Big News, Little Coverage, No Surprise

On Tuesday, the biggest news of the day never made the headlines.

That’s because the news was about the news itself -- and how the FCC gave a gift to the media and a lump of coal to the public.

It was on Tuesday that, despite public outcry to the contrary, the FCC loosened its broadcast-newspaper cross ownership rule. The rule, created in the ‘70s, was meant to protect and ensure a diversity of voices within a market.

Times have changed.

At the FCC today, there’s no concern for diversity of any kind, whether it be voices or demographics. Now, this ruling change has ushered in the ability for big media to get bigger and – can you imagine? – your news to have even less substance.

With Newsday owned by the Tribune Co., which also owns the CW 11 here in the New York market, the Trib needed the ruling change in order for the company to be sold. But on Nov. 30, the FCC voted to allow Tribune a waiver from the cross-ownership ban. Yesterday, the FCC announced more than 40 waivers have been granted. Clearly, the Trib’s needs were just the tip of the iceberg.

FCC Chair Kevin Martin argued that the cross-ownership ban was unnecessary in today’s marketplace, what with the rise of the internet as a communications medium – and all those cable channels.

But the reality is, the Internet as a source for public opinion and debate came about in reaction to media consolidation. Disenfranchised and disheartened by not having a place to tell their truths, bloggers and citizen journalists were born. And, yes, while we could argue there is a cacophony of voices available to anyone with a computer, those voices have few followers and not everyone has a computer. Hovering on the horizon, too, is a movement to silence the Internet, as four companies stand to gain control of the content. If that happens, your searches will bring you content preferred by advertisers -- and gone will be what had momentarily, at least, been a promising frontier for free speech. It should come as no surprise: Anyone who’s watched independent bookstores, movie theatres and even local coffee shops be replaced by national chains can easily see how our media now suffers in the same manner. Lacking depth and breadth of knowledge, news today offers immediate information instead of perspective.

As for having hundreds of channels and more choices than ever, what we really have is more delivery channels and less news coming at us from fewer people with less experience. Every time a media outlet consolidates, the news staff is among the first to be cut. Out the door goes the institutional knowledge, the street smarts and the product itself. Next goes investigative journalism: the kind of news that tells you where your tax dollars are really going, what’s happening inside your children’s schools and whether or not your drinking water is safe.

If we have so many options and varied voices, and our media is as healthy as the FCC claims it is, then how does a story such as the “miracle in the mine” happen across the nation? The one that erroneously reported the miners in Sago were still alive? The same story ran on cable and broadcast, and in your daily newspapers. When all was said and done, the media took pride in noting which outlet broke the misinformation first.

Clearly, something rotten’s in Denmark.

Here on Long Island, we could be the poster child for the ills of media consolidation. While we boast 19 very commercial radio stations and, in fact, are home to the 18^th largest radio market in the country, what do they offer in the way of public interest, convenience and necessity? Nothing. Without one single radio news reporter on the Island today, our local radio stations are indistinguishable and local only in location, not content. The middle-of-the-night or wee-hour of the morning public affairs programming leans heavily toward the advertorial. Uninspired marketing, at best. Insipid talk, at worst.

Newsday, which had been the source for Island media to follow, has marched from a daily with acclaimed international and national reporting (and flawed local news) and blossomed into a local shopper filled with AP Wire and syndicated reports (and even less, but still flawed local news). The product tells the tale: The foreign bureaus have all closed, the Washington, D.C. and Albany staffs have been cut, and the local news desks continue to bleed. As Newsday’s localism diminishes, a trickle down effect is taking place at other local news outlets that relied on Newsday to pave the way.

What’s intriguing is how the FCC has patted itself on the back this year for being so responsive and holding multiple public hearings. But, with the public typically given about five days notice before a public hearing and thus having little time to prepare and present, these forums have become an expected exercise in futility. That’s why it speaks volumes about public dissatisfaction with today’s media when a public hearing attracts so many with so much to say that the meeting continues well into the night, as we’ve seen happen this year. It’s also noteworthy that the FCC seldom sees how its decisions play out on the street: The information they review is so whitewashed and limited they can’t understand what the fuss is all about.

This is what it’s all about: It’s about having what appears to be hundreds of channels and choices, but what is really nothing but repackaged content and syndicated generalizations of interest to no one and of great consequence to everyone.

Perhaps Martin thought his last-minute, push-through vote would escape public attention, what with everybody busy with the holidays and all. But not so fast. Yesterday the House introduced the “Media Ownership Act of 2007,” which promises to overturn this new ruling. (The Fair Media Council continuously files comments with the FCC, politicians and supports like-minded organizations on issues such as these, but we encourage you to let your individual voice be heard, too. Tell us what you think.)

One of the great ironies is this: Regulation is at odds with a free press. So maybe the public would be better served if the FCC quit trying to rewrite already-broken rules (as the need for those 42 waivers would attest), and instead demand the media explain why they deserve the right to rent the public airwaves in exchange for half a trillion dollars a year?

Or, by looking at the makeup of their designated media markets which, like technology and population patterns, have grown up over the years and redefine those that don’t make sense? For example, Long Island and other outlying areas around the country that have unusual and highly demanding needs in times of emergencies? Perhaps, too, if we were to look at media from an economic standpoint, which the FCC does: come up with a formula that allows companies of all sizes an equal chance at owning a company that happens to distribute news and information? How intriguing that the Free Enterprise system relies on the success of small, medium and large businesses in order to prosper, yet Free Enterprise and American media have nothing to do with one another. If, too, we are to buy the argument that so much has changed since the ‘70s that the current rules don’t work, then maybe it is time for cable to be regulated, and the playing field finally leveled for broadcasters. After all, Gen Y and even latter-born Gen Xers don’t know there’s a difference between cable and broadcast, so why hold on to more boundaries that don’t work?

Perhaps, if the FCC looked closely enough, they’d find their laissez-faire attitude has done great things for big media, but nothing for the people in need of localized news that can help them live better lives. Much in the same way mass-produced movies, books and cups of coffee have robbed us of untold cultural experiences.