When I first started writing about media seven years ago, the biggest public-policy question was this: How many media outlets should one company be allowed to own in a given market? In those pre-Google IPO, pre-Facebook days, there was a very real concern that big, publicly-owned media companies, like Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. or Clear Channel with thousands of outlets were wielding too much influence over the minds of Americans. Hence, the then-Republican-led FCC’s attempts to relax rules governing media concentration was met with legal opposition persistent enough that it’s still raging today, even as the FCC once again considers those laws.
Today things on the media scene couldn’t be more different. We might still fear the craggy visage of Rupert Murdoch using his newspaper and TV empire to spread his conservative agenda, but there’s probably more reason to worry about the babyfaced Mark Zuckerberg and what he’ll do with your data. If past worries were founded on the idea that a town’s media could essentially be owned by one family, now it’s that all the information you share online will be used in some way you don’t want. For big, old media companies, the period of geography-based expansion — the snapping up of local newspapers and TV and radio stations — is over. Now it’s all about who owns what digital platform.
So it’s interesting that there’s still a heady debate going on over those ownership laws, not that it’ll get as much attention as it did in 2003. Naturally, media owners are looking to dismantle the current regulations, citing the apocalyptic media economy, while public advocates argue that would be an overreaction to what might be an fleeting economic moment. An Associated Press article this weekend argues for laying your bets on the side of continued regulation, thanks to the current makeup of the FCC.
Let’s look at this from the perspective of consumer choice framed in a realistic way, which is to say one that acknowledges that the choice for any given news consumer is not between competing newspapers and television stations. In reality, the choice is among those legacy media outlets and multiple digital alternatives. You could argue choice both is and isn’t a problem for today’s information consumer. In theory, the endless supply of content should ensure that there’s always something for everyone and that something approaching the truth should see the light of the day. But in reality that oversupply has stretched the ad market thin and is making it harder to come by the revenue that’s the lifeblood of news gathering.
I don’t think there’s an easy answer here. It’s not obvious to me that the ownership laws should be done away with. They’re not the main problem facing media. At the same time, they’re probably not doing much to protect that diversity of thought and idea and I can think of some ways in which they may be stifling innovation. Would, for instance, local newspapers and TV stations find it easier to produce a strong multimedia news property in a more efficient manner if in more cases they shared an owner? In our day and age, we’re more likely to get diversity by promoting innovation and entrepreneurialism rather than by dictating who can own what. The Internet is supremely well-equipped to destabilize monopolies or duopolies.
The question of media ownership might be best framed as a question of resource. The news media business is, not terribly slowly, dying. There’s a limited amount of human and financial resource to reverse that course. Do we really want to spend it on antiquated laws, some of which date back to a pre-TV era?