Large media corporations are far more profit-focused and risk-averse. They sometimes confuse short-term profits and long-term value. They kill local programming because it's expensive, and they push national programming because it's cheap -- even if it runs counter to local interests and community values.
I’m not sure exactly what community values are, but I know if I don’t like the programming on TV, I won’t watch it. Local stations make the majority of their money on local news not nationally syndicated programming. Local programming is not only unique on the 200 channels, but they can also sell every single commercial themselves. No matter how many stations a corporation buys, they will still provide local programming if people want to watch it.
For a corporation to launch a new idea, you have to get the backing of executives who are obsessed with quarterly earnings and afraid of being fired for an idea that fails. They often prefer to sit on the sidelines waiting to buy the businesses or imitate the models of the risk-takers who succeed.
He’s describing exactly what AOL/Time-Warner has done since the merger, but he fails to mention that it has been a disaster. Those executives who are afraid of being fired for ideas that fail will be fired because they will lose market share. Rupert Murdoch created a 4th network amid laughter, and brought the world the Simpsons, and the X-Files. His Fox News channel is now more watched than CNN. As long as there is a human spirit, there will be innovation. If some corporations are too timid to engage, they will lose to the corporations that aren’t so timid.
Even more troubling are the warning signs that large media corporations -- with massive market power -- could abuse that power by slanting news coverage in ways that serve their political or financial interests.
What warning signs? CNN has been slanting news coverage to serve their political interests since the founding. Now that someone else is slanting the other direction, Turner worries.
Naturally, corporations say they would never suppress speech. That may be true. But it's not their intentions that matter. It's their capabilities. The new FCC rules would give them more power to cut important ideas out of the public debate, and it's precisely that power that the rules should prevent.
I didn’t hear Turner complaining when every TV news network was reflexively liberal. Suddenly, he is losing market share, and now important ideas are being cut out of the debate. But my favorite part of this passage is that it’s not their intentions that matter. It’s their capabilities. That’s just sweet. That’s the essence of a big government liberal. Laws should be designed to curtail capabilities. It’s the same mantra that refuses to punish the criminal, because society is at fault for providing him the capabilities.
Some news organizations have tried to marginalize opponents of the war in Iraq, dismissing them as a fringe element. Pope John Paul II also opposed the war in Iraq. How narrow-minded have we made our public discussion if the opinion of the pope is considered outside the bounds of legitimate debate?
This is certainly the most self-serving statement in the whole column. Ted Turner is maybe the most prominent anti-Christian in the country. Not only has he slammed Christians in the past, he blames his divorce with Jane Fonda on her born-again Christianity.
Safeguarding the welfare of the public cannot be the first concern of large publicly traded media companies. Their job is to seek profits. But if the government writes the rules in a certain way, companies will seek profits in a way that serves the public interest.
As a businessman who spent his whole life seeking profits, Ted Turner tells us more about himself than the people he is worried about. He reminds me of the “enlightened” businessmen in Ayn Rand novels.
A business has a vested interest in giving the public what it wants. If a business is wrong, it loses money. The government has a vested interest in consolidating its power. They can mandate that a certain amount of barely watched channels exist, and they can pat themselves on the back for doing a public good. But wouldn’t a greater public good be to allow the market to create more of the channels that people want, instead of more of the channels the government thinks we need?
I grew up with 3 networks, PBS and the local Christian channel. I was sometimes forced to watch Jim and Tammy because it was the only thing of any entertainment value on TV. Now we have 200 channels and I spend more time reading blogs everyday than I do watching TV news. The diversity of opinion and the amount of stories online are far more than one person can digest. Most of this current debate is ridiculous. Maybe someone can't buy a UHF station, but they can webcast on the internet. Consider all the options that people have today. I haven't been forced to watch a begging preacher in years.
No comments:
Post a Comment