Nothing is more annoying than flipping through the news channels only to realize the same dull topic is being broadcast on every station. So, imagine my excitement this weekend when I realized federal courts are stepping in. They may prevent just this sort of thing.
Okay so maybe the next time some poor son or daughter of a wealthy businessman turns up missing or the lights go out for a day in another big city, I’ll face the same problem. As long as there is a First Amendment, no regulation will ever prevent various media outlets from covering the same seemingly newsworthy story.
But at least now the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has put a freeze on the Federal Communications Commission’s new “big media” policies. I still have hope that journalists will strive to improve and diversify their information dissemination.
In other words, keep competition in the market and, like in any profession, journalists will work harder.
Just after the birth of television, the FCC stepped in to regulate media ownership. It prevented newspaper owners from obtaining broadcast licenses and television station owners from purchasing more than one other station in the same viewing area. Another rule prevented any one company from controlling more than 35 percent of the national audience.
In its most recent report on the matter, the commission argued it previously wanted to exercise its constitutional right to regulate as a “reasonable means of promoting the public interest in diversified mass communications.”
While media chains existed with companies owning outlets in different areas, at least communities could count on the full story from one outlet in the area if another missed it.
But in June the FCC revised its new policy to relax these media ownership rules it now considers obsolete.
I’m scared. I can only hope the Third Circuit court is thinking the same thing.
Normally I advocate big business. If Sam Walton can find a way to sell me goods cheaper and more effectively, he deserves his success. His heirs deserve the Wal-Mart fortune.
However, I cringe when the product is the information in question. What news outlets report is what future history books will print. If Walton owned all the media in town and didn’t think a story about riots at his store was newsworthy, who would relate the story to the public?
When two or more outlets with different ownership exist in the same area, both strive to out report, out source and out write the other. The result is more accurate news and a continual push for improvement.
Especially at The Reveille, I value the presence of other media in the area – both the large outlets I try to scoop and the small ones that keep me on my toes.
I realize Baton Rouge is a poor example for my argument. The Manship family qualified for an FCC grandfather clause and owns both The Advocate and WBRZ. Diversity of coverage still exists in the area. The two outlets can even converge to bring our community more complete visual and in-depth news.
But convergence aside, I have to wonder if two top media outlets in the area would produce even better work should they be competing for bragging rights.