|
 ast
week, the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia ordered
the FCC to re-examine, and possibly remand, the rule that prevents
a single company from owning TV stations reaching more than 35%
of U.S. households. It also threw out a ban against broadcasters
owning stations in the same market.
Abolishing these regulations
will create a flurry of corporate take-overs and buy-outs, leaving
only a few monolithic communications companies. As CBS MarketWatch
noted, "Once the regulation is out of the way, it clears the
way for multiple-station buying binges. . . ." A small cadre
of corporations will control the vast majority of programming. Let's
face it: Media companies perpetuate a liberal viewpoint — which
will lurch ahead, increasingly unchecked by conservative voices.
Alexis de Tocqueville's
ageless warning about the perils of majority tyranny in America
bears repeating: "I am not so much alarmed at the excessive
liberty which reigns in that country as at the inadequate securities
which one finds there against tyranny [of the majority]."
Tocqueville's warning,
made long before "mass communication" had entered the
lexicon, is powerfully relevant, now more than ever. Because mass
media is more a shaper of public opinion than an expression of it,
the threat of "majority" tyranny stems from big-brother-type
programming and from the unbridled rule of a few, oversized corporations.
The repeal of the 35%
law threatens to usher in an Orwellian world, where mass media is
a juggernaut of banality targeted to the lowest common denominator
of intelligence and interest. This will both appeal to, and create
in us, a mob, one living room at a time.
Why? Because the repeal
of the current constraining laws will mean that media companies
can reach enormous television audiences, on the scale of mass viewing
events like the Olympics and the Super Bowl. Further, those few
companies will be economically compelled to feature shows that appeal
to the widest audience — so that advertisers get served the
greatest number of households. The result: McMessage — sweet,
bland, and utterly lacking in nutrition.
Sure, we have had a
great explosion of channels and media in the last decade, which
might act as a partial brake on the uniformity of message that would
follow from the repeal. On the consumer side, this explosion has
meant that audiences have a greater selection of programming: The
Travel Channel, The Weather Channel, Animal Planet, HBO . . . This
has been an era of diversity in programming.
But the age of fragmented
media puts advertisers, the lifeblood of the media industry, at
a disadvantage. Advertisers want "reach" (number of households),
and over the last decade they have been paying more and more to
reach fewer households. Even allowing that advertisers buy on the
basis of demographics, they still want the greatest number of households
in that target. The repeal of the 35 % restriction would benefit
advertisers, because it would allow for larger, more efficient media
purchases.
The National Association
of Broadcasters supports the current restrictions. A recent NAB
press release states: "The 35% television ownership cap has
been critically important in preserving the network-affiliate relationship
that has made the U.S. system of free, over-the-air broadcasting
the envy of the world. This rule has been instrumental in promoting
localism and diversity."
In one sense, these
are anti-trust laws; at first glance, a free-market advocate may
broadly support the repeal of any legislation on commerce. This
is not commerce in the ordinary sense, however; it is mass communication,
with far-reaching powers over social and political opinions and
institutions. A diversity of voices is essential to maintaining
a healthy democracy in America; without it, we move closer to totalitarianism.
Those who want the laws
repealed claim that the Internet will provide adequate diversity
of voice. While the masses use the Internet, the Internet isn't
mass-casting. The issue again is audience reach — websites
don't shape public opinion on the same mass scale as television
advertising.
But the computer will
have an impact here, and again in a way that will benefit advertisers
at the expense of consumers and intellectual diversity. In the future,
television programming may be monolithic and uniform, but the merging
of the web and broadcasting will mean that commercials will be tailored
to each household.
Finally, the repeal
of these laws will do more toward restricting freedom of speech
than a whole throng of self-appointed censors. This Brave New World
would inhibit socially acceptable differences of opinion through
sheer normative power, the juggernaut of conformity. This is the
mob in the living room.
|
