cuchulainn
Member
from the Montreal Gazette
http://www.canada.com/montreal/specials/business/story.html?id=BC4DC623-6CD5-43BA-8BF7-EC2EA8FADBBC
http://www.canada.com/montreal/specials/business/story.html?id=BC4DC623-6CD5-43BA-8BF7-EC2EA8FADBBC
NRA joins artists in opposing relaxed rules on media ownership
PETER HADEKEL
Freelance
Friday, May 16, 2003
ADVERTISEMENT
It's not often you'll find the National Rifle Association lining up on the side of liberals seeking more regulation of the marketplace.
But the gun-totin' folks at the NRA this week joined musicians, artists and academics in opposing relaxed rules on media ownership in the United States.
"These big media conglomerates are already pushing out diversity of political opinion," complained Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice-president.
Of course, what the NRA really fears is that the media giants will embrace the cause of gun control.
Then who will be around to remind Americans of their constitutional right to bear arms?
That's just one of the ironies in the emerging debate in the U.S. over media ownership - a debate echoed in Canada.
In Ottawa, a Senate committee has been examining media concentration and the convergence between print, broadcast and electronic technologies.
Concerns have been expressed that media companies in Canada operate in a legislative vacuum, leaving them too much control over news and opinion.
In Washington, where fairly strict limits on media ownership already exist, the debate is headed in the other direction.
Federal Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell wants to relax current policy, which caps a single company's ability to own television stations at 35 per cent of the national audience.
(In fact, the policy has already been breached. Viacom Inc.'s CBS unit owns 35 stations that reach nearly 40 per cent of U.S. viewers).
The FCC says its proposed new limit of 45 per cent is simply catching up with reality.
But bills in both the House and Senate seek to stop the commission before a scheduled June 2 vote on the change. The bills would keep the 35-per-cent cap where it is.
Backers of the legislation argue that without it, a handful of corporations and executives could wind up controlling much of the information and opinion available to Americans.
Ted Turner, once a media baron himself, now says: "There's really five companies that control 90 per cent of what we read, see and hear. It's not healthy."
Critics also oppose another proposed rule change by the FCC, which would lift the current ban on cross-ownership of TV and newspaper assets in the same local market.
The proposal would end the ban in large markets where competition is strong but leave it unchanged in smaller markets.
Some investors believe that relaxing such rules will spark a media-buying frenzy as conglomerates race to snap up locally owned TV stations and newspapers.
Indeed, the stocks of small broadcasters have gained ground in recent weeks on speculation they will be taken over.
But others point out that cross-ownership is not a proven benefit. For example, media companies have had generally disappointing results in trying to sell advertisers on a common package for TV, print and radio.
Tribune Co., which owns the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times and broadcasting and cable assets, told shareholders at last week's annual meeting that convergence has produced a gain of just $60 million in revenue on total sales of $5.4 billion.
But it's not just the business model at issue here. Corporate concentration goes to the heart of the media's credibility problem.
Executives at Cable News Network now tell us that CNN for many years failed to report aggressively on Saddam Hussein in Iraq in order to maintain its bureau there.
The New York Times now admits a former 27-year-old reporter engaged in monstrous fabrications during his brief career at the newspaper.
These revelations hardly inspire confidence that the big should get even bigger.
[email protected]
© Copyright 2003 Montreal Gazette
