GoldenShine9 1509 Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 I know several threads have mentioned the cross-ownership rule, and whether it is still valid these days. I'm not sure if this is the best place to post this, but that rule really played into the Gannett-Belo and Tribune-Local TV deals, forcing shells even in non-conflicting (for TV) markets. The big case against it I see: there have been many exemptions in the past, and some TV stations have a heritage with newspapers. But do they deserve to be in different operations? Tough one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weeters 1812 Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 This rule is antiquated and needs to go. What makes a newspaper a newspaper? If they elect to stop printing hard copies and move to web-only, are they still a newspaper? That's probably going to happen to most newspapers in the next decade anyways. This rule was put into place when the only means of mass communication with the public were newspapers, which were huge, and broadcasting. I'm pretty sure we've reached the point where the biggest way to communicate with the public is the internet. More people probably visit local TV websites in a market in 12 hours than the combined subscribers to the local print media. The FCC ought to get rid of this rule now, but knowing how the government functions, it will be quietly removed long after the last major newspaper prints it's last print edition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanewsguy 509 Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 I'm very vocal on this, I say get rid of it. It's an outdated rule. And the FCC does not have the authority to regulate newspapers even though they act like it. I don't get what the motive behind this rule was in the first place. If they are trying to reign in media consolidation, it's not working. Look at the LA Times, the Chicago Tribune, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, which are all co-owned with well-respected television stations. Yet the operations are completely separate. They can't really share material, because broadcast style and print style are very different. Yes they can share story leads, information one newsroom has that the other doesn't, etc. But it's like their a separate newsroom and therefore separate voice in the community, because of separate leadership. Then there are some newspaper-TV duops that are poorly managed like The Dayton Daily News, because they are in the same building as the TV station WHIO. I think the team running the group there has a print background. And then it leads to things like this. Some of them are good, some aren't. But saying one company a TV station and newspaper, but can own a TV station and radio station, or a radio station or newspaper, is going a little too far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Muck 4225 Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Even if the rule is repealed, it would be 30 years too late. Tribune, Belo, Media General and Fox have all abandoned or are abandoning their newspaper divisions. The Graham family even gave up the WaPo to Jeff Bezos. The question really should be, when will Scripps, Hearst, Cox and Gannett spin off or sell off their newspapers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOneManHerd 553 Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Eliminate it. You can own two TV stations, several radio stations, websites, magazines, all in the same market and the FCC is fine. But one TV station and a newspaper? Egad! They're monopolizing all the media voices!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyrannical bastard 3487 Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Newspapers are going the way of the corded phone and the telegraph.....the rule needs to go...like 10 years ago. It's like telling a TV station that they can't run their own web site. Can you imagine if web sites existed 20 years before they became commonplace? The internet is driving EVERYTHING these days....from newsgathering, to operations, even to delivery in some cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewsMaster 226 Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Eliminate it. You can own two TV stations, several radio stations, websites, magazines, all in the same market and the FCC is fine. But one TV station and a newspaper? Egad! They're monopolizing all the media voices!!!! At least companies like Cox can keep separate websites (WSB-TV and the AJC, for example). Not the case here in Phoenix with The Arizona Republic and KPNX both sharing azcentral.com. I just get so mad about the fact that most of that website is full of premium content. So I'm saying get rid of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkolsen 1679 Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 I say get rid of it because there is such a wide variety of information now a days. At least companies like Cox can keep separate websites (WSB-TV and the AJC, for example). Not the case here in Phoenix with The Arizona Republic and KPNX both sharing azcentral.com. I just get so mad about the fact that most of that website is full of premium content. So I'm saying get rid of it. I'm not a fan of television stations implementing a paywall. It's one thing if newspaper stories count as premium content but given the nature of broadcasting the information is given out to all free of charge save for advertisements where as newspapers you have to buy in order to access the content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenShine9 1509 Posted April 7, 2014 Author Share Posted April 7, 2014 Yeah probably best to eliminate the rule. Newspapers are going the way of the dodo bird anyway with the Internet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEOMatrix 1295 Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Kill it with fire!!! It's an outdated rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breaking News 805 Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 What happens if you have owners like Cox who owned AJC & WSB-TV/Radio for years? I know there only a few stations where the same owners have owned newspapers-radio-tv for years. What do you do with that entity? Do you spin the company? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Heller 1 Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Eliminate because of Gannett's ownership in both The Arizona Republic and KPNX, imagine Tribune acquiring The Oklahoman with The FCC repealing it's Newspaper-Broadcast cross-ownership rule, that'll be a match made in heaven between The Oklahoman, and KFOR/KAUT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanewsguy 509 Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Eliminate because of Gannett's ownership in both The Arizona Republic and KPNX, imagine Tribune acquiring The Oklahoman with The FCC repealing it's Newspaper-Broadcast cross-ownership rule, that'll be a match made in heaven between The Oklahoman, and KFOR/KAUT. Isn't Tribune trying to sell its newspapers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ns8401 846 Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Isn't Tribune trying to sell its newspapers? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Heller 1 Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 Yes. well even if Tribune does decide to spin off its newspapers, and The FCC repeals The Newspaper-ownership rule, I think in a lot of ways you would see synergies between both KFOR/KAUT, and The Oklahoman, similar to The Synergies between The Arizona Republic, and KPNX, so it would make a lot sense for both KFOR/KAUT to be co-owned with The Oklahoman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ns8401 846 Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 well even if Tribune does decide to spin off its newspapers, and The FCC repeals The Newspaper-ownership rule, I think in a lot of ways you would see synergies between both KFOR/KAUT, and The Oklahoman, similar to The Synergies between The Arizona Republic, and KPNX, so it would make a lot sense for both KFOR/KAUT to be co-owned with The Oklahoman. What? If they spin off NEWSPAPERS then no broadcasting is involved in the new company. And what's your obsession with KFOR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.