Media Consolidation

Federally Sanctioned Propaganda Machine

by Gary Howard on December 11, 2008 · 1 comment

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Intellectual Property, Nanny State, Odds & Ends, Privacy, Regulation, Tech & Telecom

 

Apple's 1984 "Big Brother" commercial.

Apple's 1984 "Big Brother" ad

An article over at Ad Age brings up an angle on the whole auto industry bailout probably not considered much before.  The fact that a yet-to-be-appointed “car czar” will have control over a multibillion dollar advertising budget for the big three.  Under the guise of “oversight,” this would effectively “Create World’s Most Powerful Marketing Exec[utive].”  

The draft rescue plan for Detroit sent to the White House by Congress yesterday calls for the appointment of a “car czar” who will oversee the Big Three automakers’ expenses over $25 million — which, by extension, would include media buys. Based on Advertising Age’s estimates of spending by General Motors Corp., Chrysler and Ford Motor Co., that would give the as-yet-unnamed car czar control over some $7.3 billion in marketing spending in the U.S. alone.

The most disturbing thoughts about this (particularly to those concerned with liberty) are provoked here: 

The car czar would wield a budget more than double those of AT&T, Verizon, Unilever and Johnson & Johnson, which round out the nation’s top five marketing spenders, and give the car czar more clout with media and agencies than such famed names in marketing as Walmart Chief Marketing Officer Stephen Quinn and Anheuser-Busch VP-Marketing Dave Peacock.

…If the bailout goes through, agencies that work for the Big Three will essentially be toiling on a government account, with all the associated red tape and strictures that involves.

So there you have it.  We should all be concerned about this for many reasons.  As mentioned, the large ad budget that comes with a czar-controlled U.S. auto industry will allow a government bureaucrat to wield unbalanced and unchecked influence over not only who gets ad contracts, but what media outlets get ad money. The czar can simply refuse to give business to an advertising agency who works for a foreign competitor of the big three (or a “non-compliant” corporation), or refuse to pay money to show ads on outlets that they deem “unfriendly” to the administration or its mission.   This will be an unequivocal disaster.  We have already seen the lengths to which administrations (and pre-administrations) have gone to influence and/or silence media they do not like.  What kind of power plays do you think are possible when the administration’s appointee controls a major source of media outlets’ ad revenue? Whatever it ends up being, it won’t be pretty.

Obama’s win through the web…a myth?

by Gary Howard on November 6, 2008 · 1 comment

in Culture, Odds & Ends, Politics as Usual, Tech & Telecom

Web 2.0 people

O’Reilly writer Andy Oram makes the case that the assertion President-elect Barack Obama’s victory is in large part due to his campaign’s effective use of the internet is an overstatement, to say the least.  Oram counters that when all is said and done, the mainstream media is what had the most significant impact on the elections.

I feel I have to temper the hype over how the Internet has changed elections. There’s no doubt that the Internet provides enormous potential, and that people have been using it in burgeoning numbers over the past four years to search for information, share ideas with friends, and form online coalitions. But several key observations show that the tipping point hasn’t arrived.

He goes on to give three points that illustrate why he feels this is the case:

1. Fund-raising proves the primacy of the mainstream media
2. Viral videos also prove the primacy of the mainstream media
3. Elections themselves have no Internet component

[click to continue…]

Legislators attack proposed FCC broadcasting rules

by Ryan Radia on April 18, 2008

in Economy, Tech & Telecom

Over 120 members of Congress sent a letter to the FCC this week arguing against new localism mandates being considered by the Commission. Led by Marsha Blackburn, these legislators are rejecting calls to embrace government control of content on the airwaves. As the letter correctly points out, imposing new federal rules on broadcasters is likely to exacerbate the very problems the FCC seeks to remedy.

Giant media companies are accused of silencing independent voices and depriving communities of diverse news coverage. Yet not everyone agrees that local content is suffering. FCC Commissioner Michael Powell recently argued that community-driven programming is thriving, especially since the Internet has taken off.

Local stations have it tough these days. FCC rules run the risk of putting the nail in the coffin for struggling broadcasters. We need more choices, not fewer ones, and dictating mediocrity on the airwaves will only push media companies away from radio and television. 

Groups like Free Press warn that media consolidation threatens the fabric of American democracy. But there’s nothing democratic about unelected Washington bureaucrats deciding what radio and TV stations should air. Contrary to interventionists’ claims, the financial interest of media companies and the public interest go hand in hand. Firms select programs based on ratings, a direct measure of audience size.  If a show isn’t attracting enough viewers, it gets axed. If that’s not democracy at work, what is?  

Speaking of democracy, regulators ignore how the game has changed since the blogosphere has emerged. It’s the new public forum, allowing millions of Americans to voice in on hot political topics and local legislative contests. From Instapundit to DailyKos, popular blogs with independent perspectives offer vigorous intellectual discussion on an Athenian scale, unimaginable to democratic observers of the past. Some of these independent sites are even usurping traditional news outlets, and citizen journalists cover news both on a national and local scale.  

The Internet has also brought us myriad new ways of getting news and commentary. Mobile browsing is expected to explode to 1.5 billion devices in just a few years, and broadband Internet now reaches 99% of U.S. zip codes. RSS news feeds let readers hear about the latest events as they unfold, from virtually any source imaginable. It’s only a matter of time before we’ll be able to get news and video anywhere, anytime.  

The localism debate reminds us of the FCC’s increasing irrelevance. The digital age has dawned, and Americans no longer rely on a small handful of media sources for local news, but the FCC still wants to regulate “traditional” media companies as if the Internet had never existed. The airwaves should stay free and open, or broadcasters may soon become a distant memory.