Rationalizing network neutrality and media concentration
The two communications policy issues that have had the most mainstream appeal recently are network neutrality and media concentration.
Here's a question: Shouldn't it be difficult to be “for” an active government role in both? To be “for” network neutrality, it seems natural to have the view that the internet is displacing many prior forms of communications modalities — the press is in a free fall, people are watching much less broadcast television, etc. — and so it's even more important to get internet access policy right and avoid gatekeepers. You'd want to talk about the empowering, emergent communications taking place online.
But to be “for” limits on media ownership, it may be necessary to argue that nothing much has changed. You have to claim that broadcast and newspapers control news and culture, and so it's important to avoid more consolidation. The internet isn't changing the local news picture, you'd have to say, and so its existence doesn't change the media landscape. Blogs aren't legitimate alternative news sources.
Maybe I've got this wrong, but it seemed to me today to be at least difficult to agitate in favor of both ideas. There's a market failure in internet access, but is there a market failure in information?
Comments
3 Responses to “Rationalizing network neutrality and media concentration”
Got something to say?
Perhaps a good meme for being in favor of both is “hedging your bets.” If the Internet changes everything, then you want to make sure that the Internet isn't taken over by the major telecommunications companies. If it doesn't, then media concentration is exactly the same thing, with a different set of intermediaries.
I'm not sure that this works for me; I think the obsessive media-con focus on news doesn't translate well to the set of problems we face with the Internet. But it seems like the problems are related, rather than simply in tension with each other.
From Daniel Berninger (stymied by the registration requirement for comments, sorry):
I do not see a conflict. Efforts to resist media consolidation and
embrace net neutrality arise from the risks posed by concentration of power.
Citizens empower government to protect the public interest against the designs of special interests to concentrate power in both domains (Internet, traditional media). The tools available to each branch have strengths and weaknesses, so protecting the public interest requires the participation of all three branches of government.
This goes to the core of why government exists - to resist the 2nd
golden rule - he who has the gold rules.
My response to Daniel: From a legal perspective, the “local news”
justification for the media concentration rules depends on saying (strongly) that the internet doesn't matter as a source of local news. But I certainly understand your point about gatekeepers generally — it's the legal specifics that get a little dicey.
I am not for regulation in either instance but particularly in the case of media consolidation. The Internet has unquestionably become a major player in the media landscape, particularly when it comes to attracting advertising dollars. While it might seem counterintuitive, less restrictive media consolidation rules actually serve to protect “fledgling voices” in broadcasting, as without the resources afforded by corporate ownership, these independent voices would be unable to compete with cable, satellite (both television and radio), and an ever-growing Internet for the advertising dollars on which they rely. And in the spirit of full disclosure, I do some consulting work for the NAB.