DISQUS

I do some work with the NAB, and while I'm not placing any bets either, it's my hope that the House leadership isn't moving on the Fairness Doctrine because they're beginning to realize that it is simply bad policy. That said, I do find it ironic that we're using free market predictions to measure the likelihood of anti-free market legislation passing.

As Shafer clearly illustrated, stations are in the business of making money and will go after the programming with the highest ratings. And TV news programs air "car crashes, shootings and Brangelina" because those topics generate the highest ratings amongst viewers. So following that logic, tightening the media ownership rules would result in more stations airing more car crashes, shootings and Brangelina. Not quite what I think the folks over at Free Press have in mind. And in the spirit of full disclosure, I do some consulting work with the NAB.

While it was clearly not his intended effect, Klinenberg's book actually demonstrates how non-consolidated America's media has become and supports the argument that the FCC needs to update its rules to reflect the increasingly competitive and expanding marketplace.

I am not for regulation in either instance but particularly in the case of media consolidation. The Internet has unquestionably become a major player in the media landscape, particularly when it comes to attracting advertising dollars, and less restrictive media consolidation rules actually serve to protect "fledgling voices" in broadcasting. Without the resources afforded by corporate ownership, these independent voices would be unable to compete with cable, satellite (both television and radio), and an ever-growing Internet for the advertising dollars on which they rely. And in the spirit of full disclosure, I do some consulting work for the NAB.