ap stifles media competiton
Back in April, I served on the panel here in Tampa Bay for an FCC public hearing. They were taking testimony on proposed changes to the ownership of television stations, radio stations, and newspapers. A lot of the comments, especially from the public, oppose changes arguing it would reduce competition and therefore reduce our choices for news.
Well, last week the FCC released TEN studies on media ownership. These studies included:
- How People Get News and Information
- Ownership Structure and Robustness of Media
- Television Station Ownership Structure and the Quantity and Quality of TV Programming
- News Operations
- Station Ownership and Programming in Radio
- The Effects of Cross-Ownership on the Local Content and Political Slant of Local Television News
- Minority and Female Ownership in Media Enterprises
- The Impact of the FCC’s TV Duopoly Rule Relaxation on Minority and Women Owned Broadcast Stations 1999-2006
- Vertical Integration and the Market for Broadcast and Cable Television Programming
- Review of the Radio Industry, 2007
Well, since the FCC released the studies, a cynical reviewer would say: “all of these studies are going to show how making the proposed rule changes won’t really hurt news choices.” Now, I haven’t read the studies - they are all available on the FCC website - but I can say there is something being left out of this discussion.
The Associated Press.
It started in 1846 by the New York Sun to bring news of the Mexcian War to New York City, by pony express to Montgomery, Alabama; then by mail coach to Richmond, Virginia; finally by telegraph to New York. He offered to share his stories with other local newspapers, to help cover the cost of the service. The network expanded that year to Albany, Buffalo, Boston, Philadelphia, Harrisburg and more — allowing newspaper editors to get “breaking news” into their papers.
Consider this description from The Future of News (emphasis added):
Today’s papers are collaborators, not competitors. Through their membership in the AP, they share news with each other, and use precious column inches to reprint the same, single set of national stories — space that could be used to provide more choices of information. In fact, the reporting costs are so low when papers work through the not-for-profit AP that no one can make a profit by launching a paper with alternative information. Now you know why not a single, financially self-sustaining metropolitan daily newspaper has been founded in more than 60 years.
So if 10 news stations or 1000 news stations all get their news from the Associated Press, how will any act by the FCC have any real effect on our news “choices” anyway?
Cross posted on State of Sunshine
Tags: media, newspapers, radio, tv
Loading ...
August 13th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
If we didn’t have the AP, we would have to rely on the government for news of anything that happens outside the country, including wars, because no single media entity can afford to cover worldwide events.
The collaboration of the AP allows for readers from New York City to New Bavaria, OH to learn about what’s happening *anywhere*. A world without the AP means a world that is seriously underinformed.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:09 am
This can’t be slanted to look good.
Already the Wall Street Journal is history.
Let’s not force us to rebuild EVERYTHING when we finally legally remove the cabal from the WhiteHouse.
In no scenario WHATSOEVER does it make sense that ownership should meld.
Already you see the results in the bay area. We have absolutely NO news. IF you turn down the volume almost all the newscasters look nutso. They do and I’m not the one who noticed.
The exceptions to this know who they are and know I love them. I hope. If not, they will soon.
Although it would be just lovely to hear the same droning message I believe that’s just a trifle too close to the loudspeakers placed conveniently about the town square to get the fuhrer’s message out.
Think I’m being dramatic?
Think harder.
August 15th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Tim: AP is the reason local newspapers haven’t progressed? Gee, all this time I thought it was the advance of TV.
Vox: Take time to read your posts before you put them out. DIY journalism still requires DIY editors.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:51 am
yep cw because a HUGE area of concern for ME is what you think.
What you said to Tim doesn’t even make sense.
I’d ask you to explain yourself but what’s the point?
Enjoy your day.
August 15th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
I meant Jim, not Tim. NOW who needs an editor! (Settle down, Voxy.)
August 16th, 2007 at 11:37 am
C.W. Please accept my apology. I’m an ass when I am dealing with people who want pieces of paper to staple to more pieces of paper leaving the situation same: SNAFU.
THEN, I met the ‘right woman’ and she fixed everything and suddenly all that ‘dark cloud’ melted away. I had a very trying day yesterday.
Again, sorry.
From now on go with me. Obviously you have more patience dealing with asses.
LOL !!
August 16th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Jim (not to be confused with Tim), don’t you think it would be a good idea to at least look at the studies before you take a shot at the AP? By the way, as far as wire services go, it is not the only game in town.