Benton RSS Feed

CONTENT WILL ALWAYS BE KING
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Paul Vigna]
[Commentary] In the old days, the kind of broadside Viacom fired at Google -- demanding it take down more than 100,000 clips being distributed illegally on YouTube -- would have carried a bone-crunching thud. Instead, it fizzled: Many dismissed it as a negotiating tactic, at best. Media pundit and Web acolyte Jeff Jarvis was succinct in his appraisal: "fools." The Internet so thoroughly thrashed the music industry that most people assume the same unfair fight will break out over the distribution of video. It's the "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" conflict on a large scale, with the media conglomerates cast as the helpless nerd. YouTube, Don Tapscott recently wrote on this editorial page, "has reinvented the television ballpark." But the studios don't need to kowtow to the Internet evangelizers, because there are significant differences between audio and video distribution. Web sites like YouTube won't be able to topple the networks as easily as file swappers wracked the music moguls. And Viacom's move yesterday to license its programming through the startup Joost.com may be a broadside that does find its target.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117203076381914611.html?mod=todays_us_op...
(requires subscription)

HEARING SEEKS VIEWS ON FCC RULES
[SOURCE: The Patriot-News 2/20, AUTHOR: Barry Fox]
All five FCC commissioners are expected to attend the Commission's public hearing on media ownership at the Whitaker Center for Science and the Arts in Harrisburg (PA) on Friday. About half of the session is set aside for public comment. Joel Kelsey, a grass-roots coordinator for Consumers Union, said these official hearings have all been well-attended with the clear message that people want "more local news, more diverse news, not more places to get the same news." Critics have long said that the consolidation of the industry, which is now dominated by large ownership groups like Clear Channel, Cumulus and Citadel, is killing localism in broadcasting. But R.J. Harris, the morning man on WHP 580 AM and the operations manager of WHP and WTKT "The Ticket" 1460 AM, both Clear Channel stations, strongly disagrees. A 39-year radio veteran, he has worked at stations across the country. Three decades ago, many local radio owners owned stations in several states, he said. "They were considered chains back then," Harris said. "We still do business the way we did back then. We're charged with serving the community, and we do it better now then we ever have ... We never hear from Clear Channel about the operation of the station. It's run like a local radio station." Hannah Sassaman, program director of the Prometheus Radio Project, calls what's happened to broadcasting "an orgy of consolidation. ... We want to keep the FM dial as open as it can be."
http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1171940137...

WOULD C-SPAN COUNT?
[SOURCE: Los Angeles Times 2/19, AUTHOR: Editorial Staff]
[Commentary] Responding to a request from lawmakers, the Federal Communications Commission has drafted a report outlining what Congress might do to curb excessively violent programs. Objectionably violent shows, it says, could be banned during the hours that children are most likely to be watching TV (6 a.m. to 10 p.m.), just as indecent programming is. Congress could force cable operators to sell channels on an a la carte basis, rather than bundling them into packages that can't be customized. And the difficult task of defining excessive violence could be done by the federal government without violating the 1st Amendment. There's plenty of evidence that television shows are more graphically violent than ever, both on cable networks and on free over-the-air TV. Simply noting this problem, however, doesn't prove that government censorship can solve it. Requiring programs such as "24" to be aired after 10 p.m. wouldn't stop kids from watching a recorded version the next afternoon. Nor would it have much effect on the Internet, where networks are posting a growing number of reruns for viewers to watch on demand. And it's hard to imagine Congress barring news programs before 10 p.m., and there's no shortage of violence on the news. The government shouldn't be making these calls; parents should. Online, there's plenty of help for parents trying to identify inappropriate shows for their kids, and there's technology in every TV set, cable converter box and satellite receiver to help screen out violent programming. If they still don't like how much violence their TV is bringing into their home, they should just turn it off.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-fcc19feb19,0,309078...
(requires registration)

* As TV indecency issue drags on, violence debate brews
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070216/COLUM...

** For more see http://www.benton.org/index.php?q=node/4866 **

AD AVOIDERS
[SOURCE: MediaWeek, AUTHOR: Mike Shields]
Lifestyles of the Ad Averse, a new study conducted jointly by Microsoft and Starcom, finds that between 10 percent and 15 percent of adults 17-35 fall into the category of “ad avoiders” i.e. folks that don't like advertising, and generally find it “annoying." Apparently there are two types of ad avoiders: passive avoiders who simply can't be bothered with ads, and active avoiders, whose message to advertisers is “be good or be gone.” The active group is more likely to be young, tech-savvy men who deliberately consume media that has no ads, like DVDs and satellite radio. The passive group is comprised of women, often parents, who gravitate to leisure activities that are untouched by ads, such as books or board games. Avoiders of all stripes represent a scary prospect for marketers. “This is the kind of stuff that keeps us up at night,” said Beth Uyenco Shatto, research director at Microsoft. Both groups’ habits make them hard to reach by conventional means. Twelve percent of avoiders surveyed said they watch less than one hour of TV per week versus just 3 percent among non-avoiders. Both index low for listening to the radio and reading magazines. And technology like DVRs and the iPod is only making it easier for these avoiders to shun ads.
http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=10035...