Posted on February 22, 2010 by David Oxenford

FCC Extends Time For Comments on the Future of the Media - Looking at the Public's Interest in Quality Journalism in All Media

The FCC announced an extension of the comment filing deadline in its proceeding looking at the Future of the Media (see our summary here). At the same time, the Steven Waldman, the Special Assistant to Chairman Genachowski, made a public appearance at the FCC's open meeting last week to explain what is intended by this study - and from his comments and those of the Commissioners, this will be a wide-ranging investigation looking at how FCC and other government regulations can insure diversity in the media so that citizens and communities can "get the information that they need."  In Commissioner Copps comments, this includes looking at what public interest obligations are appropriate for the new digital media.  Comments in this proceeding, which were to be filed in March, are now to be submitted by May 7, 2010.

The appearance of Mr. Waldman (whose appointment we wrote about here) came at the very end of a long Commission open meeting where extensive discussions were held on reforming the FCC's internal decision-making processes and about the broadband deployment report which has consumed the FCC for many months, and which will be delivered to Congress in the next few weeks.  But, while short, the discussion with Mr. Waldman was interesting as he highlighted the plans for his task force.  He opened his comments by initially noting how this was a time of great change in the media, where there is "incredible diversity" brought forth by the new technologies, but that there was also a "collapse" of traditional business models, which could bring about the end of "accountability journalism" (presumably journalism from reputable journalistic sources with some degree of accountability and reliability).  Because of these perceived changes, according to the comments made at the meeting, this task force was established to determine what the government can do to make sure that communities get the information that they need.

To conduct this investigation, the task force will look not only at the broadcast media, but also at all other ways in which citizens and communities can get access to information needed by an informed population.  The proceeding will look at more than journalism, but also at all the ways in which the public gets information - including educational material that is directed to children and information about local emergencies and about government actions.  It will also look at which populations are most at risk of loosing their sources of information by the current transformation of the media. 

The investigation will also tie into several other ongoing proceedings at the FCC.  Specifically mentioned were the broadband deployment report, the FCC's inquiry into the information needs of children, and the multiple ownership proceeding which will be conducted this year by the Commission.  Apparently, the task force has already been working with these other groups within the FCC. 

The inquiry is meant to be wide-ranging, and to seek the public's input into all decisions.  The Website already set up by the task force is but one way in which such comments will be gathered.  Mr. Waldman noted that the site was already producing some interesting information in the way of comments from people writing in about what they are getting (or not getting) from their local media.  Public workshops are also planned - with Commissioner Copps expressing interest in attending these workshops, and urging field hearings so that the public can voice their concern with the actions of the media.  Mr. Waldman expects that the Report that he is to prepare will be completed before the end of the year. A PowerPoint of Mr. Waldman's presentation is available here.

 Commissioner Copps written statement welcomed the inquiry, calling it central to the needs of the country and perhaps the most important inquiry that the FCC can take.  Commissioner Copps stated that journalism's "fuel tank is approaching empty", and that action needed to be taken soon.  On the other hand, Commissioner McDowell, while welcoming the inquiry, raised some very fundamental questions that must be addressed by the inquiry - essentially whether any government action is necessary at all.  McDowell pointed out that journalism has survived several revolutions in the past, and always managed to survive.  Why, he asked, should the current changes be any different.

The issues raised by Commissioner McDowell are important ones.  The Inquiry seems to assume that there is a problem that needs to be addressed by government action.  They assume that the revolution in the media is a bad thing.  While there is always an acknowledgment that there are now new sources of information to the public (like this blog, perhaps), they seem to assume that the new media cannot provide the information that the public needs.  But is that really true?  It may in fact be that this information can be much more diverse and vibrant than the other sources of information that it displaces (or, more likely, supplements).  Hopefully, a more hopeful view of the future of the media than that posited by some of the supporters of the inquiry will emerge from the comments filed in this proceeding. 

Another question that needs to be addressed is how far the FCC's power really extends.  The inquiry asks questions not only about the broadcast media, but also about the quality of information provided by other old and new media, and the business prospects of these media.  Some comments were raised as to whether the FCC should be imposing public interest obligations on other media (see, for instance, some of the proposals for children's television obligations on some new media - including games and the Internet).  The FCC traditionally has not regulated the content of media other than that provided by broadcasters (and, to a very limited extent, that provided by cable and satellite television).  Should it really be looking at imposing obligations on service provided by mobile devices and other new means of communications?  It is another important question that needs to be addressed in this proceeding. 
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted on November 1, 2009 by David Oxenford

FCC Senior Advisor to Chairman to Study Media Change and a Workshop on Media Financing for Small Business - Looking to Reinvent the Broadcast Industry?

The Commission is worried about the future of the broadcast media, and they are trying to figure out what they can do.  The last two weeks have been full of news about actions being taken by the FCC which may or may not lead to a reshaping of broadcasting as we know it.  We wrote about the discussion of re-purposing some or all of the television spectrum for wireless broadband users.  We also told you about the workshops to be held this week as the first step in the Commission's Quadrennial review of it multiple ownership rules - looking at whether to allow more media consolidation to help broadcasters compete in the new media landscape or, conversely, whether there should be a reexamination of the existing rules to make them more restrictive against big media.  Last week, the Commission announced two more actions - the appointment of a Senior Advisor to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski to study "the future of media in a changing technological landscape", and a workshop on "Capitalization Strategies for Small and Disadvantaged Businesses."  What is the impact of all of these actions?

The appointment of the Senior Advisor, Steven Waldman, is perhaps the most interesting action.  Mr. Waldman, the founder of the website Belief.net (recently sold to News Corp), is charged with determining how the FCC can assure that the media will serve the public interest in the 21st century, and that "all Americans receive the information, educational content, and news they seek."  He is instructed to work with all Bureaus to determine how best to implement these ambitious goals.  It is interesting that, while one might be inclined to look at this with the assumption that his charge is to look at broadcasting, the public notice announcing his appointment and his charge does not once use the word "broadcast" or "broadcasting."  Instead, it talks almost exclusively about the new media and technology and the potential that they have for serving the public good.

This reliance on the new media, and the mantra that is being chanted regularly by the new Commission, seemingly approaches media issues from a position where there is an assumption (perhaps rebuttable, but there nevertheless), that the new media is where all the action is and where all the attention should be placed.  This is reflected by the proposals (about which we wrote here, and which have gained much press since we wrote about these ideas) to re-allot television spectrum to broadband, with the idea that this will serve the new media at the expense of the dinosaurs in the broadcast industry - exchanging a sure thing that serves virtually the entire country for a promise of service in the future.  It also ties into a feeling that seems to be pervading government, that the "traditional media" can no longer be counted on to serve the needs of the public.  Not only is there this appointment, but there is also the upcoming workshop at the FTC on how newsgathering will survive in the future in light of the technological and economic challenges to newspapers and other traditional media.  Perhaps, in the words of Monty Python, it's time for the broadcast industry to rally and cry - "not dead yet" - as a vibrant though challenged industry is being almost assumed by the regulators to be out of business.

The Capital Formation workshop is perhaps a good sign that the Commission has not totally abandoned the broadcast industry, as the Public Notice announcing that event does specifically refer to the broadcast industry.  The lack of financing to acquire broadcast stations has been cited by many observers as the biggest impediment to minorities and other new entrants getting into broadcast ownership.  We are bound to hear those issues discussed in this week's workshops on the new multiple ownership proceeding.  While the Capital Formation workshop may be one way to address that deficit, we do note that the companies who are identified as participating do not seem to have a broadcast background, but from their descriptions in the public notice, they all seem to be more invested in technology companies.  Will potential owners who attend the session be disappointed by the lack of broadcast investors who are present?

These actions show the conflicted nature of the FCC when it comes to broadcasting.  What kind of reform is possible, and what kind of broadcast industry will we see in the future?  Will regulation recognize the change in technology and allow broadcasters to adapt to the changes, or will regulation force that change, or will broadcasters continue to be regulated as they always have been (or as they once were 25 years ago as some proponents of more regulation seem to suggest)?  These will no doubt be questions addressed on these pages many times in the coming months. 

 
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,