Big-Media Critics Needn't Worry So Much

on Wall Street Journal
by Alan Murray, June 21, 2006

For those who worry about the pernicious effects of "big media," today is a big day. The Federal Communications Commission once again is launching an effort to ease rules that restrict media concentration, including one that prohibits newspapers and broadcast stations in the same city from owning each other.

The rules were written back when "cable" was used to tow cars and "the net" went next to the fishing box.

Opponents launched a pre-emptive attack against the FCC yesterday, unveiling a new Web site, StopBigMedia.com. Backed by groups ranging from the Consumer Federation of America to the National Council of Churches, the coalition urges visitors to "fight back" and help "save your local media from corporate control."

I won't be signing up. On the list of things that keep me awake at night, "media concentration" ranks pretty low. "Media proliferation," on the other hand, ranks higher. I am perplexed by the amazing array of ways that purveyors of media have found to get inside my head and, even more so, the heads of my teenage daughters. The girls take it in over their iPods and cellphones and satellite radio, or via computer from sites such as MySpace and YouTube (where even folks my age can enjoy Connie Chung's bizarre farewell performance on cable channel MSNBC.)

Moreover, as a journalist, I sometimes feel like half the world is getting into my line of work -- which, if the laws of supply and demand hold, can't bode well for my future. Last week, I visited the Googleplex in Mountain View, Calif., to sample the leg of lamb and ceviche at the company's in-house cafeteria. While there, I also talked to the folks who oversee the company's "AdSense" program, which allows anyone with a URL to become a media baron. If you sign up for AdSense, at no charge, Google will find advertisers to go on your site, and send you a check that includes "most" of the proceeds. (The company won't disclose what portion it keeps for itself.)

So why should anyone worry about Big Media? "Sure, right now, you can say that anybody can be a start-up, and there's an incredible cacophony of voices," says Jeff Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy, one of the leading worriers. "But I believe what will happen is, we'll see a raft of mergers."

Maybe. But a few years ago, the favorite bogeyman of the StopBigMedia crowd was Tribune Co., which was gobbling up newspapers and television stations and boasting of "synergies" between the two. Today, the company is contemplating spinning off all its broadcast properties.

Then there was investor Carl Icahn's attack on Time Warner Inc. -- an attempt to split off the cable systems and the Internet business from the old-line media businesses. Mr. Icahn failed, but the company never successfully refuted the premise of his attack: that the business rationale for keeping these disparate media properties together -- the "synergy" -- is pretty thin.

The worriers make much of the fact that power already is concentrated in the hands of "a few" giant companies: Time Warner, News Corp. (Fox), Walt Disney Co. (ABC), Viacom Inc. (CBS), General Electric Co. (NBC), Bertelsmann AG, Sony Corp. (phew, I get winded naming them). Of course, that list of biggies doesn't even include Tribune, Gannett Co., New York Times Co. and Dow Jones & Co., publisher of The Wall Street Journal. Nor does it include Yahoo Inc., Google Inc. or Microsoft Corp. Or smaller companies like HDNet, Mark Cuban's high-definition-television network, which, if recent media reports are true, may rescue poor Dan Rather from an unappreciative CBS.

Bottom line: There is far more competition in the media industry than in, say, the automobile industry or the soft-drink industry or a dozen other industries that I don't have room to list here.

None of that makes the FCC's task any easier. The media-concentration issue is the most controversial one facing FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, because of the critical role media play in modern culture and in congressional elections.

"This is unadulterated hell," says Mr. Martin's predecessor, Michael Powell, who fought the same battle...and lost. "Part of the reason is that facts don't matter. The opponents are deeply emotional and reactive." They also have done a good job linking interests at opposite ends of the political spectrum, combining the gun lobby and the Christian coalition on the right with the Consumers Union and labor unions on the left. And of course, the issue hits members of Congress where they are most vulnerable -- their local press.

But at some point, rules need to reflect reality. And the reality is this: Access to the media is more open and democratic today than it ever has been in the history of the world.