Thursday, August 27th, 2009 by Corie Wright
You probably haven’t heard, but broadcasters are devising a new scheme that may undermine the news and information you receive on your local TV newscast. In an effort to cut costs, broadcasters want to merge their newsroom operations, including personnel, rather than compete against each other.
These plans, sometimes called “shared services” or “news sharing,” haven’t received much press coverage, but in the last few months they have quietly cropped up all over the country.The agreements allow broadcasters to combine their news resources and staff so stations can reduce the cost of producing your daily newscast.
Broadcasters argue they need to consolidate their newsrooms due to declining ad revenue. But in the process, they are reducing the number of competing voices serving the community.
In Honolulu, the local NBC, CBS, and MyNetwork stations recently announced that they would create a virtual tri-oply by entering into a shared services agreement. The agreement condenses the news resources of the three stations into one consolidated joint operation which will provide news coverage for all three channels. Critics point out that TV execs make no pretense that the stations will maintain their editorial independence. Instead the three channels will show the same news content, reported on by the same staff – just branded with different network affiliations.
While broadcasters tout the benefits of news sharing, others are asking whether these agreements should be prohibited because they bypass the Federal Communications Commission’s longstanding media ownership rules.
For decades the FCC has maintained limits on local broadcast ownership to prevent consolidating the control of local news in the hands of a few companies, and to ensure that communities have access to local news from diverse and antagonistic sources. If the stations participating in these news sharing arrangements were actually commonly owned they would, in many cases, be in violation of local television broadcast ownership limits.
Broadcasters’ claims that these agreements don’t pose a problem are misleading. They argue that local news sharing doesn’t involve any “official” transfer of licenses, so there’s no violation of ownership rules. But stations participating in news sharing schemes are merging control of news, staff, and operations – in other words, they get all the advantages of common ownership without all the paperwork and pesky FCC oversight. For now at least, broadcasters appear to be getting off on a technicality.
Broadcast television remains the public’s primary source of local news. A decrease in competition among local broadcasters resulting from combining news operations may adversely affect access to local news and information. At a minimum, government regulators need to exercise some supervision over the arrangements to ensure that they are not abused.
The economic downturn may force media providers to face new economic realities – but unfettered collusion on the provision of local news or backdoor evisceration of the FCC ownership rules is not the solution.
123 Comments »
Monday, August 10th, 2009 by Megan Tady
Last fall, Free Press warned that “One of the most damaging media consolidation deals in the country was quietly underway in Indiana’s fourth largest city – South Bend.”
And now, we’re happy to report, the deal has quietly died.
Free Press formally opposed the license transfer of two low-power TV stations in the South Bend market to the market’s already dominant TV and newspaper owner, Schurz Communications.
After hearing from local citizens (thanks to the Free Press petition and help from our lawyers at the Media Access Project), the Federal Communications Commission did not act on the license transfer request, and Schurz abandoned the sale last week.
One local Free Press activist who signed the FCC petition, Joshua Leuthold, said this about the victory:
“I’m glad it turned out in the favor of the public this time around. I think it was more important that a group like Free Press was paying attention enough to know that action was needed. I would not have known what process to follow had they not been there to help me. I’m glad that they were able to get my voice through the appropriate channels for it to be heard.”
113 Comments »
Thursday, August 6th, 2009 by Megan Tady
In late July, former CBS news anchor Dan Rather sent murmurs through the journalism world when he called on President Obama to form a White House commission on public media and journalism.
His plea couldn’t be more timely. As news outlets crash and burn and “investigative journalism” becomes a historical relic for the next generation to read about on Wikipedia, Rather said media reform must become a national priority because “a democracy and free people cannot thrive without a fiercely independent press.”
Tens of millions of Americans rely on PBS and National Public Radio for everything from ad-free children’s shows to rush-hour breaking news. Public broadcasting provides some of the country’s most hard-hitting journalism. Newspapers’ accelerating decline has only underscored this fact.
Established to serve the public interest, public broadcasters can and should play a major role in tackling journalism’s crisis. But there’s a problem: Under-funded media like NPR and PBS need a severe upgrade before they can become our anchor and move into the digital age. It’s time to put our public media system under the microscope—not to tear organizations like NPR and PBS down, but to prop them up.
A White House commission could point the way to better public media, and inspire the political will to get there.
Public Media’s Flaws
Public media produce some of the best reporting and programming on radio and television—and the American public values this quality content. In 2009, for the sixth consecutive year, Americans ranked PBS among their most valued institutions, second only to the military. NPR ranked third, tied with law enforcement.
But despite this impressive public support, lawmakers routinely fail to deliver the money needed to support a thriving public media system. The United States spends just $1.30 per person on public media, compared to (as of 2007) more than $80 per person in England and $100 per person in Denmark and Finland.
This paltry funding forces public broadcasters to perpetually pursue dollars, driving them away from their core mission. Too often our public broadcasters produce non-controversial programming that doesn’t offend corporate underwriters and satisfies elected officials. In other words, cautious and dull shows that lack diversity and are cheap to create.
A New Vision and a Way Forward
Sure, donating twenty bucks during NPR’s fundraising drive is helpful. But what we truly need are bold policy solutions that address the systemic problems facing public media. So what kind of vision might a White House commission be able to offer President Obama?
Public media need significant financial support and governance systems that are free of political influence. They should embrace new digital technologies to innovate and increase their reach and impact, and broaden their content to reflect the diversity of the U.S. population.
Finally, public media should expand the definition of public media to include other outlets, such as low-power FM radio, public access TV, independent print publications, viewer-supported satellite TV, and nonprofit Internet-based outlets.
While a White House commission cannot change laws, a public media commission could significantly impact—if not spark—a national discourse on media. If the president were to endorse and appoint such a commission, it wouldn’t be the first of its kind: A 1967 Carnegie Corporation-backed commission on public media led to the Public Broadcasting Act, which established the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
A White House commission wouldn’t mean government involvement in journalism content. Its goal would be to maintain a vibrant marketplace of ideas—a concept firmly rooted in our nation’s history. The government has long created policies that would ensure a diversity of viewpoints and information, like public subsides for newspaper distribution and limits on how much media a single company can own in your neighborhood.
But reforms will have to occur in a number of places, including the Corporation for Public Broadcasting itself—the organization that decides how government dollars for public media are spent. And we will need a true firewall that protects journalists and content producers from any government intrusion.
A great way to start would be by disconnecting media funding from the ugly annual dance of congressional appropriations. If we can stop tying funds to the political whims of Congress and the White House (say, by establishing a separate trust fund), we won’t repeat the kind of partisan meddling public broadcasting has endured in recent decades.
The Stakes are High
What might a far-sighted commission be worth? Potentially everything.
To fix the massive slate of problems facing our nation today—from healthcare reform to foreign policy to the economy—we need a fiercely independent press that examines pressing issues and holds decision-makers accountable.
What we have now is journalism that pursues eyeballs for advertisers. America deserves better. Let’s hope President Obama agrees.
This column was orginally published at InTheseTimes.com.
166 Comments »
Thursday, August 6th, 2009 by Denise Linn
There’s no denying the moments that make us cringe when we watch TV news. Between the vapid punditry about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor to the unhealthy obsession with Jon and Kate’s relationship, it can be difficult to feel good about what is on the screen.
It turns out that what’s happening behind the cameras is equally cringe-inducing. According to a recent RTNDA/Hofstra study, the diversity of the news work force at our local television and radio stations has slipped.
The percentage of Hispanics working in local TV news outlets fell from 10.3 percent to 8.8 percent in just one year. African-American employment in local TV decreased by half a percentage point from an already low 10.1 percent to 9.6 percent. Now only 4 percent of TV general managers are minorities.
For local radio, the statistics are also troubling. Less than 10 percent of stations have minority news staffers, making the average figure per outlet just 0.2 people.
The study did deliver some good news, however. The number of women in the news work force has reached a record high: Women now make up more than 41 percent of the TV news work force and more than 29 percent of TV news directors. And while these are figures worth celebrating, we still have a long way to go toward having a news force that actually represents the American people.
With belts tightening during the economic downturn, more people are relying on their local news to stay informed. In a Hearst-Argyle television study earlier this year, 99 percent of participants said their increased or steady viewing of local TV news was due to the recession. Without diverse newsrooms during this crucial time, how can we expect our communities to get the news they need?
Consider this: African-American and Hispanic communities have been hit hardest by the recession. Each group’s unemployment rate is reported to be above the country’s average, at 15 percent and 13 percent, respectively. But this rise in unemployment among minorities has coincided with the loss of a minority presence in newsrooms. Essentially, those suffering disproportionately from the recession are not represented in the media.
These declines in minority representation in commercial broadcasting can be countered with more local alternative voices and a commitment to documenting minority employment in media.
Last month, Free Press encouraged the FCC to collect data on the racial, ethnic and gender makeup of the board members of low power FM radio stations, community-based, nonprofit outlets that broadcast at the local level and that serve as a welcome antidote to the mainstream media. Giving the public access to such statistics is a solid start to understanding diversity in U.S. broadcasting.
While we need to face the race divide in commercial broadcasting, LPFM stations fill the gaps left by profit-seeking big media by giving schools, neighborhoods and minority organizations a place on their local airwaves.
The good news is that we don’t have to sit back and live with these statistics. Congress may be in recess now, but citizens are not. Tell your representative to support the Local Community Radio Act and bring more LPFM stations to communities traditionally underrepresented in the news, both as media makers and media consumers.
Denise Linn is a Free Press summer intern in Washington D.C. and a fourth year Media Studies major at the University of Virginia.
123 Comments »
