F-CC You, America!
By the time you are reading this, the nonsense about which I'm going to be writing will already have taken effect, but that does not mean that there is nothing that can be done. I'm sorry that I haven't told you about it sooner, but the Bush War Machine kind of distracted me. But I'm getting ahead of myself, aren't I?
[Pictured: Newton Minnow]Last year in this column I took the FCC to task, mostly because I don't really see that they do much of anything. If you recall, the thrust of last year's diatribe was that the Federal Communications Commission - in theory at least, overseers of the PUBLIC airwaves - had pretty much lain down on the job. Ever since their last great moment, in the 50s when they decreed what the standard would be for color television, they've pretty much been on vacation. Oh sure, in the early 60s then-Chairman Newton Minnow caused a big buzz by declaring television "a vast wasteland," but for the most part, the FCC has maintained a pretty low profile.
Their first big chance to do nothing came with the dueling home video formats of VHS and Beta. Rather than boldly stepping up and making an informed decision based on the expertise at their disposal, the FCC decided that they should "let the market determine" what the standard should be. This was during those early days of the Reagan Administration, when they were rushing to de-regulate everything. Except abortion. And morality. And religion. You get the idea. Well, as anyone with half a working brain should know, the market "is an ass." The upshot is that the VCR format issue was bungled. The Commissioners followed this act by screwing up AM Stereo. They're doing their best to make a balls of higher sample-rate compact discs and high definition television, too.
In each of these cases, the FCC has chosen to do nothing, saying that the market should determine what the standards will be. They can spout a lot of noble-sounding crap about how this is placing the power in the hands of consumers instead of the government. But walk down the street someday and ask the people you see whether they prefer DVD Audio or Super Audio CD, and I'm betting you'll get mostly blank stares. Then ask them if they have a preference of, for instance, 525p hi-def over 1080i hi-def. Or maybe ask them if they believe that technical standards should be adopted so that hi-def LCD and plasma screens are more easily able to display the color black, and they'll probably mumble something like "I don't give a flying fuck. I just wanna watch tv."
What the FCC has done won't in any way impair that person's ability to watch tv. There's far too much money to be made from you and me to do anything as self-defeating as that. It probably won't eliminate anyone's favorite programs or put Jennings, Brokaw or Rather out of a job. But it could conceivably put an end to our ability to be exposed to a diversity of opinion in our local media.
As of this writing (a couple of days before June 2, the meeting and vote on this hideous monstrosity), the details are still sketchy, but what we know for sure is that the FCC is about to open the door and let Clear Channel, or some other communications colossus like it, own just about every information outlet in your town. They're going to allow one company to own television stations, radio stations and newspapers in the same city. Lots of ‘em.
Astute readers know that it's history lesson time, and of course I hate to disappoint.
Like the Wild West or the early Internet, in the old days broadcasting was a wild and woolly free-for-all. If you had a microphone and a transmitter, you could go on the air at any frequency and do whatever you wanted. With things beginning to get out of hand, the Communications Act of 1934 set up a federal commission to oversee broadcasting. First and foremost, they would issue licenses to broadcasters. It was considered of paramount importance that the airwaves - the ether, as it's known - were the property of no one individual. Rather, the ether belongs to everyone, and strict oversight was needed to make sure that the public airwaves were used responsibly. Along with licenses, frequencies and call letters were assigned. Eventually, standards were set for transmitting signals, and limits were set on how powerful transmitters could be. (That's why, in the old days, people would tell stories about hearing radio stations through the metal fillings in their teeth or through their silverware. The signals - electromagnetic waves, remember - were so terrifyingly powerful that metallic objects nearby would vibrate in sympathy.)
Back in those simpler times, being issued a broadcast license was considered a privilege. Broadcasters were called "fiduciaries of the public trust," and great pains were taken to make sure that they lived up to that trust. There were principles such as Equal Time and The Fairness Doctrine, both of which had as their aim insuring that the listening/viewing public was exposed to more than just one point of view.
Another thing these holders of the public trust had to do was to give back to the community they served. This could be done in a variety of ways: endorsing and assisting charitable causes, to simply making sure that the community was ably served by the broadcaster. Whatever means the broadcasters chose, they had to keep records of what they did, and solicit letters from the public about whether or not the broadcasters did a good job serving the community. Once a year, they had to put all of this on public display, so that anyone who wanted to could go to the radio or tv station and see for themselves whether the broadcasters had done a good job for their community. This process was called "ascertainment," and it was once considered to be a sacred duty. (Your local stations still do charitable work. News anchors make appearances at events for good causes. The stations still do what they can to get the word out about other causes. Though this behavior is no longer mandated, it's a practice that broadcasters maintain as a leftover from those days. Will a mega-corporation that owns three television stations, twenty-five radio stations and a newspaper in the same market, and which can't be budged or leveraged out of town, feel the same obligation? Pardon me while I chortle derisively...)
[Pictured: Bill O'Reilly]
Of course, in the early 80s Equal Time, The Fairness Doctrine and ascertainment all went out the window. Anyone who watches Fox "News" can plainly see that the principles of fairness and equal time have become truly quaint notions. I'm sure Bill O'Reilly would give a sly chuckle if you were to mention those outmoded practices to him. Then, of course, he'd shout you down, have your microphone turned off, and throw you off his show.
So what can you expect in the wake of the latest FCC debacle? Well apparently, if you live in one of the smaller markets, you could conceivably have a company like Clear Channel gobble up nearly every television and radio station in your town. Now maybe you personally like Clear Channel; you think that their radio programming is tight and professional, and that their cross-promoting of their radio and tv stations adds fun and interest to your life. That's great, but as hard as it may be for you to believe, there are other people in this country who may not exactly share your point of view. Or maybe one day in an idle moment you'll find yourself wondering what a Libertarian, Independent, or even - gasp! - a Democrat might think on a given subject. (I know it's far-fetched, but try to work with me here.) Will you have a local outlet where you can find this information? Maybe not.
But all this highfalutin talk aside, on a more personal level, I can foresee a day when, with one corporation owning most of the communications media in an area, that corporation asks itself "Why on earth do we have all these newscasts competing against each other in the same town? Let's just have one station do the news. The rest can show Home Improvement reruns." When that day arrives, a lot of hard-working, dedicated media professionals will have to find a way to make our mortgage payments with the money we can make by flipping burgers.
[Pictured Michael Powell]
Michael Powell, current FCC Chairman, is the anti-Newton Minnow. Rather than decrying the Vast Wasteland, he seeks to transform television into one. And all the while, he pats himself on the back and crows that he is "saving television."
There are certainly going to be court appeals about this, but with a Supreme Court inhabited by the likes of Rehnquist and Thomas, is there really any hope? And maybe this is the key to the whole thing. The Republican Party already has a stranglehold on all three branches of government. If they can let huge, right-leaning communications corporations have similar control over opinion outlets, then maybe they can perpetuate their domination. Why simply dabble in manipulating media - you know, having Bush cavort in a flight suit, turning the aircraft carrier so the tv cameras see the ocean rather than the San Diego skyline, the phony-baloney tearing-down of the Hussein statue, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. - when you can outright control it?
As always, there's a silver lining. A friend of mine, a guy I work with at the tv station, is a staunch Republican. And by staunch, I mean that he's never voted for anyone but Republicans. Well, this guy is deeply troubled by what the FCC is trying to get away with. As he said to me last week, "This thing's a done deal. It's going to happen. The vacations are scheduled, and the bribes are paid." He knows that it's more than important, it's vital, to make a wide variety of viewpoints available to people, even if he doesn't want to hear them. When I pointed out that this was the Republican Party that was responsible for this, he said, "I know. I'm really wrestling with that."
The way I see it, if this issue can convince my friend that there is capacity for true evil in the GOP, then I will consider myself to have lived a meaningful life. And if he can be convinced, then others can, too. So there's hope.
Folks, the Bush Administration has once again erected a stiff and firm middle finger at the American public. Give it right back to them. Take a few minutes to let your representatives in the House and Senate know how you feel about this. Tell them that you won't stand for homogenization of communications media. Tell them that you don't believe that Clear Channel, Hearst, Scripps, or any other gigantic corporation cares a whit about serving the public. Tell them you're thinking of voting Democrat.
June 2 Update
Well, today the FCC held its meeting, and in the aftermath of it, I find that I've overstated my case slightly. Slightly. From what I'm able to gather, if you live in one of the really big markets - NYC, LA, Chicago, Dallas, etc. - then just about everything I said can easily come true. Apparently, in the collective minds of the FCC Commissioners (at least the Republican ones; the two outnumbered Democrats have opposed this from the start), having several million people of varying cultures and outlooks in a community means that that community needs to have less diversity of opinion. Also, the same corporations will still be able to own radio and televisions stations as well as a newspaper in lots more places than the few isolated, grandfathered cases that exist now.
And thankfully, it looks like I'll be keeping my job for a while yet.
Make no mistake, though. We could at this moment be in the foothills of some very, very slippery slopes. You should still let your Senators and Congresspersons know how you feel about this.
Let’s keep an eye on what happens in those big cities, too, shall we?
(C) 2003 - Karl Cable