[August 31,
2003]
Localism and Media Firms in Smaller Local Markets:
Challenges in the New Media Market
Landscape
By:
Jenghoon Lee
Doctoral Student
Department of Communication
Florida State University
Tallahassee, Florida
United States 32306-1531
E-mail: jenghoon@hotmail.com
Stephen D. McDowell
Associate Professor and Chair
Department of Communication
Florida State University
Tallahassee, Florida
United States 32306-1531
Ph: 850-644-2276
Facs: 850-644-8642
E-mail: smcdowel@mailer.fsu.edu
Localism and Media Firms in Smaller Local Markets:
Challenges in the New Media Market
Landscape
Contents
1. Introduction:
Understanding small media firms in local markets
a. Sectoral differences in the
role of communication policy
b. Media ownership rules
c. Court decisions on ownership
rules
3. The current regulatory framework for local
media firms
a.
Different approaches to promote localism
b. Networks and affiliated groups in local
markets
c.
Conflicting regulatory frames
4. Current
market conditions facing small media firms
a.
Deregulation
b.
Networks vs. affiliated groups
5. Case Study:
Tallahassee, Florida/ Thomasville, Georgia Designated Market Area
c.
Analysis of news program content
d.
Comments
6. Practical alternatives for small local media
firms
a.
Convergence: content creators and low power television (LPTV)
b. Suggested changes in regulatory approaches
Tables
References
Localism and Media Firms in Smaller Local Markets:
Challenges in the New Media Market
Landscape
1. Introduction
During 2002-2003, the media ownership rules have been in the center of
national attention and controversy in the United States. A number of court decisions asking for
clearer justification of existing rules led the Federal Communication
Commission to undertake a broad proceeding in 2002. In June 2003, a 3-2 majority of FCC commissioners decided to relax
some of the rules governing licensees of electronic broadcast media entities,
and what properties they could control. Due to strong public and Congressional
opposition to this proposed rulemaking, as of August 2003, it was not clear
that the attempt would succeed.
Prior to Summer 2003, many discussions of
possible changes in media ownership rules were pitched at a national scope or
focused upon major firms in big media markets.
Smaller media firms or groups in small local media markets did not
receive as much attention. In fact, the
rules governing media ownership in smaller media markets remained essentially
unchanged in the initial FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking of June 2,
2003. After a powerful and unexpected
Congressional reaction to this decision,
FCC Chairman Michael Powell announced on August 20, 2003 that the FCC
would undertake a “Localism in Broadcasting” initiative, a re-examination of
small media firms and markets, and ways in which the objective of localism was
being served by media ownership rules (FCC, August 20, 2003). A Diversity panel was also struck on that
day, although the implementation of the June 2003 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
was not put on hold. Hence, while this
paper was initially conceived in the contact of a policy debate in which local
issues were not being considered, the contemporary policy context has shifted
somewhat. The evolving debate over
ownership rules may include more examination of small firms in local markets,
consistent with this paper’s effort to understand the media industry and
suggest some probable directions under changing media markets.
The purpose of this paper
is to further the discussion about the role of small media firms in small local
media markets. This paper explores the
unique challenges that face small media firms in smaller local media markets. Media markets, for the purpose of this
examination, are defined using the Designated Market Area (DMA) categories to
distinguish and measure broadcasting markets in the United States. Small media firms in smaller local markets face
conditions and problems distinct from those of larger firms in larger media
markets. In fact, unlike the multiple
broadcast entities serving densely populated and highly populated urban regions,
small firms in the media industry have their own distinct cultural significance
and political salience. They may contribute
to the fulfillment of broadcasting policy objectives in many parts of the
country that are unique when compared with those in highly populated urban
areas. This is the case even though the
portion of audience members served by small firms in overall media industry is
smaller, and attracts less industry attention.
For this purpose, firstly, the paper analyzes the
importance of localism as a broadcasting policy objective. Localism is an important regulatory goal,
and regulatory criteria in assigning broadcasting licenses for radio and
television. Alongside diversity and
competition, localism is the third objective highlighted in the FCC’s request
for comments of Fall 2002. This paper provides
an overview of the underlying rationales of current media ownership rules and
proposed rules by clarifying the regulatory objectives of the localism. In this discussion, the paper identifies the
possible contradictions and weaknesses that may impede the achievement of optimal
outcomes of media ownership rules.
In addition, the paper explores the unique
dynamics of local media markets with respect to small media firms. Media industries remain continually innovative
in search of revenue and audiences.
Despite declining and aging audiences for print newspapers, and
dispersing audiences for electronic broadcast media, these industry are financially
attractive to private sector investors. However, small media firms, increasing
competing with larger media outlets provided via distant signals or national
distribution, do not have some of the financial and economic advantages to
sustain their operations, jeopardizing their potential contribution to social,
political and economic life. The paper
looks at one DMS in order to further explore these dynamics.
Finally, the paper suggests practical
approaches that small firms in local market might adopt in order to preserve
local voices while competing with other major firms. Some policies are discussed that might result in negative
consequences in larger urban areas, but that may generate positive outcomes if
applied to appropriate situations and cases in smaller markets. Accordingly, this paper suggests new
directions for media ownership regulations for smaller local markets.
The appropriate role of the media, and the public interest that public policies should try to support, are difficult questions to resolve (this section draws on McDowell and Lee, 2002). Perspectives on the proper ownership structure and implications of change in media industries may vary depending on the position a specific individual or group occupies and the perspectives they hold. The different stakeholders in media production, distribution, and consumption have multiple, overlapping, sometimes complementary, and sometimes competing interests. Readers may be interested in the availability of a wide range of content, including that which speaks to their concerns, interests, and leisure pursuits. Distributors of media content in a specific region may be interested in assembling packages of information and entertainment that attract audiences and advertisers. Publishers and owners may be interested in preserving their intellectual property rights in a media product or service, in producing high quality programming or content that will expand their potential audience reach in a number of settings nationally or internationally, and in controlling the costs of inputs into production. They may also be interested in protecting a specific sphere of activities from other potential entrants, whether domestic or foreign firms, and whether those in media or non-media activities. The authors, writers, and creative personnel may be concerned about the conditions of work and compensation, as well as the portion payments for work for hire or licensing of intellectual property rights they may or may not share with publishers. Advertisers may, in an ideal world, seek multiple and competing media through which to reach audiences, both to keep costs low and to more effectively target desired audience members. Providers of media technologies may also be interested in high levels of investment in media production facilities. This list is merely illustrative of the wide set of interests to which economic transactions and economic relations in media creation, publishing, distribution, and consumption give rise. It is also from the economic concerns of these groups, some expressed more clearly than others, that legislators, governments, and regulators must try to discern and advance the public interest.
There are also issues associated with media that go beyond economic questions, and which include the role of political role of media in enabling people to undertake democratic self-governance and to participate fully in the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. If mass media are the main mechanism whereby people obtain information about their government, and the main source of a forum for critical comment on government activities, then policies supporting the structure of mass media industries take on a role that goes beyond ensuring fair market practices among a variety of economic actors. Those analysts referring to both the political and economic role of media note that members of the public have a political interest as citizens in a diversity of sources of news, information, and opinion, and news and information from a variety of geographic locations and scopes (international, national, regional, and local). Market advocates argue that a fair and open market in media products and services will provide the range of choices and views that the public demands. Critics argue that the dynamics of commercially oriented media might be to seek out the most profitable mass audiences or audience segments. This may lead to the production of many similar media products serving the mainstream audience rather than minority of local markets, and providing entertainment of rather than informative and educational programming. These failures of the market in providing certain types of media are compounded by the concentration of media activities in conglomerates that own media outlets in different sectors.
a. Sectoral differences in the role of communication
policy
In the United States, the role of communication policy in attempting to shape and guide media industry characteristics and performance varies greatly by media sector. Newspaper, magazine, and book publishing activities are the least regulated, with a general presumption of openness and lack of governmental limitations embedded in First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. There are historically less absolute First Amendment protections for electronic broadcasting than for print media or public speech, given “its pervasiveness, its entry into the home, its accessibility to children, and the scarcity of frequencies” (see Smith, Meeske and Wright, 1995, pp. 356-357). Licenses are required for the use of radio-magnetic spectrum in the United States. A number of conditions or public interest obligations might be considered when granting of renewing broadcast licenses. Hence, the Federal Communications Commission exercises some influence over terrestrial broadcasters' geographic area of distribution and programming content through its license approval and renewal process. Since terrestrial broadcasting license holders have a limited signal power and limited geographic coverage, this has led private research firms and public policy to treat the radio and television broadcasting industry and its regulation as being composed distinct market regions or market, which are also ranked according to the size of the market (or the population that can potentially be reached by a broadcast signal within that market). This continues even though cable and satellite distribution of television and radio signals now is undertaken on a nation-wide basis.
There is less control over television services distributed to homes by cable television, since these systems do not use the publicly-owned radio-magnetic spectrum. Cable television systems are regulated by the federal government (which sets some rules about the required carriage of local terrestrial signals and the carriage of a certain portion of specialty channels not owned by the cable service company). Cable companies are also regulated by local governments (cities and municipalities), which may have certain performance requirements (such as public access channels) and payments in exchange for the use of the public rights of way to run cable systems. Today, a wide range of types of programming is available on cable television and direct broadcast satellite systems that has no regulatory control, apart from requirements that it be blocked from homes that do not want these services, and apart from general laws on obscenity.
b. Media ownership rules
Under the authority of the 1933 Communications Act, over time the FCC has also introduced rules to limit the ownership levels in different media sectors and across media sectors (Horwitz, 1989). While the U.S. pursued a private model of broadcasting, among the goals of broadcasting policies were the promotion and preservation of localism in broadcasting. Localism would be promoted in radio and television broadcasting by limiting the number of broadcasters and signal strength in each market. Ideally this would mean that there would be sufficient advertising revenues to make media firms in each area economically viable, and so that they could support some local production of news and public affairs (McChesney, 1993). Efforts were also made to preserve diversity in voices among the broadcast license holders making use of the public spectrum through measures such as the “fairness doctrine,” which required broadcasters to allow comparable times for the expression of opposing views on an issue. This doctrine was discontinued in the 1980s. Other objectives, such as minority ownership of broadcast licenses or Equal Opportunity Employment requirements were also made part of the broadcast licensing process.
In the 1970s, the Federal Communications Commission also introduced a number measures shaping broadcasting industry structure. Structural regulation attempts not to change the behavior of firms directly, but to set up ownership patterns and market structures so that firms will face competition and have their market power limited. The FCC introduced structural regulation primarily through the use of rules, although some ownership limits have been changed by legislation as well. While legislation establishes a regulatory agency and sets broad policy objectives or specific directions, regulatory agencies are given a wide range of discretion to implement these laws through regulatory decisions on a case by case basis, or by rules that are introduced to shape the whole industry. In the 1950s, “financial interest-syndication” rules were introduced that limited the ownership interests that television networks could hold in the programming they distributed. As a result, television networks bought much of their drama, comedy, game shows, and talk shows from outside production companies, and limited their in-house productions mainly to news and sports coverage (these rules were relaxed in the 1990s so that networks could have an ownership interest in the programming that they broadcast). The ownership limitations that the FCC introduced in the 1970s were primarily in the form of ownership caps, whether at a national level or in specific broadcast markets. These media ownership rules included:
limitations on the percentage of the national television audience that a television network could reach through its wholly owned stations (networks also include affiliated stations not owned by the network but that carry network programming). This is the national television multiple ownership rule;
limitations on the number of television stations a company can own in a single media market (one) unless there are a minimum number of eight independent media voices (then a company may own two stations). This is the so-called duopoly or local television multiple ownership rule.
caps on the number of radio stations that could be owned in a single geographic market, which varies according to the size of the market. These are the local radio multiple ownership rules;
prohibitions on radio and television cross-ownership (one television station – unless two are allowed under the duopoly rule -- and seven radio stations (if there are at least 20 independent media voices after any merger). This is the radio television cross ownership rule;
restrictions on the ownership of more than one television network. This is the dual network rule;
prohibitions on the ownership of a cable system and a television station in the same geographic market. This is called the broadcast cable cross-ownership rule;
cable ownership rules prohibit a company from owning cable systems that reach more than 30 percent of the national audience, and from carrying networks it owns on more than 40 percent of its channels;
prohibitions on the ownership of a radio or television station and a newspaper in the same geographical market. This is the daily newspaper broadcast ownership rule (NewsHour, n.d.);
The daily newspaper broadcast ownership rules allowed companies that already had an ownership arrangement that was outside those allowed by these rules to continue that relationship. This was referred to as a company being “grandfathered” into the new rules. A number of television stations and newspapers, therefore, have been allowed to continue cross-ownership arrangements, and these have been in some large markets but also in medium to small sized markets.
c. Court decisions on ownership rules
Decisions of the FCC can be appealed to a Federal Appeals Court and then to the Supreme Court of the United States. A number of the media ownership rules have been challenged by media companies on the grounds that ownership limitations violate these firms’ First Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court has allowed limitations on totally open speech, but only those that are narrowly tailored and have a very specific and justifiable public policy objective (such as national security in times of war). For instance, some legislative efforts to limit content on the Internet, claimed to be necessary in order to protect children, have been struck down in the last five years, while others have been upheld. During 2001-2002, the Supreme Court or Appeals Courts have sent a number of media ownership rules back to the FCC for review and reconsideration, agreeing with the plaintiffs that the rules were not clearly justified. These include the local television ownership rule, which in response to a challenge by Sinclair Broadcasting, an Appeals Court in April 2002 called “arbitrary and capricious,” as well as the broadcast-cable cross-ownership rule, which was struck down by an Appeals Court in February of 2002 (NewsHour).
As noted in the introduction, the FCC also announced on September 13, 2001 that it would review the daily-newspaper broadcast ownership rule, and issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. In June of 2002, the FCC decided to initiate a new proceeding, which would combine the consideration of various ownership cap issues in one large proceeding. In June of 2003 a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was issued, which prompted much Congressional and public opposition. On August 20, 2003 a Localism in Broadcasting initiative was launched, and on the same day an FCC Federal Advisory Committee on Diversity in the Digital Age was formed.
Media commentators commented in 2002 that the media industry representatives did not seem too concerned about the delay of June 2002, in that given the present composition of the FCC, a wholesale review of all the rules at one time and in one proceeding was likely to result in significant changes in the rules in the direction of lifting the ownership limits and caps (Schiesel, July 19, 2002). Others saw these proceedings as a key turning point in rolling back public interest limits on an already rapidly proceeding media concentration and its attendant problems.
Opponents of the existing ownership caps argue that the media landscape has changed fundamentally since the caps were introduced, and hence the caps are no longer necessary. Television viewers now have shifted their viewing from network television to a wide variety of cable and subscription services. News and public affairs programming is available both through network television, but also through a specialized news channels, such as CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, Fox News. Concentration in media ownership has been accompanied by efforts to create new services and channels that cater to distinct audiences, whether regionally, ethnically, or by taste and preference. New distribution channels for audiovisual programming are available, such as satellite broadcasting, DVDs, and even Internet distribution of audio broadcasting and sound recordings. In addition to local newspapers, with around 50 percent of U.S. households with access to the Internet, they also have access to online editions of newspapers, radio programming, and websites from other non-news organizations (Netscape, AOL, MSN, Yahoo) that provide greater diversity of voices than ever available in the past. For instance, Ben Compaine (Compaine and Gomery, 2000) argues that technology change has introduced possibilities for alternative voices to be heard and for users to gain access to a wide range of information. Hence, the dangers of media concentration leading to the distortion or denial of information flows is small. He cites the example of the Drudge Report (p. 537) as evidence that small actors could break through the pack of large media firms. Compaine also argues that since the barriers to entry are low, the possibility remains for new voices to emerge (p. 558).
Advocates for the maintenance of
existing ownership caps argue that if anything, these caps are even more
necessary today than before, given the rapid industry consolidation that has
taken place since the United States Telecommunications Act of 1996. For instance, Dean Alger (1998) argues
that the United States Telecommunications Act of 1996, rather than promoting
the "diversity of media voices, vigorous economic competition,
technological advancement and promotion of the public interest, convenience,
and necessity (Alger, 1998, p. 103), in fact gave industry participants most of
what they wanted. Rather than the
development of competitive markets, Alger notes that in the years subsequent to
1996 have seen an acceleration and intensification of mergers and acquisitions
in the telephone, cable, and radio industries.
Regarding concentration and media performance, Alger also asks about the
media coverage of the formation of the Act, which was minimal. For instance, an analysis of editorial
positions of newspapers on the transfer of spectrum to television stations for
use in a transition to digital television indicates that these editorials were
seemingly related to the public policy interests of the conglomerates that
owned these papers (Alger, 1998, p. 110).
3. The current
regulatory framework for local media firms
In the June 2003 news release announcing the proposed rulemaking on media
ownership, the FCC states that localism is a bedrock principle that continues
to benefit Americans in important ways.
The FCC promises to promote localism to the greatest extent possible
through its broadcast ownership rules, and claims that these rules are aligned
with stations’ incentives to serve the needs and interests of their local
communities. Although many different actors in this debate are trying to
promote localism in local media outlets, those parties have expressed widely
varying views about the best ways to achieve these goals.
a. Different approaches to
promoting localism
There have been
significant disagreements among media experts and members of the regulatory
body about the appropriate methods to promote localism in broadcasting.
Two major emphases are evident in the debates about promoting localism in
broadcasting: 1/ local program quality, and; 2/ local public access to media
outlets.
In the proposed rules (FCC 03-127), the FCC seems
to suggest that increased diversity among local media outlets will promote the localism
in local media outlets. Diverse media
outlets in local markets may facilitate sound competition, based on the
provision of media content designed to attract audiences and advertising
revenues. This view is based on the
assumption that advertising revenues to reaching audiences in local media
outlets can best serve local media demands and needs. Such approaches have been employed as the FCC has equated voice
diversity with the concept of localism (FCC, 1984 [cited in FCC 02-127];
Chamber, 2003). The FCC has reasoned that
a diverse marketplace of ideas was realized through a wide selection of
differing viewpoints. However, it may
be argued that the fundamental regulatory goals of competition, diversity, and
localism may at some times and places be in conflict. Advertising revenues for local stations may not be sustainable if
local audiences fragment into smaller and more diverse groups.
Some are concerned that the new rules rely too
much upon a view of media production, distribution and use as market transactions.
Local media outlets, it is argued by
some public interest advocates, cannot be treated as equivalent to other
products and services in the marketplace.
If media content is seen as a public good, then the possibility of
market failure in the production of this important public good must also be
recognized. Following this analysis, a
variety of efforts may be necessary to support the availability media outlets
and local media content to be available to all people in local media markets. This might include alternative forms of
support for media, such as donations, and public and private subsidies for
program production and distribution.
Furthermore, the diversity of media outlets
does not guarantee the representation of the needs and interests of the local
communities that local media outlets serve.
Unlike the broadcasting policy objectives of diversity and competition,
localism may not be achieved simply by introducing more media outlets or by
introducing higher cost programming with better production values. For example, if the 12 highest rated
national cable channels were made available to local media audiences, this
availability would advance the objectives of diversity and competition among
media voices. However, this would not
guarantee access to local voices in the local media sphere.
Similarly, the selection of local media outlets
using audience research techniques might not be the best solution to understand
the role of local media or to encourage the creation of local media content and
facilitate audiences’ access to local voices. Local diversity, or voices not in the mainstream, may be
disadvantaged by this approach. For
instance, it may difficult to promote the availability of minority voices and
women’s voices using a commercial media approach in that in small markets there
may be little advertising support for non-mainstream voices. Aggregating these audiences at a national
level, such as through satellite and cable distribution of broadcast
programming, may provide the economic basis for serving smaller audience
segments and for making these diverse viewpoints available.
b. Networks and affiliated groups in local markets
Similar to the differences
in emphasis on localism, there are implicit but significant differences in the
understandings of who is in charge of local media markets, in another word, the
dominant threat to small local media firms.
Generally, the simple depiction of competition between network stations
and affiliated stations might not address a significant portion of local media
market dynamics. The financial strategies
and marketing capabilities designed by groups to compete with network stations
may also not support localism.
Localism is, initially, designed to preserve independent
and locally-based voices within the a geographically defined marketplace of
ideas. If there is a dominant voice
originating from outside that region, it is important to preserve the
availability of local voices against the dominant voices. Several scholars have pointed out the importance
of the media ownership because of the links between media ownership and media
content (Entman & Wildman, 1992; Iosifides, 1999).
It is often claimed that national network
ownership of stations in local media markets is responsible for the historical
patterns of media content concentration.
The traditional logic of mass media has been to centralize program
production, both to lower costs and to increase production values, and to link
this to widespread distribution of content to mass audiences. Widespread distribution lowers the cost of
programming per audience member and increase advertising billing rates for the
program. Since radio and television networks
have been mass media, institutionally set up to profit from these dynamics,
they have incentives both to produce or to purchase centrally their own programming
materials for mass distribution. They should
attempt to increase the economic efficiency of their production by further vertical
concentration (production, distribution) and more extensive horizontal
concentration (acquiring more distribution outlets). Even non-profit networks, such as the Public Broadcasting System,
or religious broadcasters, may attempt to coordinate production centrally and
distribute programming as widely as possible.
However, group ownership is another dominant
power in local media markets, and one that is often ignored. The group ownership business model has
traditionally been associated with smaller markets. Media groups may purchase and distribute programs produced by the
networks and syndicated production firms in order to gain the economic
advantages of scale, even while possessing limited local programming production
facilities.
Many local media outlet markets are made up of stations
owned by affiliated stations, which are owned by groups rather than
networks. Therefore, local media
markets cannot be described simply as dichotomy between networks and
independent voices. Media groups are
another major market force competing against small firms (even though in some
literature these are called minor companies) (Compaine & Gomery, 2000).
Today, many affiliated stations are owned by media groups such as Sinclair
Broadcasting, and Cox Company. These
groups hold strong market shares and been expanding their power as well. Many of these broadcasting media groups are
associated with other major media chains with interests in newspapers and other
media. For instance, Gannett, a major
newspaper chain, in the mid-1990s owned 21 stations in 16 states, including the
District of Columbia (Gannett Broadcasting, 2003). Another example is the New
York Times Company. This company is
recognized as a newspaper company, but it has television holdings as well
(Compaine & Gomery, 2000).
c. Conflicting regulatory frames
Alongside the differences among
the strategies of the major players in local broadcast media markets, there
have been disagreements about the appropriate regulatory framework that will
encourage the active role of local voices. Traditionally, governments, the regulatory
body, and the public tended to regard media groups as a part of local media
outlets, in that they were independent of the national broadcasting networks
and major metropolitan newspaper chains. So, the rules offered to favor local
media firms have been seen symbolic of the promotion of localism in smaller
media markets. The FCC has stated that
national ownership restrictions are reasonable because the actions of affiliated
stations play a valuable counterbalancing role to network programming decisions. Affiliates maintain this role by exercising
their independent programming discretion regarding what programs best serve the
needs and interests of their local communities (FCC 03-127).
However, there are some
concerns about media groups. Michael
Powell, Chairman of the FCC, expressed his concern about media groups, rather
than the networks, in his efforts to defend the June 2003 Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking. In an opinion-editorial
piece published on July 28, 2003, he said:
This oddity is why so-called local affiliate
groups own many more than stations nationally than the networks. Fox Network,
for example, is over the 35 percent cap with 35 stations, but Sinclair
Broadcasting is well under the cap (at 14 percent) with 56 stations. One can see why many local broadcasting
groups support the national cap—it allows them to own more stations than the
networks. It does not prevent a company with headquarters in Atlanta from
owning stations in Muncie, Ind., no matter what numerical limit is drawn. Such has been the case for decades (Powell,
2003)
4. Current
market conditions facing small local media firms
Recent trends in media markets appear to bring
negative impacts for small local media firms in local markets. These trends include transformations of
media markets, changes in media audiences, policy and regulatory changes in the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, cultural shifts, or the deployment and use of
new communication technologies. All of
these changes have generated tremendous economic pressure on media firms based in
the smaller media markets.
a. Deregulation
The competition among media outlets in local
markets has changed dramatically since the early 1980s. The framework for media regulation shifted
from limited and controlled entry of broadcast license holders toward more open
approach toward broadcast licensing and (at different times) more or less
direct regulation of cable providers (see Chamber, 2003). The growth in the
number of media outlets available to viewers, due to the use of satellite and
cable distribution technologies, has increased the competition for audiences
and advertising revenues among different media sectors and in different
geographic media markets. This has, in
turn, led to calls to relax media ownership caps and cross-ownership
prohibitions, in order to allow for greater economic health of local media
firms.
Many studies have reported that the diversity
of ownership in the broadcast media industry and other media sectors has decreased
over the last several decades. The most
striking changes have occurred in radio broadcasting ownership since the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. The
evidence of the past research about media ownership (Howard, 1998; Drushel,
1998; Lacy & Davenport, 1994) showed that fewer ownership groups have gained
control of more media outlets at both the national level and the local
level. Within the short period of time
since the 1996 Telecommunications Act was signed, several companies have
acquired and hold more than 100 stations nationwide (Brown, 1997).
b. Networks vs. affiliated groups
In order to understand the dynamics of media
outlet markets, it is important to identify the major actors that are making
efforts to concentrate media outlets. Despite the difficulty of making general
descriptive claims about overall media markets, it is reasonable to claim that
vertical integration and horizontal integration have been primarily implemented
by television networks and media groups.
Television networks present a large portion of original programming and
own collections of stations in major media markets. Under syndicated-financial interest rules in the 1950s,
television networks were required to purchase much of their programming from
others. These rules were lifted in the
1990s, allowing networks to take an ownership stake in more of the programs
that they distributed. Under media
ownership rules, television networks were limited in the percentage of the
national audience they could reach through wholly-owned stations. Media groups or affiliated groups may own
broadcast stations with no network connections other than being affiliates of
one or more of those networks. These
affiliated groups of stations, and the continued existence of a large number of
them in smaller markets, are in many ways results of ownership caps which
limited acquisitions by networks or the continued growth of certain affiliated
groups. They may reach large audiences,
but are dependent on a network for programming. As a result, they can and do switch affiliations to other
networks as it may advantage these owners (Compaine & Gomery, 2000).
More importantly, changes in market structures
and in the media technologies that are available for use may contribute to the transformation
of the media consumption behavior of audience members. For example, a study commissioned by the FCC examining consumer substitution of media
(Waldfogel, 2002) found some relationships between patterns of media use and
size of media markets. The study found
that the higher levels of use of local media have positive and significant
links or relationships with increasing market size. Or, to restate, in smaller markers, there will be lower levels of
use of local media. Additional channels and options for media use in larger
markets bring more of the population into the medium’s potential audience.
Another way to state this is that the proportion of audience consumption
directed toward national media is likely to be relatively larger in smaller
markets. This might suggest that the non-local media such as the Internet and
cable serve as substitutes for newspapers, local television, and radio. Given the expansion of national media to
local markets with cable and satellite distribution (and under the new rules),
consumers might prefer national media outlets to local media. Similarly, George
and Waldfogel (2002) suggest that national newspapers also serve as substitutes
for local ones. For instance, markets
with faster growth in a major national paper’s circulation showed greater
decline in local daily paper circulation among readers targeted by the national
paper.
Technical, economic, and policy changes in the
overall media industry create a great deal of pressure on local media firms.
Even though those types of changes are identical across many media markets,
different market dynamics are at work in small and medium sized local markets
from those at play in highly populated media regions. Economically then, media enterprises based in small to
medium sized markets face some fundamental challenges, raising questions such
as the following:
Program Production: Without any additional
media outlets in local markets, local companies may be unable to sustain their
production capability in the local region. While local media firms have limited market areas to distribute their
content, the media enterprises based
only in small and medium-sized media markets have a unique offering in that they can provide news, information,
and possibly advertising that are not available in other media outlets.
Creative and Professional Staff: With a stronger budget and revenue base, a media enterprise in larger market may also be able to compensate writers and journalists more attractively.
Advertising: The media enterprise
in the larger market area may also have greater and more stable access to
advertising clients because of its size and reach. Larger revenues and greater profitability may also allow a larger
enterprise to invest in marketing campaigns to build audiences and subscribers
for new products and services.
Investment: For example, larger or medium regions
with relatively dense and large populations can attract more capital in
financial markets to support in equipment and new technology. However, small
sized markets or medium markets with relatively small populations might offer little
incentives for increased investment in equipment and new technology.
5. Case Study:
Tallahassee, Florida/ Thomasville, Georgia Designated Market Area
The FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking of July 2003 notes that a “bright
line rules ” approach was followed in developing policies to revise the
ownership rules, rather than a case-by-case approach (p. 26). In this approach, a generalized Diversity
Index was developed to use to examine and categorize Designated Market Areas. The
Diversity Index is designed by the FCC to reflect the degree of concentration
in viewpoint diversity (FCC, Press Release, June 2, 2003). This index is based upon some information specific to
that market area, such as the number of broadcast or other media outlets. Other assumptions of the Diversity Index,
such as the audience media use patterns, are based on national averages rather
than the actual information from that specific market area. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking found
that that bright line rules “provide certainty to outcomes, conserve resources,
reduce administrative delays, increase transparency of our process, and ensure
consistency in decisions” (pp. 26-27).
At the same time, the development of a Diversity Index allowed for the
recognition of differing local market conditions in policy development and
application.
In order to examine in more depth the current
condition of small local markets, this study adopted a case study about one
local media market. The case study explores the local media market by examining
the overall media market structure, and also provides an illustrative content
analysis of local news programming. The
case study also includes preliminary application of the FCC Diversity Index for
this Designated Market Area. The Tallahassee/ Thomasville DMA has a medium rank
among 210 DMAs, and hence shares several characteristics with smaller local
markets. Although any case analysis
will contain distinct features, a case may illustrate some dynamics and patterns
also faced in other smaller local media markets. As a result, this case study may
serve to demonstrate more general concerns about the implications of media
ownership rules for local media markets.
In 1998 there were 210 defined DMAs in the
United States, and these contained all of the 1393 commercial US television
stations. Nielson defines Designated
Market Areas (DMAs) by county or parts of counties. Every county in the United States is assigned to one DMA, and is
only given this one assignment. Each
DMA is named after a city around which it is centered. A county is assigned to a DMA the television
stations most watched in that county are located (Rothenbuhler, n.d.).
The Tallahassee, Florida/ Thomasville, Georgia
DMA is a medium-sized market in terms of the ranking among national 210 DMAs. It
had a market ranking of number 109 in the year 2000, and a market ranking of
number 107 in the year 2003. However, the top national media markets (1-100)
actually represent 86 percent of all possible television households and obtain
virtually all national advertising revenues (R-VCR, 1998). It should therefore be noted that the “median”
ranked market (market number 105) does not represent an “average” media market.
Rather, as argued above, the median market may be more representative of the
economic mechanisms and conditions facing smaller local markets.
The Tallahassee/ Thomasville DMA consisted of
230,300 households in the year 2000, serving nine counties in Florida and nine
counties in Georgia (See Table One). Since
the market is located at the border between Florida and Georgia, this market
has unique geographic characteristics.
It covers two different states, serving small cities with different
conditions, and includes the state capital of Florida. Such varying characteristics create a
situation in which the local media firms need to serve significantly different
political, social, and economic interests and needs in these two distinct communities
within the DMA.
c. Analysis of news program content
The sequence and timing of the stories included
in late evening news programs are indicated in Tables Three, Four and Five
below. We did not include brief
introductory sections by anchors in the stories and times in the tables.
Content was coded by the first author.
Text with the same color coding in the tables indicates similar story
topics. Background in matrix cells with
the same coloring indicates the use of the same video clips and
voice-overs.
The news selection in both
WB11 and WTXL appeared to be similar, compared to WCTV. Compared to WB11 and WTXL, WCTV showed
different news selections and different emphasis for same stories.
d. Comments
Despite
the fact that the Tallahassee market is not one of small media markets (around the
middle of in DMA ranking) with five or six television outlets in the market,
the number of distinct news programs available to the local community appears
to be surprisingly small. Given the
economic conditions and media market structures that this market shares with
other medium and small markets, such as insufficient financial incentives to
the local media firms to produce local news serving local communities, this
study might provide important insights about local media outlets.
The result of this
case study can illustrate that the special attention by regulatory bodies is required
in order to preserve localism in small media outlet markets. In spite of the use
of new communication technologies and increases in financial investment in some
sectors of media industry, local small markets have been facing significant
challenges in order to keep their operations serving local communities.
6. Practical
alternatives for small local media firms
As discussed above, changes in media markets
and media ownership regulations have created an extremely difficult economic environment
for small firms in local media outlet markets. Using new communication
technologies, major media companies, both broadcast networks or cable and
satellite distributed channels, can extend their programming and news coverage
and reach out every audience segments.
Without any financial and regulatory supports, the small local companies
will face numerous hurdles in serving local communities. In response, there are several suggestions worthy
of consideration, addressing technological applications, regulatory incentives,
and financial incentives.
a. Convergence: content creators and low- power television stations (LPTV)
While risking conflicts with existing major
media outlets, small non-broadcast media firms in local media markets might
develop broadcast media outlets to carry their own content. One financially
feasible alternative available to the small firms is low power stations,
including both television and radio.
Because of the lower power, and covering some of the costs of content
creation in other activities, the technical and financial requirements for
operations are relatively smaller. This
alternative should also include many non-commercial entities such as community
groups, schools, colleges, religious organizations, and a wide variety of small
businesses.
Currently there are
approximately 2,300 licensed LPTV stations in approximately 1,000 communities,
operating in all 50 states (FCC, MM Docket No.00-10, 2001). These stations serve both rural and urban
areas. Because they operate at reduced
power levels, LPTV stations serve a much smaller geographic region than
full-serve stations and can fit into areas where a higher power station cannot
be accommodated in the Table of Allotments.
In many cases, LPTV stations may be the only television station in an
area providing local news, weather, and public affairs programming. Even in some well-served markets, LPTV
stations may provide the only local service to residents of geographical communities within those
markets. Many LPTV stations air “niche” programming, often locally produced, to
residents of specific ethnic, racial, and interest communities within the
larger area, including programming in foreign languages. However, the opposition of the incumbents in
the broadcasting industry blocked the expansion of the low power FM licenses in
the past (Labaton, 2002). The FCC has
undertaken a new initiative on this front in 2003.
b. Suggested changes in regulatory approaches
Lifting some limits on local cross-ownership
may provide a more stable financial basis for continued production of local
news and information by small independent media firms.
For media companies, ownership of several outlets in the differing media
sectors may result in economies of scale in production, which would allow for
lower production costs per unit. The
content for one type of media outlet, such as a newspaper story, could be
reworked and published and distributed in another media format, such as a
database, an online publication, or in the form of radio or television
stories. Wider possibilities for
distribution would spread the costs of reporting and content production across
more services, lowering production costs.
Firms may also try to leverage their brand recognition in one media
sector into other media activities.
These are strategies that could be pursued even with distinctly
different technical sectors. The
various technical possibilities of digitalization and convergence of technical
platforms may provide further opportunities to move content among traditional
media sectors, or to offer a package of media and commercial services to
audiences and consumers.
More
importantly, however, the application of regulatory considerations should be
cautious. If national major companies
are allowed to own various media outlets in the same markets, such application
might cause some problems similar to those faced in media concentration in
general. Cross-ownership poses some problems similar to those faced in media
concentration in general. If
cross-ownership is of a horizontal character (ownership of different media
companies in different sectors), and results in joint operation agreements,
this may lead to less distinct original content across different media sectors
in a specific geographic market. If
cross-ownership is of a more vertical character (creation, production,
distribution, and retail sales viewing) than there may be concerns about the
extent of choices available to distribution systems through out the whole
country, or even the access of other program providers to distribution networks
owned by other vertically integrated companies.
In June, 2003, following
the FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, bills were introduced in the House and
Senate to undo the implementation of the rulemaking by legislation (“Support
Growing..,” July 3, 2003; “Congress Members…,” June 6, 2003). Having noticed
those criticisms about cross-ownership, Senator Stevens and Dorgan proposed an
amendment to Senate Bill 1046 to allow public utility commissions to recommend
a waiver of cross-ownership rules in small markets under certain
conditions The amendment would only
apply Designated Market Areas of 150 or higher (Committee Adopts..,” June 19,
2003) This bill expects that the cross
ownership would enhance local news and information, promote the financial
stability of media outlets, or otherwise promote the public interest by preserving
local ownership.
---
Table One:
Counties in the Tallahassee, Florida / Thomasville, Georgia DMA
|
Counties |
State |
Households |
Counties |
State |
Households |
|
Gadsden |
FL |
17,070 |
Brooks |
GA |
5,720 |
|
Hamilton |
FL |
4,640 |
Clinch |
GA |
2,250 |
|
Jefferson |
FL |
4,620 |
Decatur |
GA |
9,730 |
|
Lafayette |
FL |
2,300 |
Echols |
GA |
770 |
|
Leon |
FL |
90,000 |
Grady |
GA |
7,870 |
|
Madison |
FL |
6,450 |
Lanier |
GA |
2,540 |
|
Suwannee |
FL |
12,730 |
Lowndes |
GA |
29,760 |
|
Taylor |
FL |
7,110 |
Miller |
GA |
2,540 |
|
Wakulla |
FL |
7,610 |
Thomas |
GA |
16,590 |
Table Two: Local Broadcast
Television Stations Located in the Tallahassee/ Thomasville Market
WCTV 6 (CBS) Thomasville, GA, Gray Communications
WFSU-TV 11 (PBS) Tallahassee, FL, Florida State University
WTXL-TV 27 (ABC) Tallahassee, FL,
WTWC 40 (NBC) Tallahassee, FL,
Sinclair
WTLH 49 (FOX) Bainbridge, GA, Pegasus Communications
WTBC
Note: There are also a number of network-affiliated stations in south
Georgia and north Florida that are included on the basic cable subscription
package in Tallahassee.
Table Three: Local TV Evening News Content, Monday, August 11, 2003
|
WB11 (WB) |
WTXL (ABC) |
WCTV(CBS) |
|
FCAT/0:50 |
Weather/:08 |
FAMU foot/1:14 |
|
Mal-P. Special Ses./0:23 |
Chemical bombs/:53 |
Chemical Bombs/2:06 |
|
Mal-P 2/0:32 |
Closed CCRC/:29 |
Murder invest./:54 |
|
Teen center/:32 |
Mal-P.Spe.Ses./:19 |
Ambulance Service/:58 |
|
New Road/:25 |
FCAT:58 |
Special Session- Prison/:17 |
|
Charity beauty C./:28 |
Mal-P 2/:34 |
FCAT/:10 |
|
Unified watchlist/2:48 |
Teen Center/:40 |
New Roads/:12 |
|
Death in Pakistan/:35 |
New Road/:34 |
Teen Center/1:55 |
|
US troop in Iraq/:1:57 |
Charity Beauty./:30 |
New High S./:55 |
|
Weather/:4:37 |
Boxing Death/2:24 |
Weather/:44 |
|
Flood/:1:08 |
Weather/4:38 |
Boxing death/:28 |
|
FAMU football1/:38 |
Flood/1:15 |
Murder case/:27 |
|
FAMU football2/:14 |
FAMU football/:35 |
Flood/:17 |
|
FSU football/1:02 |
FAMU foot 2 /:15 |
Wife murder/:30 |
|
Tommy Bowden/:52 |
FSU football/1:00 |
Wild fire prevention /:20 |
|
Space wedding/:29 |
Bowden/:50 |
CA recall/:30 |
|
Weather/:1:10 |
UNC football/:34 |
Liberia/:26 |
|
|
NCAR/:25 |
Weather/1:40 |
|
|
Depression of Students/:43 |
FAMU foot/:11 |
|
|
Right diet/:58 |
FSU football/:51 |
|
|
Weather/:42 |
Maryland Vio./:28 |
|
|
Space wedding/:20 |
High football/:58 |
|
|
|
Sick coach/:16 |
|
|
|
Sick PGAer/:31 |
|
|
|
Cancer check/1:24 |
|
|
|
New housing/:31 |
|
|
|
Weather/:20 |
Note: The sequence and timing of the stories included in late evening news
programs are indicated in the table above.
We did not include brief introductory sections by anchors in the stories
and time noted above. Text with the same color coding indicates the inclusion
of similar story topics. Background in
matrix cells with the same coloring indicates the use of the same video clips
and voice-overs.
Table Four: Local TV Evening News Content, Tuesday, August 12, 2003
|
WB11 (WB) |
WTXL (ABC) |
WCTV(CBS) |
|
Weather/:15 |
Weather/:4:52 |
Speed bump/3:27 |
|
Teen abortion rule/1:39 |
Teen abortion rule /1:36 |
Mal-practice Sess./:40 |
|
FCAT demo./:52 |
Mal-Practice Session./:42 |
Na. Guard Utility/:45 |
|
Malpractice Special Session/:40 |
Malpractice 2/:42 |
Chemical Bombs/:50 |
|
Malpractice 2/:39 |
Malpractice 3/:40 |
Murder case/1:15 |
|
Malpractice 3/:42 |
New Driving license/:26 |
Cuba protest/:15 |
|
Housing grant/:43 |
FCAT demo/1:43 |
Everglads/:12 |
|
FAMU grant/:41 |
Airport Screen/2:22 |
Traffic watch/:13 |
|
Terror suspect/:37 |
FAMU grant/:42 |
Foster system/:48 |
|
US new operation/1:08 |
Weather/5:37 |
Weather/2:24 |
|
Weather/4:45 |
FAMU football/:40 |
Airport screen/:31 |
|
Specialty hospital/22:50 |
FAMU football/:16 |
Construct accident /:19 |
|
FAMU football/2:20 |
FSU football/1:02 |
Colder ocean/:17 |
|
FAMU football2 /:55 |
UVA football/:1:03 |
Computer Virus/:27 |
|
FSU football/:1:02 |
New fitness/:38 |
CA recall/:22 |
|
UVA football/:46 |
Lung disease/1:47 |
Terror suspect/:26 |
|
Weather/1:19 |
Weather/: 23 |
Liberia/:23 |
|
|
Released whales/:24 |
Weather/2:01 |
|
|
|
Weather/1:58 |
|
|
|
FSU football/:47 |
|
|
|
FAMU football/:59 |
|
|
|
FSU mascot/:23 |
|
|
|
High school football/:41 |
|
|
|
MLB /:18 |
|
|
|
Sports brief/:14 |
|
|
|
NASCAR/:22 |
|
|
|
Homesafety/:1:37 |
|
|
|
Fitness Cen./:44 |
|
|
|
Weather /:40 |
Note: The sequence and timing of the stories included in late evening news
programs are indicated in the table above.
We did not include brief introductory sections by anchors in the stories
and time noted above. Text with the same color coding indicates the inclusion
of similar story topics. Background in
matrix cells with the same coloring indicates the use of the same video clips
and voice-overs.
Table Five: Local TV Evening News Content, Friday, August 15, 2003
|
WB11 (WB) |
WTXL (ABC) |
WCTV(CBS) |
|
Weather/0:25 |
Weather/2:13 |
Pedestrian/3:22 |
|
Blackout1/0:49 |
Blackout1/:2:52 |
Traffic Accident/:37 |
|
Blackout2/0:40 |
Blackout2/:53 |
Power fail./: 41 |
|
Returning Army/0:40 |
Blackout3/:35 |
Rape trial/:59 |
|
Missing Army/0:40 |
Employment rate/:20 |
Murder trial/:26 |
|
Traffic Accident/0:31 |
TrafficAccident/:39 |
TrafficDeath/:28 |
|
Traffic Accident2/0:19 |
Rape trial/:33 |
FL Forever/:13 |
|
Rape Trial/0:93 |
Univ. Enrollment Conf./:29 |
Employment rate/:13 |
|
University Enrollment Conf./:26 |
Missing Army/:59 |
Com. Hosp./:32 |
|
Fire Education/:47 |
Returning Army/:33 |
Physical Exercise./:48 |
|
High School Test Score/:28 |
Fire education/:46 |
Blackout Local Airport/:22 |
|
Police Cross-guide/:39 |
High school test Score/:22 |
Riverfish/:23 |
|
TPD School Zone/:29 |
School Zone:32 |
Whale/:22 |
|
Unemployment
Rate/:32 |
Police Cross-guide/:38 |
Plane delay/:20 |
|
Flight Delay/:83 |
Weather/3:20 |
CA Recall/:29 |
|
Terror allegation/:35 |
FSU Football/1:01 |
Terror alleg./:29 |
|
Weather/2:52 |
FAMU Football/:48 |
Liberia 1/:17 |
|
Tropical storm/0:25 |
FSU Soccer/:36 |
Liberia 2/:13 |
|
FSU football/:64 |
FSU Volley/:20 |
Weather/:2:12 |
|
FAMU football/:43 |
PGS Golf/1:08 |
Weather/1:37 |
|
FSU soccer/:33 |
Health 1/:21 |
S. John Back/:37 |
|
FSU Volleyball/:31 |
Health 2/ 1:58 |
FAMU Foot/:45 |
|
Teen CF models/:46 |
Weather/ :40 |
NFL/:37 |
|
Weather/:61 |
|
PGA Golf/:53 |
|
|
|
Brief Sports/:11 |
|
|
|
MLB:11 |
|
|
|
Skatingteens/:50? |
Note: The sequence and timing of the stories included in late evening news
programs are indicated in the table above.
We did not include brief introductory sections by anchors in the stories
and time noted above. Text with the same color coding indicates the inclusion
of similar story topics. Background in
matrix cells with the same coloring indicates the use of the same video clips
and voice-overs.
Table Six: Diversity Index for Tallahassee Designated Market Area
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%of Media |
% of Medium |
Parent Company |
# of Stations |
% Share |
%Share (AxBxE) |
Cross Ownership |
Column F Squared |
|
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
F |
G |
H |
|
Broadcast Television Stations (6totals) 33.8% |
100% |
WCTV(CBS) |
1 |
16.66 |
5.63 |
|
31.69 |
|
WFSU(PBS) |
1 |
16.66 |
5.63 |
|
31.69 |
||
|
WTBC(Ind) |
1 |
16.66 |
5.63 |
|
31.69 |
||
|
WTLH(FOX) |
1 |
16.66 |
5.63 |
|
31.69 |
||
|
WTWC(NBC) |
1 |
16.66 |
5.63 |
|
31.69 |
||
|
WTXL(ABC) |
1 |
16.66 |
5.63 |
|
31.69 |
||
|
Radio Stations (18totals) 24.9% |
100% |
WAIB |
2 |
11.1 |
2.7 |
|
7.29 |
|
WAMF |
1 |
5.55 |
1.9 |
|
3.61 |
||
|
WCVC |
1 |
5.55 |
1.9 |
|
3.61 |
||
|
WFRF |
1 |
5.55 |
1.9 |
|
3.61 |
||
|
WFSU |
2 |
11.1 |
2.7 |
|
7.29 |
||
|
WGLF |
1 |
5.55 |
1.9 |
|
3.61 |
||
|
WHBX |
3 |
16.5 |
4.1 |
|
16.81 |
||
|
WNLS |
5 |
27.5 |
6.8 |
|
46.24 |
||
|
WTAL |
1 |
5.55 |
1.9 |
|
3.61 |
||
|
WVFS |
1 |
5.55 |
1.9 |
|
3.61 |
||
|
Newspapers (28.8%) |
Daily (80.3%) |
Tallahassee Democrat |
1 |
100.0 |
23.1 |
|
533.61 |
|
Weekly (29.7%) |
Capital Outlook |
1 |
100.0 |
8.55 |
|
73.10 |
|
|
Internet (12.5%) |
Cable (18.3%) |
Comcast) |
1 |
100.0 |
2.28 |
|
5.19 |
|
Dial-up/Others (81.7%) |
Copper.net |
1 |
14.2 |
1.45 |
|
2.10 |
|
|
Joi Internet |
1 |
14.2 |
1.45 |
|
2.10 |
||
|
Net Zero |
1 |
14.2 |
1.45 |
|
2.10 |
||
|
Juno Plantium |
1 |
14.2 |
1.45 |
|
2.10 |
||
|
SurfBest |
1 |
14.2 |
1.45 |
|
2.10 |
||
|
AOL |
1 |
14.2 |
1.45 |
|
2.10 |
||
|
Man8dialup |
1 |
14.2 |
1.45 |
|
2.10 |
||
|
Diversity Index of Tallahassee |
916.03 |
||||||
In this market, there are a total of 18 mass media outlets and seven
internet providers.
Note: If Florida State University’s Public Broadcasting stations are
regarded as cross-ownership in radio and television, the diversity index will
increase by 30.4 (69.38-38.98).
Table Seven: Radio Ownership for Tallahassee Designated Market Area
|
Station Owners/groups |
Channel/ Stations |
Common Owned No. |
|
Capital Radio Partners Inc |
WAIB (FM) WHTF(FM) WWFO(FM) |
3 |
|
Florida A& M University |
WANM(FM) |
1 |
|
WCVC Inc. |
WCVC(AM) |
1 |
|
Faith Radio Network Inc. |
WFRF(AM) |
1 |
|
Florida State University |
WFSQ(FM) WFSU-FM WVFS(FM) |
3 |
|
Cumulus Media Inc. |
WGLF(FM) WHBT(AM) WBZE(FM) WHBX(FM) WWLD(FM) |
5 |
|
Clear Channel Communication Inc. |
WOKL(FM) WTNT(FM) WNLS(AM) |
3 |
|
Robus Inc. |
WTAL(AM) |
1 |
Table Eight: Media Group Owners in Tallahassee Market
1. Television
Gray Communications System Inc. (Ownership: Bull Run Corp.)
Owns 16 TV stations. Panama City (FL), Augusta, Thomasville(GA), Hazard,
Lexington(Ky), Grad Island, Lincolin
(NE), Washington(NC), Knoxville(TN), Bryan, Sherman, Waco(TX), Eau Claire
(WI),
Pegasus Broadcast Television Inc. (Ownership: Marshall W. Pagon)
Owns nine stations: Bainbridge (GA), Portland (ME), Jackson (MS), Hazleton, Williamsport (PA),
Chattanooga (TN).
2. Newspapers
Knight –Ridder Newspapers, owns 31 daily newspapers and other subsidiaries
nationally.
3. Radio (see Table Seven)
References
Alger, Dean
(1998). Megamedia: How Giant Corporations Dominant Mass Media, Distort
Competition, and Endanger Democracy. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and
Littlefield.
Broadcasting and Cable Yearbook (2000). R.R.
Bowker Publication: New Jersey.
Brown, S.A. (1997, September 22). Changing
hands. Broadcasting & Cable, 127, 32-34.
Browning, Lynnley (2002). Making Waves on Air: Big Radio’s Bad Boy.” The New York Times (June 19), pp C1, C6.
Chambers, T.( 2003). Structural Changes in Small Media Markets. The Journal of
Media Economics, 16(1). 41-59.
“Committee Adopts Stevens Amendment on Media
Cross-Ownership,” Available http://stevens.senate.gov/pr061903a.htm.
Compaine, Benjamin M., and Douglas Gomery (2000). Who Owns the Media? Competition and Concentration in the Mass Media Industry (Third Edition). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000.
“Congress Members Looking to Undo
FCC Media Ownership Rules.” (June 6, 2003) Communications Daily.
Deggans, Eric (March 29, 2000). “Today’s News: the News.” St. Petersburg Times.
Drushel, B. (1998). The Telecommunications Act
of 1996 and radio market structure. Journal of Media Economics, 11(3),
3-20
Entman, R. M. & Wildman, S.S. (1992). Reconciling economic and non-economic
perspectives on media policy: Transcending the “marketplace of ideas.” Journal of Communication, 42(1), 5-19.
“F.C.C. to Review Ownership rules for Radio and TV” (June 18, 2002). The New York Times, p. C6.
Federal Communications Commission (August 20, 2003). “FCC Chairman Powell
Launches `Localism in Broadcasting’ Initiative,” Press Release.
Federal
Communications Commission (July 2, 2003).
In the Matter of: 2002 Biennial Regulatory Review – Review of the
Commission’s Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to
Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (MB Docket 02-277); Cross-Ownership
of Broadcast Stations and Newspapers (MM Docket 01-235); Rules and Policies
Concerning Multiple Ownership of Radio Broadcast Stations in Local Markets (MM
Docket 01-317); Definition of Radio Markets (MM Docket 00-244); Definition
of Radio Markets for Areas Not Located in an Arbitron Survey Area (MB
Docket 03-130). Report and Order and Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, FCC 03-127 (Adopted: June 2, 2003 , Released: July 2, 2003).
Federal Communications Commission (June 2, 2003). FCCC Sets Limits on Media Concentration: Unprecedented Public Record Results in Enforceable and Balanced Broadcast Ownership Rules. Press Release.
Federal Communications Commission (September 12, 2002). In the Matter of: 2002 Biennial Regular Review-Review of the Commission’s Broadcasting Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (MB Docket No. 02-277); Cross-Ownership of Broadcasting Stations and Newspapers (MM Docket No. 01-235); Rules and Policies Concerning Multiple Ownership of Radio Broadcasting Stations in Local Markets (MM Docket No. 01-317); Definition of Radio Markets (MM Docket No. 00-244).
Federal
Communications Commission (September 13, 2001). In the Matter of
Cross-Ownership of Broadcast Stations and Newspapers (MM Docket No. 01-235),
Newspaper/Radio Cross-Ownership Waiver Policy (MM Docket No. 96-197), Order and
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Federal Communications Commission (1984). 1984 Multiple Ownership Report and Order. , 100 F.C.C.2d.
Gabettas, Chris (2002), “Three’s Company.” Radio-Television News Directors Association and Foundation, Available at: http://www.rtnda.org/technology/convergance.shtml.
George, Lisa and Joel Waldfogel (2002). Does the New York Times Spread Ignorance and Apathy? Accessible at http://rider.wharton.upenn.edu/~waldfogj/workpap.html
Horwitz, Robert Britt (1989). The Irony of Regulatory Reform: The Deregulation of American Telecommunications. New York: Oxford University Press.
Howard, H.H. (1998). The Telecommunications Act
and TV station ownership: One year later. Journal of Media Economics,
11(3), 21-32.
Iosifides, P. (1999). Diversity versus
concentration in the deregulated media domain. Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly, 76(1), 152-162.
Labaton, Stephen (December 19, 2000). Congress Severely Curtails Plan for Low-Power Radio Stations. New York Times, p A1.
Lacy, S., & Davenport, L. (1994). Daily newspaper market structure,
concentration, and competition. Journal
of Media Economics, 7(3),33-46.
Marth, D., Marth, M., & Marth, N. (Eds.)
(1999). Marth’s 1999 Florida Guide.
Suwannee River Press: FL.
McChesney, Robert W. (1993). Telecommunications, Mass Media, and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
McDowell, Stephen D., and Jenghoon Lee (2002). Television Station – Newspaper
Cross-Ownership in Medium and
Small-Sized Markets and the United States:
Industry Strategies and Policy Options. Presentation for the Korea Press Foundation, Seoul, July 16, 2002.
Napoli, Philip M. (2003). Television Station Ownership Characteristics and Local News and Public Affairs Programming: An Expanded Analysis of FCC Data.” Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, San Diego, CA, May 2003.
Powell, M.K. (July 28, 2003). New Rules, Old
Rhetoric. New York Times, Section A. P 17.
In Media Ownership Working Group
Studies. Media Bureau, FCC.
Rothenbuhler,
Eric (n.d.) “Market” http://www.museum.tv/archivess/etv/M/htmlM/market/market.htm. (Accessed August 30, 2003).
R-VCR (1998). What exactly is a DMA anyway? Http://www.r-vcr.com/~television/DMA.htm.
Smith, F. Leslie, Milan Meeske, and John Wright (1995). Electronic Media and Government: The Regulation of Wireless and Wired Mass Communication in the United States. White Plains: Longman.
“Support Growing for Congressional Media Ownership Legislation.” (July 3, 2003) Communications Daily.
United States (1996), Telecommunications Act of 1996. (Public Law No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (February 8, 1996).
Waldfogel, Joel (2002).
In Media Ownership Working Group
Studies. Media Bureau, FCC
Wendland, Mike (2001). “Newspapers, TV stations and Websites converge to create a new media entity.” The Detroit Free Press (February 21). Available at: http://www.freep.com/money/tech/mwend21_20010221.htm