Read other letters about this article

• Monday, December 1, 2008 11:15 AM

  I was hoping to continue the conversation about solutions to media conflicts of interest and bias

  that came up earlier.

  Glenn seemed to indicate that as bad as leaving media to its own uncontrolled efforts at consolidation and corporate and political cross-over, any state efforts would only make things worse.

  If that's what he was saying, then I'm not sure I agree with that. The government sure is a cesspool, but that's all we have at the moment, and there are things it has done decently in terms of regulation. Leaving aside the fact that corporate lobbying tends to get rid of much of effective oversight and regulation (but not all of it), and while we're waiting for Adnoto to get his revolution going, we may only have the federal government to turn to in terms of ameliorating the media's inherent shittiness.

  I'm not talking about regulations that prevent or limit consolidation. That's another conversation. What I am proposing is the idea of regulatory oversight in the same vein as the kind that banks operated under until the end of the Glass Steagal Act. Such acts would limit certain interests and businesses from having a stake in national level media--nationally circulated newspapers, periodicals, and cable and network television and syndicated radio.

  Its a pipe dream of course. But I think it might be a place to put energy in terms of advocacy. Someone here mentioned that in a regulated media environment, there would be no profit motive for individuals or corporations to purchase or start media. But looked at another way, it would limit the size and scope of media, creating a more diverse and regionally based market pursuing niches--such as specific politics, economy, etc. This is already happening anyway, and media has become a losing proposition in the last few years, especially network and print, except for those that have already gone after those niche markets [Politico comes to mind, though I don't necessarily endorse it] and are electronic only. The Politico is interesting because it has actually reversed the current business model of creating a websit to hawk your paper. The Politico's limited run and sporadically released paper is branding for its website

  Perhaps, one place to put efforts would be in the aftermath of the coming media collapse. One lesson to be drawn, at least in print media, is that the more papers consolidate, the less competitive and profitable they become.

  The restructuring would focus on smaller, more focused media companies with little consolidation and no interest cross-overs. This would probably kill print. Oh well.

  Anyway, now that I've written this, the question, who will freakin read it? Oh well, more crap into the ether I suppose.

  —omooex Read omooex's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel