CONSIDER this frightening scenario. Next Thursday, on The Cavalier Daily Opinion page, I have two columns printed, not just one. Imagine if my face then shows up on Friday's page, as well as on Monday's and Tuesday's. One by one, my viewpoint takes over the spaces once occupied by other writers until all voices but mine are silenced. No more Joe Schilling, Patrick Harvey or Anthony Dick. Just all Kiser, all the time. This situation may sound absurd, but add in some Skynyrd, and you've got yourself an accurate analogy for the current state of broadcast radio.
Since the Telecommunications Act of 1996, ownership of media outlets in the United States has become increasingly concentrated. That law allowed a single entity to own an unlimited number of commercial radio stations nationwide as long as it didn't exceed percentage limits within local markets. This June, the FCC relaxed those local limits, furthering the extent to which one corporation can control broadcasting in a geographical area. Fortunately, Congress is presently considering legislation that would repeal the FCC's recent moves. The disappearance of variety among station ownership is certainly a detriment to the social welfare.
Opponents of the deregulation phenomenon typically point to large, national media corporations like Clear Channel Communications as examples of how media ownership has gone wrong. From an entertainment standpoint, Clear Channel is a disaster. Its stations are limited to repetitive song playlists dictated by company executives at the national level. This will surely continue as behemoths like Clear Channel purchase more and more stations. As competition becomes scarce, the media giants will face virtually no incentive to take risks to win over audiences, assuring the presence of bland on-air content.
Clear Channel-type stations are also infamous for their failure to incorporate local elements in their programming. This comes as a result of the media corporations' desire to consolidate their resources. Rather than invest money in multiple programming staffs, companies like Clear Channel can apply the same formulas that have worked in one location to all of its member stations. While no one can blame a business for trying to reduce its costs, this strategy results in a disconnect between listeners and their local stations. Under the original requirements for decentralized ownership, stations didn't run the risk of neglecting local preferences.
These concerns, however, are superficial when compared to the real danger that exists in allowing media outlets to fall into the hands of a small number of elites. One can't deny that the media inevitably affects the opinions and beliefs that people hold, because it facilitates the flow of information. The fewer number of sources providing that information flow, the greater the chance that it will be subject to bias on behalf of the provider. This was the original rationale for limiting the number of media outlets a single entity could own, and it is disconcerting to see that current trends in telecommunications policy have drifted away from such an outlook.
The relaxed ownership guidelines have gained support by some conservatives as part of an overall desire to return to an era of laissez-faire capitalism. In general, the lack of governmental restrictions on businesses can allow the benefits of having a free market to flourish. While this is a noble goal, however, the issue of media ownership involves more than economic considerations. Since the media is so central to disseminating political information, both liberals and conservatives should have an interest in protecting the it from becoming dominated by a select few.
In the near future, the media will not rely as heavily on the broadcast airwaves to exist, and radio station ownership may become a political moot point. The Internet, which provides a worldwide audience to an unlimited amount of individuals, will serve as an open venue for a multitude of opinions regardless of which corporation owns what. However, the traditional form of broadcasting is still the primary mode of mass communication and, until the Internet fully matures, the public has an interest in actively pursuing diversity within the confines of TV and radio.
The next time you find yourself frustrated at homogeneity on the radio, keep in mind that the problem is greater than hearing the same AC/DC song twice in the same day. The very integrity of the messages the public receives is at risk unless the government can reverse its deregulatory trend.
(Chris Kiser's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at ckiser@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
GARVIE: Commend the University’s continuous care for the environment
By Adeline Garvie | 18 hours agoWe must applaud the University for the efforts they are continuously making to be more sustainable.
CARTER: Did anyone actually want VERVE?
By Nathaniel Carter | April 19, 2025While VERVE may shift student demand closer to Grounds, whether housing market effects will outweigh the harms of the University’s expanding presence is a gamble Charlottesville residents may not wish to take.
SCHENBERG: Our foreign students and colleagues deserve better
April 18, 2025I pray that we will not persecute now and atone later.
