[DMCA-Activists] [Fwd: pho: Ted Turner on FCC Deregulation]

[Seth Johnson]

(Forwarded from Pho list)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: pho: Ted Turner on FCC Deregulation
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 12:58:14 -0400
From: "Whitney Broussard" <address@hidden>
To: "Pho (E-mail)" <address@hidden>

Quite an interesting commentary from someone who's clearly been there and
done that...

Monopoly or Democracy? 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56132-2003May29.html

By Ted Turner

Friday, May 30, 2003; Page A23 

On Monday the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is expected to adopt
dramatic rule changes that will extend the market dominance of the five
media corporations that control most of what Americans read, see and hear. I
am a major shareholder in the largest of those five corporations, yet --
speaking only for myself, and not for AOL Time Warner -- I oppose these
rules. They will stifle debate, inhibit new ideas aand shut out smaller
businesses trying to compete. If these rules had been in place in 1970, it
would have been virtually impossible for me to start Turner Broadcasting or,
10 years later, to launch CNN.

The FCC will vote on several proposals, including raising the cap on how
many TV stations can be owned by one corporation and allowing single
corporations to own TV stations and newspapers in the same market.

If a young media entrepreneur were trying to get started today under these
proposed rules, he or she wouldn't be able to buy a UHF station, as I did.
They're all bought up. But even if someone did manage to buy a TV station,
that wouldn't be enough. To compete, you have to have good programming and
good distribution. Today both are owned by conglomerates that keep the best
for themselves and leave the worst for you -- if they sell anything to you
at all. It's hard to compete when your suppliers are owned by your
competitors. We bought MGM,, and we later sold Turner Broadcasting to Time
Warner, because we had little choice. The big were getting bigger. The small
were disappearing. We had to gain access to programming to survive.

Many other independent media companies were swallowed up for the same reason
-- because they didn't have everything they needed under their own roof, and
their competitors did. The climate after Monday'ss expected FCC decision
will encourage even more consolidation and be even more inhospitable to
smaller businesses.

Why should the country care? When you lose small businesses, you lose big
ideas. People who own their own businesses are their own bosses. They are
independent thinkers. They know they can't compete by imitating the big
guys; they have to innovate. So they are less obsessed with earnings than
they are with ideas. They're willing to take risks. When, on my initiative,
Turner Communications (now Turner Broadcasting) bought its first TV station,
which at the time was losing $50,000 a month, my board strongly objected.
When TBS bought its second station, which was in even worse shape than the
first, our accountant quit in protest.

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. For a corporation to launch a new idea, you have to get
thhe 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. (Two large media corporations turned down my
invitation to invest in the launch of CNN.) 

That's an understandable approach for a corporation -- but for a society,
it's like overfishing the oceans. When the smaller businesses are gone,
where will the new ideas come frrom? Nor does this trend bode well for new
ideas in our democracy -- ideas that come only from diverse news and
vigorous reporting. Under the new rules, there will be more consolidation
and more news sharing. That means laying off reporters or, in other words,
downsizing the workforce that helps us see our problems and makes us think
about solutions. 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. There is always the danger that news organizations can push
positive stories to gain friends in government, or unleash negative stories
on artists, activists or politicians who cross them, or tell their audiences
only the news that confirms entrenched views. But the danger is greater when
there are no competitors to air the side of the story the corporation wants
to ignore.

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. 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?

Our democracy needs a broader dialogue. As Justice Hugo Black wrote in a
1945 opinion: "The First Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest
possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources
is essential to the welfare of the public." 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.

If, on Monday, the FCC decides to go the other way, that should not be the
end of it. Powerful public groups across the political spectrum oppose these
new rules and are angry about their lack of input in the process. People who
can't make their voices heard in one arena often find ways to make them
heard in others. Congress has the power to amend the rule changes. Members
from both parties oppose the new rules. This isn't over.

The writer is founder of CNN and chairman of Turner Enterprises Inc.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the pho mailing list, managed by Majordomo 1.94.4.

To send a message to the list, email address@hidden
To send a request to majordomo, email address@hidden and put your
request in the body of the message (use request "help" for help).
To unsubscribe from the list, email address@hidden and put
"unsubscribe pho" in the body of the message.