The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions. We created this governmental body as a means by which to regulate the various media outputs and, though many don"t see it this way, to protect 1st Amendment freedoms. In February of 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down several rules relating to the ownership of media companies. These rulings "set off shock waves in the media business " and consequently stirred up hornet's nest of debate concerning the FCC and its rules governing concentrations of media ownership. This dynamic serves as the subject and motivation for this essay -- whether or not the FCC should abandon their media ownership restrictions or not, but to better understand the many facets of this debate, it may be helpful to first briefly clarify what the phrase "concentration of media ownership" actually suggests. .
The Debate.
Over the past few decades, a handful of conglomerate type corporate giants labeled by some as "The Big Ten" have grown and expanded their market reach to control virtually every piece of media we Americans consume. Viacom, AOL Time Warner, GE, Disney, Liberty Media, Sony, AT&T, News Corporation, Bertlesmann, and Vivendi make up this media dream team. To put things in perspective, virtually every major television network, radio broadcasting company, magazine, and book publisher one could name is owned by at least one of the aforementioned conglomerates (many are jointly owned by one or more companies). So what does all this mean?.
It should go without saying that diversity in the media market is the healthiest of all possibilities. Our democracy was founded on this very ideal, that presenting the public with a variety of opinion gives the individual the power to choose which influences he or she wishes to accept. The implication of removing FCC restrictions and having a limited number of media owners control the airwaves deserves some genuine concern.