doodledee

There was that big brouhaha a last month when the FCC announced it was okay for like 2 companies to own every media outlet in the universe. People freaked out. Hell, I freaked out.

Then yesterday the House voted to repeal the law.

Then the Bush Whitehouse said they would "try and fix that". Cute.

I found this article in The Atlantic that talks about the dangers of media conglomeration and makes some neat predictions about the future of television under a couple of different scenarios. The best part? The article is from 1969.

The article mostly focuses on the dominance of the big three networks over all the other channels. Near the end, the author brings up some interesting points about how technology - as opposed to government regulation - would most likely dethrone the networks.

... The same three networks, CBS, NBC, and ABC, [previously] dominated radio. Ultimately their control was undermined, not by governmental actions, but by changing technology. Popular recordings gave stations an alternative and competitive program service. Concurrently, the superior television medium captured the night-time audiences, the prime target of network advertisers.

If networking in television is changed in the future, the cause will be technology and not governmental intervention.

So all we need is a 'different' broadcasting system and the networks will start lose power. So what's the technology? You guessed it:

For example, when a satellite-to-home service becomes economically feasible, network overlords could reach the public directly without the assistance of local affiliates. This would undermine most of the television barons and, at least initially, further strengthen the power and profitability of the networks. However, if enough channels were available for satellite-to-home broadcasting, or if by governmental decree use of the available channels were required to be leased on a common-carrier basis (or even rationed), other national program suppliers could compete with the networks.

...

In the long run, television audiences could become as fragmented as radio audiences, and TV network dominance would wane.

Wow! How close is this dude to the truth?! We now have cable/satellite service and all these boutique stations are popping up and taking share from the networks. What's more, some of the boutique stations - namely HBO - are kicking some serious network ass in a lot of people's eyes. And how about that Food Network? I frickin' love that channel! Screw you, CBS!

Unfortunately, what this dude didn't manage to predict is that even with our super satellite enabled 500 channel experience, the whole thing is still only owned by just a handful of companies. And they own a lot of radio stations, too. And they make movies. And sell magazines. And they kick puppies.

So I guess the dude was kind of wrong. Sure, technology did bring about a noticeable shift in big three's dominance. After all, with all those channels, people watch less ABC and more ESPN. It's just that ABC owns ESPN. And a bunch of other stuff, too. In fact, the top three television media conglomerates (Disney, AOL, and Viacom) own 31 of the 49 most popular television stations.

But what if it isn't satellites? What if it's the internet that's the technology that changes everything? Sure sounds good, but I don't buy it. Are there really thousands of wannabe TV sitcom makers sitting out there waiting to publish their stuff to the net? Is there really even an audience for that stuff?

Lord help us if there is.