 posts)mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)This violates the free speech of the parent companies' being about to use their money to promote their message (everywhere). Roberts, get yer ass down here right now!
okaawhatever
(9,478 posts)liberal N proud
(60,352 posts)Makes no difference!
glinda
(14,807 posts)when dealing with "humongo ownership". I am pretty sick of not having any Progressive news on basic cable or even local radio.
cally
(21,600 posts)I think I might be slightly jaded.
kag
(4,079 posts)I had to look at the calendar make sure April Fool's day was really over.
It's a small step, but finally one in the correct direction.
uponit7771
(90,370 posts)DiverDave
(4,892 posts)views in the media and that no single corporation is able to dominate the flow of information"
That ship sailed long ago.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)THAT's the secret they are not telling....more and more people are online for entertainment, and cutting cable etc costs.
For those who want links:
http://www.businessinsider.com/cord-cutters-and-the-death-of-tv-2013-11
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390443792604577574901875760374
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2014/03/are-people-really-starting-to-cut-the-cable-cord/index.htm
http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/cord-cutting-isnt-just-for-pirates-any-more/
http://gigaom.com/2013/04/03/the-number-of-cord-cutters-is-steadily-growing/
aggiesal
(8,952 posts)The lawsuit will eventually make its way to the Supreme Court
where the infamous 5 will strike down everything that the FCC does.
orleans
(34,094 posts)just to jam it all up our collective ass again
onenote
(42,829 posts)Under current FCC rules, a single entity cannot own, control or operate more than one station in a market unless it is a larger market with more than 8 other independently owned stations; in those markets, it is possible for a single entity to own, control, or operate two stations, but only one can be among the top four ranked stations in the market (typically those are the NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox broadcast affiliates in the market).
For a number of years, broadcasters have been entering into various "sharing" agreements whereby two separately owned stations agree that one of them will perform certain functions for the other. For example, one station might undertake responsbility for selling advertising for the other station, or for deciding what programming the other station will air, or for sharing certain services such as studios, news helicopters etc etc.
Where an agreement gives one station in a market control over a certain amount of the programming (or more) that another station in the market broadcasts, the two stations have long been considered commonly owned. However, if the agreement only gives one station control over a certain amount of ad sales or services, up until now those stations have been separately owned in the eyes of the FCC.
The new rule focuses specifically on joint sales (of advertising) agreements or "JSAs". Such agreements, if they exceed the threshold amount of ad sales, will result in the stations being consdidered commonly owned. Assuming that the two stations could not be commonly owned under the ownership caps (i.e., in smaller markets only one station and in larger markets two stations provided no more than one is a Big Four affiliiate), the stations could reduce the amount of ad sales or could terminate their relationship entirely. But if the stations have a shared services (as opposed to sales) agreement, such as an agreement to share news gathering and reporting personnel, studios, trucks and helicopters, etc., they will not be treated as commonly owned, although the FCC may consider a further change in its rules to address such sharing arrangements down the line.
The companies most directly impacted by this change in the rules are "group owners" of broadcast stations, such as Sinclair, Nexstar, Media General, Tribune, etc etc. These groups have been consolidating at a rapid pace and have been using a combination of sharing arrangements to avoid the FCC's rules. In many cases, the practices have revealed that the separate ownership (required to meet the ownership cap) is a sham -- arrangements whereby 100 percent of the advertising is sold by one of the stations on behalf of the other, whereby the money paid to buy the station is financed by the selling station who gets to keep virtually all of the revenues earned by the other station and has an option to buy the second station outright if doing so is ever allowed by the FCC.
While it is good that the FCC is cracking down on JSAs, no one should imagine for a moment that the broadcastsers won't be able to find ways under the current rules to continue to control more than one station in a market.
Finally, while the group owners don't like the fact that their arrangements are being scrutinized and may have to be reformed or abandoned, the networks have stayed silent. That is because, for the most part, the networks don't own multiple stations in a market at least not through these sorts of arrangements. To the extent the rules weaken the grip of the group owners, the networks will be happy because they would rather deal with weak, balkanized local affiliates than with powerful group owners with direct or indirect control affiliates around the country.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)Are you in the television broadcasting business or do you work for an ad agency?
onenote
(42,829 posts)Jenoch
(7,720 posts)elleng
(131,341 posts)LTR
(13,227 posts)This is right on the money.
This seeks to close a loophole that has been seriously abused by some big media companies. Regulating the sales departments hits them where it hurts.
DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)It was much appreciated.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)and sadly this new ruling and other ownership reforms are still a decade or more overdue...
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)and you can fool some of DU all of the time....
BUT....
paraphrasing Lincoln...
catbyte
(34,522 posts)Tom_Foolery
(4,691 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)warrprayer
(4,734 posts)antiquie
(4,299 posts)erronis
(15,450 posts)Nor do most people I know.
I sort of wonder if the ratings (Nielsen/etc.) companies aren't purposely inflating the bimbo count since they get paid by the industry and advertisers. No watchers, no profits....
antiquie
(4,299 posts)and the data are 2010.
And GE didn't by Comcast, Comcast bought NBC from GE. GE is divesting in businesses that are not part of its core. Entertainment didn't really fit in with what the other types of businesses they were into, which makes sense. It sucks that it was Comcast that bought them.
RockaFowler
(7,429 posts)They are ruining TV altogether
GE at least let NBC run itself. Comcast is into almost everything
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)It would be nice if the FCC would break up Comcast. It's Comcrapstic!
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)which hopefully will restore balance and fair news media and much more less bullshit and overly ugly propaganda.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)So THEY could bombard us with false and distracting information 24/7. That's why Limbaugh defends the action as he does. He makes his money misleading the people.
TygrBright
(20,777 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)Oh look the horses have been gone for 25+ years. How helpful this is.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)I hope that's not our high water mark.
2banon
(7,321 posts)warrprayer
(4,734 posts)... when I see it
tclambert
(11,087 posts)Fox News would have to shut down.
LTR
(13,227 posts)FCC doesn't regulate cable programming.
certainot
(9,090 posts)those blockheads and blonde perms would have nothing without that smorgasbord of prechewed talking points laid out every day by 450 stink tanks scripted blowhards on 1200 radio stations. they can handle us laughing at them from the left but without rw radio everyone would laugh at them.
and that applies to some degree to much of the rest of the MSM and pushing it rightward..
Jasana
(490 posts)orleans
(34,094 posts)gerogie2
(450 posts)Everything is moving to the Internet. If you want to watch it you will pay for it.
certainot
(9,090 posts)randr
(12,418 posts)The personification of corporate entity and their nose dive toward consolidation and monopolization is a replay.
Soon their will be the one Blueness left to rule us all. And then he will eat himself.
bl968
(360 posts)Good now lets do it with Radio Stations as well.
certainot
(9,090 posts)tv is harder to use to work for a particular party and is more important for leaving stuff out. showing a particular bias toward one party is harder - even for local fox affiliates. and they can't pound talking points over and over.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251359225
destroying the radio monopoly is the key to saving what's left of this democracy.
certainot
(9,090 posts)JEFF9K
(1,935 posts)... Next step - radio!