Tweet
Has deregulation of the broadcast industry hurt the public?
There is an interesting editiorial written by Alf Pratte in the Honolulu Star Bulletin that asks whether the public should take back the airwaves.
http://starbulletin.com/2004/05/09/e.../special2.html
Mr. Pratte wrote this editorial piece after attending a recent speech given by former KGMB TV and KSSK radio owner and Congressman Cec Heftel. In his speech Mr. Heftel stated:
* "the public, not station owners, actually control the airwaves"
* "under licensed airwaves, owners -- who are actually renters -- have to use public airwaves less for advertising and entertainment desires, and more for societal and cultural needs"
* "broadcast stations promise to serve primarily local needs through locally originated news reported by on-site employees"
* "stations are obliged to provide local editorial opinion and diversity of commentary as part of their public service requirements"
Heftel had more to say about the recent years of broadcast media consolidation that has come after de-regulation.
Pratte concludes his editorial with the hope that something can still be done to "reclaim the electoral system of our complex democracy and salvage what remains of our news and commentary from the misguided consequences of deregulation".
In today's highly competitive world is the idealistic goals of serving in the public's interest practical? Should the broadcast media give more free air time to public service and political programming at the expense of entertaining the public and more importantly, paying the bills?
In all reality, the public generally prefers fast paced entertainment programs whether it be American Idol, Monday Night Football or on just mindless, predictable music on the radio. I think years of experience and possibly research bears this out. Look at the latest Arbitron ratings: Popular music formats all dominate whether it be adult contemporary, island music or urban CHR. The public will gravitate to what is easy, familiar, passive and convenient.
In that regard, the broadcast industry is already fulfilling the public's desire for entertainment content at the expense of news, commentary and public service.
Comments anyone?
http://starbulletin.com/2004/05/09/e.../special2.html
Mr. Pratte wrote this editorial piece after attending a recent speech given by former KGMB TV and KSSK radio owner and Congressman Cec Heftel. In his speech Mr. Heftel stated:
* "the public, not station owners, actually control the airwaves"
* "under licensed airwaves, owners -- who are actually renters -- have to use public airwaves less for advertising and entertainment desires, and more for societal and cultural needs"
* "broadcast stations promise to serve primarily local needs through locally originated news reported by on-site employees"
* "stations are obliged to provide local editorial opinion and diversity of commentary as part of their public service requirements"
Heftel had more to say about the recent years of broadcast media consolidation that has come after de-regulation.
Pratte concludes his editorial with the hope that something can still be done to "reclaim the electoral system of our complex democracy and salvage what remains of our news and commentary from the misguided consequences of deregulation".
In today's highly competitive world is the idealistic goals of serving in the public's interest practical? Should the broadcast media give more free air time to public service and political programming at the expense of entertaining the public and more importantly, paying the bills?
In all reality, the public generally prefers fast paced entertainment programs whether it be American Idol, Monday Night Football or on just mindless, predictable music on the radio. I think years of experience and possibly research bears this out. Look at the latest Arbitron ratings: Popular music formats all dominate whether it be adult contemporary, island music or urban CHR. The public will gravitate to what is easy, familiar, passive and convenient.
In that regard, the broadcast industry is already fulfilling the public's desire for entertainment content at the expense of news, commentary and public service.
Comments anyone?
