[A-List] US news media: Murdoch triumphant

["Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>]

One US, one market, one media mogul

Friday May 16, 2003
The Guardian

The war in Iraq has sharpened fears among US media pundits that objectivity
has gone out of the window in the service of a handful of media tycoons. In
a recent article, the Los Angeles Times railed against the shameless
editorialising on the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News during the conflict,
denouncing the "swirling sands of spin" and criticising the
"hyperventilating" anchors.

The conservative media meanwhile cling to the notion that the media are
overrun by the liberal agenda. Fox on one occasion rudely dismissed the
Guardian as an authoritative source. Anchor Shepard Smith later hinted that
it might have an agenda for doubting the ruthless efficiency of the
Pentagon.

Against this backdrop, the US is intending to relax media ownership laws
further, allowing the largest media companies to deepen their presence in
established markets and expand into new ones. The federal communications
commission, the regulator for the US media and telecommunications
industries, will vote on the measures on June 2.

The proposals have not been published but large parts have leaked to the
press. They include allowing the same company to own a broadcaster and a
newspaper in all but the smallest markets. Another change would increase the
television ownership cap, effectively allowing a network to own stations
that reach up to 45% of the viewers in the US, lifting the limit from 35%.

A third change would allow the same company to hold up to three television
stations in the largest markets, from the current threshold of two.

The vote is split down party lines. The five-strong board is made up of
three Republicans, including chairman Michael Powell, who are expected to
vote in favour of the new regulations, and two Democrats, who are likely to
vote against. Mr Powell, the son of the secretary of state, drew up the
plans.

The political split suggests that the LA Times is closer to the truth than
Fox in assessing who is running the US media. The relaxation of ownership
rules seems certain to further stifle voices in a country, where, with the
exception of New York and LA, there is scant opposition to the prevailing
view handed down by the White House.

In many of the medium-sized markets, including Dallas, Seattle and Detroit,
there is only one, or maybe two newspapers of note. In most cases, lacking
competition, they are hardly pressed to create a stir in order to win
readers. With the possibility that they could now be owned by the local
broadcaster, plurality of views will be further reduced.

British websites, including Guardian Unlimited and the BBC, attracted a big
increase in traffic from the US during the Iraq war as people sought an
alternative voice.

The Democrats on the FCC board are seeking a month's delay to the June 2
vote, hoping to generate more debate.

The network owners have argued that they need to generate synergies by
owning more stations. Viewership of the free-to-air stations is dwindling
against the ever growing number of cable channels and programming costs
continue to escalate.

Mr Murdoch this week described the British and Australian media as a "little
bit paranoid" about his acquisition plans. There is perhaps a tendency in
Britain to believe that the spectre of Mr Murdoch is sitting over every
editorial decision. But a little paranoia is more welcome than the sleepwalk
toward further consolidation that will leave the powerful American media in
the hands of a few powerful men.