The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the agency overseeing U.S. media policy, wants to change the rules to let Big Media get even bigger.
They're preparing to let big media corporate conglomerates control more TV and radio stations, as well as newspapers. Citizen Hunters believe in an informed citizenry, with diverse and independent voices; media consolidation eats away at this very important ingredient to a thriving democracy.
We must fight back and The StopBigMedia.com Coalition is helping to lead the way.
The FCC tried to change these same rules three years ago, igniting a public outcry - three million Citizen Hunters signed petitions to the FCC and Congress. The courts eventually threw out the rule changes.
We must make our voices heard on this very important issue or the FCC will give in to pressure from corporate media lobbyists and pursue policies that encourage even greater media concentration. Lets make sure the public interest is put above the interests of BIG MEDIA.
Take Action Today: The StopBigMedia.com Coalition
For More Inforamtion and action resources on Big Media, check out these previous posts.
I think it's brave of you to speak out, considering your line of work. I remember when there were three channels. Now there are thousands. More than thousands. All controlled by a few.
One must ask themselves why do we watch what we watch? Why are the themes very similar? Why are the products interlocked with programs and scripted non-events sold as news? Why are actors replacing real journalists?
Why?
Because they feel like they can. Because they think we'll do nothing.
Now bring on the post and comments about freedom of choice and the hand of the marketplace and they will be missing one thing.
The marketplace belongs to us. The airwaves belong to us. The technolgy was developed to do one thing, and now it is doing another.
The principle of choice is being taking away. What kind of a market is that?
if you want one channel controlled by a few showing you what they want to show you -- move to Communist China. It's happening folks, youbetter beleive it, it's happening.
I currently practice law in a law firm in Norristown, Montgomery County. It used to be that firms like mine were considered “large” simply because the average lawyer offered his or her clients a wide variety of legal options. The same lawyer could ably draft your will, handle your personal injury case, and prepare your business contracts. But that was in 1950, not 2006.
Today’s legal environment is vastly different. Like the today’s giant media conglomerates, large law firms started as relatively modest operations serving a focused geographic area. As time went on, these same firms partnered with smaller firms who relished the ability to expand their book of business by consolidating with a well-known name in the legal world. This led to the rise of the “megafirm,” or the firm with one-thousand-plus lawyers on several continents. I can think of one firm with a branch office in Philadelphia that is part of a 3,100-member firm with offices in twenty-two countries. This firm is so large that they have no given specialty, only stating that they help businesses and individuals with their legal problems. That is a general area of specialty, and I believe the firm likes to keep it that way.
My concern with the mass media, as well as that in the legal realm, is that we are losing a personal connection with the needs of the customer. A “county lawyer” could respond to the needs and interests of a given client because they simply had a relationship with the client. Today, the “megafirm” is garnering a disproportionate share of legal talent and clients. I am noticing that this corporatization of the legal field is leading to a formulaic method to legal practice that neglects the individual in favor of higher legal bills, scare tactics, and other vehicles to assert power over lawyers and individuals with comparatively lesser clout.
Similarly, I believe mass media lost touch with its customer base a long time ago by moving from a decidedly local, personable focus in programming to a for-profit, “shock and fluff” focus. This is best demonstrated by the fact that you have to watch the BBC to get serious news today. Further, the average TV program contains several more minutes of advertising than it did just a few years ago (a prime time program has 8 minutes of commercials for every 30-minute slot.) Thus, the media approach to news is growing formulaic, as is the law firm’s approach to practicing law.