Does the Internet obviate media ownership rules?

Some argue -- Michael Powell did when he Chaired the FCC -- that the rise of the internet has created a media abundance that makes ownership limits and public interest provisions unnecessary. It is certainly true that the old communications model is being upended. There was a night last summer when, during the typical TV viewing lull, there were more YouTube hits than there were TV viewers. The Internet -- and the publishing and networking innovations that have been built on it -- has indeed given us all powerful means to communicate.

This fact, however, does not eliminate the need for broadcast regulation. Powell and others were attacking the scarcity rationale for regulation, the argument that since so few have the privilege to broadcast on public airwaves, broadcasters must adhere to public interest obligations. Maintaining diversity of ownership was and is a content-neutral means of making content diversity more likely. In 2007, none of the above has changed.

Comparing the internet to broadcast airwaves is comparing apples and oranges. First of all, there is still a significant digital divide. Many lack broadband access -- much less affordable broadband access -- because providers have chosen to exclude communities and regions, especially rural ones, where they deem it unprofitable to build out the network.

Secondly, broadcasting and internet communication are different in nature. US Rep Rep. Mike Doyle (PA) pointed out the following in a letter to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin:

The reality is that only small percentages — 11% of respondents in a recent survey — use the internet as a frequent source of local news and information. The reality is that the websites of local TV stations and local newspapers account for about half of the sites these Internet users visit most frequently.

The web is a valuable, perhaps essential, tool for expanding and enriching public debate in our country. It has already greatly enhanced the nation’s discourse on public affairs. But until it is as pervasive as broadcast media and newspapers — and until new websites truly compete with those traditional media outlets (and the web sites they control) — the web’s existence should not be used to justify media consolidation.

While bloggers and some websites cover local news extremely well, many are centered on opinion, food and theater reviews — or they simply aggregate links to websites of broadcasters or newspapers. The fact that most of these websites generate significant content reacting or responding to content produced by local broadcasters or newspapers underscores the internet’s importance as a complement and a supplement — not a competitor — to traditional media outlets.

Moreover, as evidenced by the fight to preserve network neutrality, telcos want to make the internet more like cable TV. They want a delivery platform for their content at the expense of conditions that make it a public sphere accessed equally by all. Simply glance at Free Press's media ownership chart and you can see that many broadcasters have internet holdings as either ISPs or content providers. In reality, battles over network neutrality and broadcast ownership are the same battle to save the public sphere from corporate control.

Concentration also creates a climate for corruption. In radio, it is called "Payola" --paying for airplay. In TV, it is the practice of undisclosed VNRs (video news releases) passed on as news. When there are few gatekeepers to the airwaves, and when content is more centrally controlled, the need to resort to extraordinary measures to gain access increases. And when that is coupled with the cost-cutting reduction and elimination of journalists, it becomes far easier for PR to pass as news.

For different reasons, I agree that we may want to abandon the scarcity argument for regulation. Because whether there is 1 channel or 1000, our media have to serve an affirmative First Amendment principle held by James Madison and others. And that is that democracy rests on the ability of citizens to be informed, to deliberate, and participate as fully as possible in public discourse. There are many ways to begin to achieve this end, a discussion I'll save for another time. But I think that doing so begins with preserving ownership diversity.

Technorati Tags: FCC, Media Ownership, Columbus