Of all the industries that have undergone change during the past 20 years, the media must rank near the top. With the expansion of cable television and satellites, and the introduction of the Internet, Americans have more access than ever before to a variety of opinions, viewpoints and programming. Some stations clearly offer a conservative take on the news, while others are liberal. Internet broadcasts are becoming more sophisticated and can be accessed by a growing audience.
It makes little sense to continue operating under an outmoded set of FCC rules.
The Federal Communications Commission is set to meet Monday to vote on new rules that would likely change the ownership of many broadcast stations and newspapers. It would make it easier for one company to own more outlets, including newspapers, television and radio stations in the same market.
That has a lot of people, from rock musicians to the National Rifle Association, complaining that the end of the freedom and democracy is near. But think for a moment about the current rules. Why should it be legal for one company to own several radio stations in a market, or to own several newspapers, but illegal to acquire a single daily newspaper and broadcast station? And why, in this Internet and cable age, do we still think of broadcasting as an extremely limited medium?
When the current rules were adopted years ago, three networks dominated television. Those days are long gone. So, too, are the days when broadcast stations and newspapers were completely separate. In many markets, papers are converging their news operations with those at certain TV and radio stations. The Deseret News is undergoing this process with KSL — a natural fit considering The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is allowed, under the current rules, to maintain ownership of both.
The reason for this is simple. Both the paper and the station benefit from economies of scale, and they can combine forces to provide more aggressive and thorough coverage of a market.
We acknowledge the concerns about how a loosening of the rules could create super corporations that control the news and official opinions. We agree that each community benefits from a variety of voices. But a free marketplace has never failed to deliver quality choices when the rules are fair, and this should be no exception.
Because the number of frequencies remains limited, controls still are necessary. But Americans have so many outlets for expression these days that a small loosening of the FCC's rules will hardly be a threat to the republic.