FCC approves rule allowing joint TV and newspaper ownership in same markets

Anybody see any way this change is good news for newspaper journalists?

FCC approves new media ownership rule

By JOHN DUNBAR, Associated Press Writer 7 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Federal Communications Commission, overturning a 32-year-old ban, voted Tuesday to allow broadcasters in the nation's 20 largest media markets to also own a newspaper.
FCC Chairman Kevin Martin was joined by his two Republican colleagues in favor of the proposal, while the commission's two Democrats voted against it.
Martin pushed the vote through despite intense pressure from House and Senate members on Capitol Hill to delay it. The chairman, however, has the support of the White House, which has pledged to turn back any congressional action that seeks to undo the vote.
At Tuesday's meeting, the chairman described the media ownership proceeding as "the most contentious and divisive issue" to come before the commission.
That proved true as the two Democrats blasted Martin's plan in unusually strong language for the normally sedate agency.
Martin said his proposal represented "a relatively minor loosening" of the cross-ownership rule. He noted concern for the steady decline in revenue for newspaper companies and said his proposal "strikes a balance" between the realities of the changing media marketplace and the preservation of diversity and competition in broadcasting.

 

The bigger the monopoly the better!

 

Given the Murdoch's NewsCorp has owned Fox5 New York and the NY Post for a number of years, I don't know what this really means.

 

I didn't realize this was even still illegal.

 

Murdoch got a waiver for the Post and the Boston Herald, partly by kissing up to Ted Kennedy. The argument was that those papers would fail and the people of New York and Boston would be left with one less paper.

By the way, the idea about not being able to own a newspaper and broadcast station in one market came from Richard Nixon, who wanted to mess with the Washington Post. However, papers which already owned television stations didn't have to sell them.

As for the effect on newspaper jobs, it probably won't matter one way or another. This doesn't affect circulation in any serious way. It could create an increase in value of television stations, since there would be more potential bidders, and this is why TV stations would favor the rule change.

 

Those waivers were only temporary. The FCC allowed these type of waivers because when companies merged, they were often left with cross-ownership.
The FCC has been ruling on this for years. With lobbying coming from both sides. It's a huge issue. The biggest benefactor of the ruling is Tribune, er, Sam Zell. Some are even dubbing it the "Tribune" ruling.

 

Yay! Synergy!

 

They're going to loot all the can loot before the hammer comes down in '08.

 

and for Sam Zell in Los Angeles, this creates an interesting situation.

CBS owns Channel 2 and Channel 9, and there has been some merger of the news departments and programming to a degree.

Murdoch owns Channel 11 and Channel 13. I think NBC Universal owns Channel 4 and a UHF television station. So Zell would be able to own only one station, while there are no limits on the other media ownership groups. That does not seem equitable.

 

I'm thinking a TV station owner might just merge a TV/newspaper Website and fewer newspaper reporters will be needed.

 

That seems to be the prevailing thought.
Do a ton of debt service with real estate holdings and see where he is from there.

 

You'd think I'd oppose this, but I just don't see the hubbub.

In those markets where the same company owns a station and a newspaper, it's not like those folks are actually working together.

Print people hate TV people.

TV people don't think about print people.

Actually, in those cross-ownership markets, I think the TV folks' main concern with the newspaper is hoping it doesn't hemorrhage so much money that the cuts start making their way down the street.