Media Ownership Issue #2

According to this article, “Media ownership hearings begin with hundreds urging government to prevent cross ownership,” hundreds of people who are actors, writers, and musicians asked a government regulatory agency to prevent media big companies from growing bigger in California. Kevin Martin, who is the Commission Chairman, supported the idea that a company cannot own both newspaper and broadcast station in the same city. The cross-ownership rule was abolished in 2003, but the abolition caused a popular revolt, congressional action, and a federal appeals court decision. Before FCC makes new rules, whether a company can own some ownership in a same city was discussed in Tuesday’s hearing. While large media companies are asking for the rationale, many companies are hoping that the FCC would abolish cross-ownership rules for cost saving and increased profits.

There are three issues against the cross-ownership; increase of indecent programming, crisis of freedom of expression, and less competition needed in media.

First, indecent programs might increase when a company has cross-ownership. That there are many companies in media means that more various programs are offered. If a company had some ownership in television, however, the plentiful ideas would be limited. Actually, there are 300 channels in television in the U.S. now. And then, 5 companies control 25% of audience share. Because of the concentration of media, violent and sexual programs are increasing. Also, this means that
the programs for children have decreased. Actually, 50% of the programs for children were disappeared from 1998 to 2003. The cross-ownership makes the programs in the media indecent.

Second, small companies might lose the freedom of expression because of big companies take over in media. The places for free expression are lost by less variety in media. Small companies cannot compete with big companies. This means small companies cannot express themselves. If a big company monopolizes the media, Hispanics and blacks will be shut out because of the minorities. We have the rights of the free of expression. Every companies should express themselves free.

Third, there will be no competition with each other for making good programs if the number of companies in media decreases. This means the programs in media become worse. The companies need to compete with the rival companies, and they should make better programs and offer them. The competition in media does not exist if there are no rivals. They need the rival companies for making and offering good programs.

Consequently, it is obvious that cross-ownership affects the media. The coarse programs in media would increase, the freedom of expression would be lost, and the companies would lose the rivals making good influence. Thus, FCC should limit the rules of the media.

Reference

Media ownership hearings begin with hundreds urging government to prevent cross ownership. 2006, October 3. International Herald Tribune. Retrieved March 31, 2008 from http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/04/business/NA_FIN_US_Media_Ownership.php