When we have rules that limit and regulate media ownership, we are in actuality, undermining a business' basic right to develop and expand. With this, it is important to know that the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC, has already taken steps to change or abolish these regulations. The restructuring of these rules have been years in the making and very strongly debated. It was not much more than debate until FCC Chairman, Michael Powell, began the extensive process of dismantling the regulatory structure of media ownership.
Many people are unaware of the potential benefits of a deregulating of media ownership. There are currently rules in place that set limits on broadcast networks as to how many TV stations they can own in a local market, along with the amount of market share they can possess in the total U. S. (Media Life, 1).
These rules are some of the first that are set to be changed or completely abolished. If these rules are done away with, there will be some very positive results.There will be a rise in competition for the already large TV networks. It was said by FCC analyst, Jeff Chester that, "For over 20 years, the TV and cable industries have told policymakers to eliminate most federal rules on media ownership, arguing that success in the free market should be embraced as the ultimate public-service test. " Many of the large TV and cable networks will rise or fall due to the policy changes, which is necessary in a free market society.Limiting a company's right to expand goes against everything that the American Democracy is said to stand for.
With the advent of new technological mediums, the FCC rules that are geared solely towards diversity are being questioned as to if they serve the public interest (FCC Press, 1). The change for the local TV stations and small towns would not be bad as they might expect. In fact, many of the local TV stations that are forced to stay on the air would have gone under a long time ago if it was not for the FCC rules (FCC NPRM, 68).If the big networks were allowed to buy out these small town stations, it would create better service for these small towns. Also, the fact that local TV stations are seen as the only outlet for a diverse viewpoint has changed over the years. This viewpoint has changed with the onset of the Internet age and other technological mediums.
More and more people turn to the other mediums these days to get their news and information from places that do give diverse points of view. The problem of diversity in the medium of television has become less of a concern.Next, the restructuring of media ownership caps would yield some very positive results. As stated earlier, the larger networks would be able to buy out small town local TV services and improve on them. In addition to this, if big networks were allowed to expand this would reduce product cost inefficiencies that are associated with the limitations that are currently imposed on them (Media Life, 2). The expansion of the market areas of larger networks would also be beneficial to advertisers.
A single buy in an advertisement slot in national radio and TV stations would mean more market saturation. In other words, advertisers would see there ads in more areas and more programs. Finally, with larger networks and stations, there will be more profitable ventures due to expansion, which means that very important programs like news broadcast would receive better funding and reach more areas. In all, the removal of media ownership rules would be beneficial to all of us.
