Since the emergence of the press, there has been an influential linkage between media and the people. Media holds the power to administer information to the people, giving them the ability to participate in democracy. This circulates back to the crucial concern of media ownership. The holder of ownership possesses the key element in shaping media diversity, representative government and public opinion. This paper will examine the question if FCC policies have shaped the content of the news in modern times versus in the 17th century. The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) was established by the Communications Act of 1934. The independent agencies goal was to promote competition and limit monopolies within corporations. Before the act was created and before mass media was completely embolized, the early 17th century was known as the Party Press Era. This was a result of the main political parties authority over the press. Although media ownership has shifted away from political parties and into major corporations, there are still issues at stake regarding ownership. Today we only see a handful of large-scale corporations holding ownership over many smaller ones. Karl Marx expressed his concerns of society within his Conflict Theory. It stated that those with power and wealth will attempt to detain this power by any means. And in result will repress the lower class in order to keep themselves on top. It emphasizes inequality among the classes and fears the ruling class uses their dominant status, in society, to alter the composition and beliefs broadcasted to the public. This theory can fall back on the controllers of the media’s desire for profitability; in a journalism context the publishers goal of their newspapers is to sell and make money. Additionally there is also a goal to influence the media. As well as control of oversight of the media, ownership gives possessors authority over the public's information. Partisan press and cooperation media are comperitable because of their similar interest in obtaining authority over the media, projecting their beliefs through their perspective and craving to make a profit. Key differences restrict the ability to completely correlate the two media eras, yet akin factors can be found that are embedded in the need for stricter policies. This paper will deeper analyse the FCC policies and the impact they have established.
One can trace back the origins of American media under the influence of British rule. This influence led a major impact in the way the American colonists were receiving and putting out information. It held American colonists to British supervision, having most of their media come from England. The first newspaper was published in 1690 by Benjamin Harris, who feld London after imprisonment for his rebellious publications. He immigrated to Boston, a common occurence of colonists who wanted to escape censorship, where he published his first work. Printed under the title "Publick Occurrences, Both Foreign and Domestic". The paper was intended to be printed monthly. Yet it was shut down by the colonial government and the second addition never came forth. In addition to foregin influence, religion was a major influencer and revenue for the printed word. Religious focus coming for Cambridge, England (most popular press at the time) for the first 50 years to the British-American colonies. This helped to widely finance the continuation of the press during this time period. In 1692 the first post office was founded by the crown. The establishment was capricious and not consistent, yet it became the hub for communication. This gave power to the postmasters because of their ability to decide what was printed and what was not. Being postmaster titled you to the voice of authority over print. This is where political parties' influence starts to interfere and the emergence of press and politics comes in to play. Additionally during this time, the colonists increasingly continue to isolate themselves from Western and British influence, sparking a stronger push for independence. This brought forth the desire for their own culture and ownership of their media.
Moving into the 17th century, The Boston News-Letter became the first frequently published newspaper for the American colonies. It was first printed in 1704 by Boston Postmaster John Campbell. The paper held intimate ties with the British empire. The paper's connection resulted in limited circulation on account of the fact that all copies had to be approved by the royal governor. Furthermore ink was imported from Europe which gave them additional power over the printed word. Control over ink gave them the power to attempt to shut down anything printed against the government. Papers like the The New-England Courant sparked controversy against authorities. It’s opinion-based work antagonizes political figures of the colonial government. This helped to invest a burden against jurisdiction, which government officials did not relish. Yet the battle of who controlled the press and the ability to print was still a major issue at this time. Postmasters controlled distribution giving them power over information, communication and the colonies. This censorship was a major issue because of the media holders dominance over publications. Having a network of post offices was crucial for criticizing British rule and establishing networks for the revolution that was ready to come.
After the revolution, the partisan press became fully immersed and the relationship between the press and political parties was fully financed. This partisanship was a direct result of revolution, causing a debate against freedom of the press. Editors of the paper grew tight ties bestowing editors the power to advocate for a party’s candidate and endorse the parties beliefs. In this relationship, the party would give support for the paper and fund its print. This was normally binded under legislation of a mutual government contract. Commonly the editor and the party shared the same beliefs. This limited different points of view for the colonists, feeding the ediors power in society. Moreover, the editor was frequently the printer, manager and writer causing only the editors opinion to shine through. Additionally patronage would determine if the paper would last. Prevailing facts of partisan press included campaigning of the political parties ideas in order to influence public notion, attacking competitors and acting as a middle man for expression of the parties officials. Additionally defending the party and the people backing it and providing support for the election were factors as well. The newspapers at this time knew they were unfair and one sided. Acknowledging that their main goal was to keep in authority the parties and officials they promoted. The parties at the time started out in a combat between the Federalist and the Republicans, later becoming the Whigs and Democrats. Supported by the Federalist party, The Gazette of the United States was thought to be the first partisan paper. Like many partisan papers, it promoted the Federalist policies and its politicians, attacking any of its opponents. Although this was a national paper, regional papers as well were known to be partisan. The lack of a conclusive government newspaper was the reason for the absence of unity under the press. The news at this time was very one-sided because of the surveillance of print under authority, leading to biased information shed out to society.
Within the party press era, newspapers had to weather under the 1798 Sedition Acts. The act made it illegal to criticize the government and would imprison anyone who went against it. That is to say Thomas Jefferson combated the legislation for his faith in freedom of the press and let the law die out. The Post Office Act of 1792 established the official post office department, authorizing the transaction of free publications to papers. This act helped to escape censorship from British rule and reduce the influence of political parties. The number of papers expanded as well as literacy rates, to help establish colonies as their own. The invention of the penny press helped to increase lower-priced publications and reduce partisanship, as people became interested in other areas of importance. These factors led to the turning away of partisanship in the 1830’s and a push for objectivity heightened as well. Nevertheless, a degree of partisanship still existed in ages to come. The dominance of political parties over the press left little room for diverse news and upheld the influence of political parties on public opinion. Events at that time were interpreted through the parties point of view, causing bias to be present in all publications. Today the press has stepped out of authority of politicians and their parties and under the umbrella of mass corporations. The penny papers were the vocal turning point of news coverage and ownership, straying away from political focus. As technology has continued to increase and better, we can see different issues surface, that our founding fathers did not predict. In return new laws and implications have to be implanted as innovation arises. That is to say, there are many similarities with the issues we face today and the issues we have faced in the past.
Although today's news is not completely one sided like the 17th century partisan press, our information is limited by the main corporations in control of our media. This is a result of the merging and buying out of different media outlets. This can be seen throughout history, tracing back to early newspapers, who could not financially support themselves. As a direct result the newspapers would either merge, die out or capitalize on one's success and buy out the other papers. For example, after many years of publication, the very popular New York Tribune merged with additional New York papers. Hulting its main existence and forming a new found popularity with its fresh ties. This can be seen with many other newspapers and sources of information, leading us to where we are today. In hopes of reducing these fusions and builds, the FCC policies came into play. The FCC or Federal Communications Commission is an independent agency created by the United States government. Its role is to regulate and oversee the 50 states for “interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable.” It is led by 5 commissioners who are appointed by the US President and each hold 5 year terms. The founding of the FCC started out under President Roosevelt’s New Deal. It was created in hopes to aid the American economy out of the Great Depression. It replaced the outdated Federal Radio Commission act, predicting to better regulate content. And additionally oversee advancements, so new forms of communication could coincide. Over the years the FCC has made many vital decisions that have also sparked some controversy. Media has always played a critical factor in affecting public opinion and will continue to as technology and issues accelerate. This is why the policies and regulations set by the FCC are of major importance and up for debate.
“Corporate owned media is mass media production, distribution, ownership, and funding dominated by corporations and their CEOs.” The majority of today’s media falls under this cloud because of media consolidation. Meaning that the plurality of modern media is owned by smaller and smaller amounts of organizations resulting in fewer concentration of media ownership. At first glance it seems there are many various options of television, newspapers, news channels and so fourth. Yet these outlets are owned by a select, large-scale amount of corporations which is a result of cross-media ownership. In the present age the main organizations encompass Viacom, CBS Corporation, Comcast, The Walt Disney Company, AT&T Inc., Fox Corporation. These companies are considered to be the big 6. Statistics have shown that in 1983, 90% of US media was controlled by 50 companies, in contrast to today where 90% is controlled by a reduction of a mere 6 companies. News and entertainment are essential aspects in modern culture, which is why the market for media is extremely competitive. With only a handful of dominant industries producing today’s media, it limits different points of view. Feeding us information through the eyes of the corporation. This raises the question of if these companies aim to serve the public's interest or if they are limited to generating revenue to increase their potential. By having fewer media outlets there is limited competition and grass root media which further questions the accountability of corporate interest. The FCC was implemented to diminish these issues yet it seems today these problems still prevail.
A noteworthy impact that the FCC had implemented was the breaking apart of the monopoly telephone, superpower AT&T. The agency dispersed the company into many smaller companies, in hopes of bringing competition and encouraging locally owned telephone businesses to emerge. In effect, the government responded by passing the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The act's goal was to break up telephone monopolies and increase competition by removing regulatory barriers to access. Although the act had positive impacts, like increasingly opening up the telecommunications marketplace, there were many negative effects as well. For example, by the implementation of this regulation, it lessened the restriction on local radio station ownership. This was because the act removed the capacity on the number of stations one could own nationally. Additionally, limits on the ownership of television stations were loosened as well. Regulations lessened even further in 2003 when the FCC decided to keep caps untouched on ownership of local radio stations and take away censorship on cross-ownership of newspapers and broadcast stations. The outcome did not decrease or increase the number of radio stations a company could nationally own. Instead, it maintained it. These decisions are harmful in the areas of diversity, competition, localism and most importantly public interest. The Court of Appeals in DC had contacted the FCC to justify its decision, along with a hefty amount of public critzium of these deregulations. Yet no change has been made. The FCC’s policies are leading to a risk for media integrity. Intending that, with the smaller number of companies controlling modern media, it leaves an open wound to corruption in today’s media system. It can become dangerous if media owners hold relationships with political significance, pushing news back to the 17th century partisan influence. Circulating back to Karl Marx Conflict Theory that social order is sustained by “domination and power, rather than consensus and conformity.” That concept seems to coincide within today. The FCC has set helpful policies while others have had a backlash. Going back and revising past and outdated legislation would help to bring media ownership back into a positive position.
The FCC regulations have helped to create the 6 major corporations owning our media, existing today. Taking a look at the positive aspects, having 6 main industries can help to increase oversight of these smaller companies sitting under their feet. It also helps to reduce the cost for the government by only having a certain amount of companies set forth. In hindsight the negatives seem to way out the positives in this case. The FCC’s policies have set little restrictions on major corporations. Resulting in media oligopolies dominating the bulk of today’s market. This is similar to the partisan press, on account of the government limiting the access of options. One thing to note is that the FCC has always had a corporate connection which increases corporate influence. Comcast, AT&T, and many other corporations have spent immense amounts of money lobbying the FCC, as well as an abundance of other government agencies. In retrospective the high amount of cash can make an influence in their decision making. This can be seen today with the controversial debate over net neutrality. Net neutrality surrounds the idea that internet content should be treated equally. With these large corporations funding and supporting the lack of restrictions on the internet, it can heighten their platforms. Giving them lager control over the internet. This falls back on the media’s relationship with political figures, granting corporations influence in their decisions. If the elimination of net neutrality does pass, in favor of the big businesses, the content produced would be controlled and most likely hold biased views. The public has argued that the FCC needs to establish up to date regulations, specifically on extending internet services. The net neutrality issue only further highlights how outdated the legislation is under the FCC’s supervision.
With the FCC’s existence starting in 1934, it’s impact did not affect earlier forms of media. As previously stated, the media was driven by the influence of political parties when starting out. Each media system from the past and present day has operated in a different way, with different interesting driving structures. Even though innovation has shifted today’s media, similarities from the past shine through. The Parisan press’s main goal was to expand their party’s agenda. This was done so by forming ties with postmasters and ediors, giving them power in society. Similarly corporate owned media’s focus is to increase not only revenue but it’s power as well. By obtaining more media outlets, it allows the cooperation to hold more authority, boosting their exposure and profit. It has been revealed from both eras that ownership over the news grants power. Showing the need to obtain and keep one's possessions. In the past, partisanship acknowledged their bias and one-sided news. In result, this held little room for diversity and restricted public opinion. Additionally the risk of being shut down from censorship was a fear held over publishers heads as well. Today’s affairs are not nearly as extreme, yet there is a level of parallel that arises. At first glance, there seems to be a greater selection of information sources, available in the present. Yet the government similarly sets limits on expansion, causing media entities to funnel into each other. This constitutes exposure to a lessened variety of facts and opinions; comparable to the limited views partisanship expressed in the past. In 2018, 21st Century Fox sold some of its assets to the Walt Disney Company. This gave Disney the power to push its influence through the window of the new assets it acquired. As news was interpreted through the political parties view point as seen in the past, it has now shifted to the perspective of the corporations. This leaves society assuming that what one sees and hears in the media, is all that is out there. Additionally, with the FCC’s connection to corporations, it allows them to give preference to the networks they prefer. Almost as if the FCC is acting in authority similar to partisanship; in controlling what newspapers would last. Furthermore, the extensive amount of money lobbied by these major corporations highlights their influence in policies. While lobbying is not bribery, which was executed in the past, smaller corporations do not hold the funds and means to stand in this leverage. In return this spotlights why large-scale corporations continue to grow and be a leading force in control.
In this media driven world, it is important to bring perspective to the upholders of our communications. Whether one wants to accept it or not, the controllers impact not only the whole industry but society as well. With the earliest forms of media starting out under British control, censorship and independence were of main concern. Post revolution set in motion the Party Press era that merged politics and the press. Newspapers were dominated by the control of political parties, giving emmese power to editors. This held little room for variety, plus a lack of a different perspective and interpretation to the news. The invention of the penny press jump started a new era of the mass media. It consisted of a desire for modern information as advancements in technology wielded faster forms of print. Increased objectivity led to a wider political consensus and bipartisanship, closing ties with political parties. The merging of papers and issue of capitalization caused a need for greater regulations. This sparked the establishment of the FCC in 1934. The FCC was put into action, in efforts to increase competition and eliminate monopolies. Yet this paper has shown that its policies have opened an unrestricted gateway for corporations. The FCC’s Telecommunications Act of 1996 positively did its job in breaking up a telephone monopoly. But on a larger scale, negatively allowed for cross-media ownership because of its goal to “let anyone enter any communications business.” These outdated policies have led to greater unrestrictions and created the 6 major corporations in control of the media today. As a result, this leads to cooperation media and the partisan press comparable at face value. The partisan press was driven and funded by political force. With the intention to hold authority over print, in order to spread it’s party's agenda. In correlation, corporation media holds the desire to increase authority and spread its networks agenda as well. Both era’s reveal their drive to obtain power over print, present their opinions and beliefs through their outlook and strengthen their revenue. This leaves allied issues springing up from the past, such as a limited perspective and lack of diversity. Mass media holds the great power of influencing society and given these concerns, it introduces the endangerment of public opinion. The only way to ensure the safety of diverse notions in the media, is to ensure diverse ownership held over it. In the end these matters can only be fixed by stronger policies, heavily monitoring the media and the innovations that come from it. American democracy was a direct result of the press, unifying the country under print. In the end that is an essential right society needs to protect.
Bibliography
"About the FCC." Federal Communications Commission, www.fcc.gov/about/overview.
"Timeline: Cambridge through the Centuries". About the University. University of Cambridge. Retrieved 5 September 2013.
Barnett, Steven. What's wrong with media monopolies? A lesson from history and a new approach to
media ownership policy. Edited by Dr. Bart Cammaerts and Robin Mansell, research report no.
No.18, London, Media@LSE, London School of Economics and Political Science ("LSE"), 2010.
What's wrong with media monopolies?
Bulla, David W. "Party press era." Encyclopedia Britannica, www.britannica.com/topic/
party-press-era.
Chappelow, Jim, editor. "Conflict Theory." Investopedia. Accessed 19 May 2019.
About New-York tribune. (New York [N.Y.]) 1866–1924". Chronicling America. Library of Congress. Retrieved February 20, 2011.
"The End of AT&T". Celnet. Celnet. Archived from the original on October 6, 2014. Retrieved October 3, 2014.
Croteau, David and Hoynes, William (2006). “The Business of Media: Corporate Media and the Public Interest Pine Forge Press.” p. 33
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. "American Colonies." Encyclopaedia Britannica,
www.britannica.com/topic/American-colonies/How-colonization-took-place. Accessed 30 May 2019.
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. "Benjamin Harris." Encyclopaedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Benjamin-Harris.
Figueiredo, John M., and Emerson H. Tiller. The Structure and Conduct of Corporate Lobbying: How
Firms Lobby the Federal Communications Commission. 28 Jan. 2004.
Heath, Joseph. Morality, Competition, and the FirmThe Market Failures Approach to Business Ethics$
Users Without A Subscription Are Not Able To See The Full Content. Morality, Competition, and
The Firm: The Market Failures Approach to Business Ethics. May 2015. The Benefits of
Cooperation.
Kelly, Martin. "The Root Causes of the American Revolution." ThoughtCo., www.thoughtco.com/
causes-of-the-american-revolution-104860. Accessed 3 July 2019.
Lutz, Ashley. "These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America." Business Insider. Accessed
14 June 2019.
"MapLight reveals corporate influence on FCC's net neutrality decision." MapLight, 26 July 2017.
"The Boston Newsletter, number 1." Massachusetts Historical Society, www.masshist.org/database/186.
"THE HISTORY OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC)." Mitel, www.mitel.com/articles/
History-federal-communications-commission-fcc.
Norton, August. "Chapter 19 Corporate Control of the Media." Democracy and Corporate Control of the
Media, 2009.
"Media Ownership and Journalism." Oxford Research Encyclopedias, edited by Helle Sjøvaag and Jonas
Ohlsson. Accessed Feb. 2019.
Sloan, William David. 10th edition. Vision Press, 2017.
Rachel M. Stilwell, "Which Public - Whose Interest - How the FCC's Deregulation of Radio Station Ownership Has Harmed the Public Interest, and How We Can Escape from the Swamp," 26 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 369, March 1, 2006.
Straubhaar, Joseph, Robert LaRose, and Lucinda Davenport. Media Now: Understanding Media, Culture, and Technology. Wadsworth Pub Co, 2008. Print.
Thomas, JD (2011-02-11). "The Postal Act: A Free Press, Personal Privacy and National Growth". Accessible Archives. Retrieved 2016-05-22.
The Telecomm Act. (2008) para. 1. Retrieved from fcc.gov
"19e. The Alien and Sedition Acts." U.S. History, www.ushistory.org/us/19e.asp.
"THE New-England Courant." US History.org, www.ushistory.org/franklin/courant/.
