Jeremy Moule and 13WHAM's GM Chuck Samuels may want to dial it down when it comes to media consolidation, but the "shifting of voices" ploy and the reality of covert consolidation agreements doesn't fool Rochester Indymedia.

While our article may not be timely in terms of when Moule's piece was written, the news coming out of the FCC regarding covert consolidation agreements certainly makes it timely now!

Introduction

This is in response to Jeremy Moule's article “Dialing it down: local media changes” from December 25, 2013 published in City Newspaper. While Rochester Indymedia appreciates the fact that City actually reported on covert consolidation and the changing media landscape in Rochester, we are critical of the framing of the article around the responses of, and giving a platform to, WHAM-TV (Channel 13) general manager Chuck Samuels, the lack of articulation regarding the ownership oligopoly in Rochester's TV market and how covert consolidation agreements work to further consolidate those corporations, and the minimizing of these agreements as a way to downplay and brush off the seriousness of this national and global issue. Media consolidation and covert consolidation agreements, a direct threat to a vital and participatory democracy, are barely given any space. Moule also leaves out corporate media’s precarious (distrust of government / anti-regulation) and totalizing (commercial dominance) nature within the context of the local news landscape. Of course, we are not sure if these are editorial decisions or Mr. Moule's decisions, but we felt compelled to write something that highlighted our criticisms regarding this piece.

magnum.jpg

A summary

“Dialing it down: local media changes,” written by Jeremy Moule and published in City Newspaper on December 25, 2013, is broken up into four basic sections. We begin with a summary of each section. Section one announces the end of an eight-year shared service agreement (what we and other media critics and activists call covert consolidation) between WROC-TV (Channel 8) and WUHF-TV (Channel 31), and the beginning of a new period of covert consolidation (starting January 1st, 2014) between WHAM-TV (Channel 13) and 31WUHF. We're assured, in the article, that neither the 13WHAM station nor the news team will become a “Fox News operation.” In fact, 13WHAM General Manager Chuck Samuels states pretty boldly that 13WHAM will not become some other product, but will “extend [its] news brand on to WUHF.” Moule then offers up some criticism of covert consolidation by vaguely citing Federal Communications Commission ownership rules, offering two sentences on the lack of a “vigorous local media” because of covert consolidation from unsourced “critics,” and a one line quote from Todd O'Boyle, the program director for Common Cause's Media and Democracy Reform Initiative, about how covert consolidation “undermines the local [media] ecosystems.”

Samuels then states his denials of these criticisms. He tells us that media voices are not being lost—that happened eight years ago with 31WUHF—but that this is more of a “shifting of voices.” Moule then goes to another source, SUNY Geneseo communications lecturer Michael Saffran, who agrees with Samuels' analysis. Moule then examines the conflicting interests that were not the same when 31WUHF-8WROC were paired. He does a pretty good job of trying to untangle the ownership overlaps between Sinclair Broadcasting Group and Deerfield Media. He then looks at a Free Press report that heavily criticizes the use of shared service agreements.

The report singles out Sinclair as one of the worst offenders of covert consolidation. Moule, again, goes to the industry to get the rebuttal in regards to the Free Press report. Sinclair's argument is that the Free Press report ignores the fact that the company is working within the bounds of the law. Lastly, there is a paragraph stating that Sinclair isn't neglecting stations or laying off workers, but rather it's investing in promotions and equipment. Sinclair claims that in the last 18 months it has hired nationally some 72 people to its 167 news rooms. Section one is definitely where the flesh of the article hangs.

Section two starts with a brief look at Sinclair's politically conservative reputation. Former 13WHAM reporter (now 8WROC anchor) Rachel Barnhart is questioned about Sinclair's conservative politics and if those politics will have any bearing on the content and reporting of 13WHAM. She cites Sinclair's segment Waste Watch (a segment designed to look at how local tax dollars are being spent by government) and questions its lack of objectivity and bias by “telling the viewer upfront that something is wasteful” and not allowing the audience to make up its own mind. Moule then reports that the segment “seems solid, fair, and addresses issues of concern across the political spectrum.” Barnhart is paraphrased as having “confidence” in her former coworkers ability to resist pressure from Sinclair, regardless of the company's politics. Evan Dawson, who left 13WHAM to host 1370 Connection on WXXI radio, is reported as having the same “confidence” in his former co-workers. The last three paragraphs of this section go back to giving Samuels the floor to reject any criticisms and reassure the reader that 13WHAM material will be balanced, no station owner will dictate how or what is reported locally, and that the station is as strong as ever—nothing will change.

Section three starts with Moule stating that the FCC ownership rules are “intended to preserve as many local voices as possible”—not just radio and TV—even though we hear about consolidation most often from those two formats. The author tells us that it can be hard to pin-point where folks are getting their news and which consolidations hurt more because of the internet and other available media outside of radio and TV. Specifically, Moule mentions the “near-silencing of voices” with the laying off of the whole Monroe County division of Messenger Post Media in November of 2013. Saffran is quoted as supporting Moule's speculation about the impact of consolidation on formats other than TV. Saffran is then paraphrased as reassuring readers that Rochester still has strong radio news outlets: WHAM 1180 AM and WXXI 1370 AM and is paraphrased as saying that consolidation in radio “is a concern” and a “cautionary tale for TV;” a lot of radio stations in the area have lost their sense of “localism.”

The fourth and final section of this article essentially repeats everything that Samuels has said up to this point: 13WHAM is strong (ratings are mentioned) and that 13WHAM will use the 31WUHF signal because it's stronger and has more viewers which means more revenue and brand exposure. We're also told about the benefit of the Fox Network sports brand which may allow a Buffalo Bills pre-game show and some kind of high school sports show. Moule reminds us that there will still be competition with 10WHEC, 8WROC, and YNN (now TWC News)—though he points out that TWC News “fills its own niche.” And finally, we are reminded by Samuels, once again, that nothing is really changing, just shifting. This concludes the summary of Jeremy Moule's “Dialing it down.”

Credit where it’s due

For starters, we're glad City reported on covert consolidation. One does not often see profit-driven media give critical information about this issue, even though it's been around since the 1990's, according to Free Press's report. To be sure about this, we did a quick review of articles looking at the Democrat & Chronicle, City, and the four major TV affiliates. In fact, this critical review of City's article wouldn't have been written if Moule hadn't written his article.

On January 14, 2014, Rochester Indymedia did a search on the Monroe County public library's ProQuest archive of articles over the past 10 years from the D&C. Specifically we searched for the terms “covert consolidation” and “media consolidation.” Then, on March 1, 2014, we conducted the same search but added more search terms: “shared service agreement,” “media concentration,” “media” and “concentration,” “31WUHF and 8WROC,” “WUHF WROC,” “sidecar agreement,” “local news services agreement,” “local news sharing agreement,” “joint sales agreement,” “joint services agreement,” “local marketing agreement,” and “option agreement.” Specifically we were looking for instances of these terms linked to local media organizations and/or their parent companies. In some of the searches, results appeared, but they were not related to the search we were doing even though they contained the search term. The D&C was selected because it is the paper of record for Rochester, NY.

While there were hard news stories written about the specific agreements and deals relating to media consolidation and ownership for TV (“Fox begins carrying 13WHAM news this week” by [author not listed], Jan. 1, 2014; “New faces for local Fox news” by Matthew Daneman, Oct. 8, 2013; “Parts of WHAM-TV sold” by Matthew Daneman, Dec. 4, 2012; “WHAM-TV is up for sale by Newport” by Matthew Daneman, Jul. 21, 2012; “Tuning in TV to the new future” by Mary Chao, Feb. 11, 2007; “WUHF-TV's news shifts to WROC in management deal” by Mary Chao, Aug. 31, 2005; “WUHF introduces revamped newscast, new staff” by Mary Chao, Nov. 1, 2005; “Tune in to dangers of TV deregulation” (letter to the editor) by Bill Burks, May 10, 2003; “AT ISSUE: MEDIA OWNERSHIP” by Dennis J. Moriarty, May 30, 2003; “AT ISSUE: MEDIA OWNERSHIP” by Michael Saffran, May 30, 2003; and “WROC to switch owners” by Frank Bilovsky, Mar. 9, 1999), radio (“BATTLE FOR ears” by Matthew Daneman, Jan. 6, 2008; “3 radio stations put up for sale” by Mary Chao, Mar. 27, 2007; “Up, down the dial” by Mary Chao, Aug. 22, 2006; “Broadcasters are obliged to use airwaves to serve public good” by Michael Saffran, Apr. 23, 2004; “JAZZ FEST 2003” by John Pitcher, Jun. 6, 2003; “A classic rocks” by David Lee, Nov. 10, 2000; and “Consolidation antidote” [author not listed], Jan. 24, 2000), newspapers (“Newspaper chain moving to Monroe” by Ben Rand, May 10, 2006), cable/internet (“TV wars far from over” by Tom Tobin, Jan. 17, 2010; “Fox, Time Warner at odds” by Matthew Daneman, Dec. 15, 2010; “WHAM buys local channel” by Mary Chao, Nov. 14, 2006; “Megamerger, megaquestions” [author not listed], Jan. 13, 2000), and media consolidation in general (“Seminar zeros in on 'big media'” by Alan Morrell, Mar. 9, 2004, with a correction issued on Mar. 9, 2004 followed by a letter to the editor from Louise Slaughter (D-NY); “Too little discussion has preceded FCC decision on media ownership” (guest essayist) by Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Jun. 2, 2003; “Community Focus '99” [author not listed], Jan. 1, 1999), none of the articles mentioned covert consolidation and the last article to do any kind of analysis about the perils of media consolidation was back on January 6, 2008 with Matthew Daneman's article about radio consolidation in the Rochester market.

The D&C ran two articles about the gutting of the 31WUHF newsroom (“WUHF-TV's news shifts to WROC in management deal” by Mary Chao, Aug. 31, 2005 and “WUHF introduces revamped newscast, new staff” by Mary Chao, Nov. 1, 2005) when it was bought by Sinclair. According to photojournalist Brendan McDonough who worked at 31WUHF at the time, the employees had a week's notice that they would be laid off. The article stated that Nexstar would run the station and that they hired 26 of over 50 WUHF-TV employees. Chao's second article only mentions that Nexstar hired 26 people, “...with most moving from the East Avenue office,” as stated at the time by Tim Busch, senior vice president of Nexstar. In Chao's article, there is no follow-up on McDonough's statement that nearly half the newsroom was not rehired. There is also no mention of covert consolidation or any analysis of media consolidation. However, there is plenty of fluff from industry types who express excitement at the deal, while going on about how they will “...change the face of television news in this area.” However, we digress...

An initial search was conducted on the City website on January 14, 2014 where the search terms “covert consolidation,” “media consolidation,” and “shared service agreement” were used. A second search was conducted on March 3, 2014 with the added search terms: “media concentration,” “media” and “concentration,” “31WUHF and 8WROC,” “WUHF WROC,” “sidecar agreement,” “local news services agreement,” “local news sharing agreement,” “joint sales agreement,” “joint services agreement,” “local marketing agreement,” and “option agreement.”

Aside from “Dialing it down,” no other article contained the search terms “covert consolidation,” “media consolidation,” and “shared service agreement.” The articles that were returned dealt with media consolidation in general (“ANNUAL MANUAL '07: A guide to media in Rochester” by Susie Hume, Mar. 21, 2007; “Future tense” by Krestia DeGeorge, Feb. 8, 2006; “Mega mediasaurus” by Jack Bradigan Spula, Mar. 17, 2004; and “Concentrated dilution” by Jack Bradigan Spula, Jun. 25, 2003), the fight to bring Democracy Now! to Rochester (“The sounds of silence” by Chad Oliveiri, Oct. 13, 2004; and “Democracy... later?” by Jennifer Weiss, Jun. 9, 2004”), the internet, cable access, and community television (“The speed wars” by Jeremy Moule, Aug. 14, 2013; “Changing channels” by Jeremy Moule, Jul. 24. 2013; “Creating the electronic public square” by Krestia DeGeorge, Jul. 20, 2005; and “Your government at work on the air” by Jack Bradigan Spula, Jul. 16, 2003), and Mary Anna Towler's own representation of the value of alternative weeklies (“Alternative to what?” by Mary Anna Towler, Feb. 18, 2004). Aside from “Dialing it down,” the last time City reported on media consolidation in any substantive way was back on February 8, 2006 with Krestia DeGeorge's “Future tense.”

Two searches were also conducted on the websites of the local TV stations with major affiliations: the local NBC affiliate WHEC-TV (Channel 10), the local CBS affiliate WROC-TV (Channel 8), the local ABC affiliate WHAM-TV (Channel 13), and the local FOX affiliate WUHF-TV (Channel 31). Because 8WROC and 31WUHF had a shared service agreement for eight years, the two stations were sharing the same website when we did our first search on January 14, 2014. Our second search, conducted on March 3, 2014, included the newly posted local FOX website.

The search terms used on all the local TV websites were: “covert consolidation,” “media consolidation,” “shared service agreement,” “media concentration,” “media” and “concentration,” “31WUHF and 8WROC,” “WUHF WROC,” “sidecar agreement,” “local news services agreement,” “local news sharing agreement,” “joint sales agreement,” “joint services agreement,” “local marketing agreement,” and “option agreement.” Again, we discounted search results that had no relationship to local media ownership or media consolidation. That said, none of the TV stations—as archived on their respective websites—listed any articles pertaining to local media ownership or media consolidation.

We also wanted to recognize the research that went into figuring out the ownership overlaps between Sinclair and Deerfield. Moule’s diligence shows as he tries to untangle and articulate some of the connections between Sinclair (31WUHF) and Deerfield (13WHAM). He writes that Sinclair owns “WUHF's physical facilities and its broadcast license, along with WHAM's physical facilities.” All the news and sales workers at 13WHAM are Sinclair employees. He also notes that 13WHAM's broadcast license is held by Deerfield with close links to Sinclair. Deerfield's owner, Stephen Mumblow, is a former banker to Sinclair CEO David Smith, according to Moule's research. Moule states that these companies—as if they are separate entities—jointly operate the stations through “sidecar agreements.” Our understanding is that they are not separate companies, but rather that Deerfield is a shell company that functions within the control of Sinclair, acting as a subsidiary. These companies, like Deerfield, are off the hook financially as Sinclair takes on all risk, and practically all profit. The SEC would agree with this assertion, even though the FCC wouldn’t. We’ll talk more about “sidecar agreements” and shell companies in the next section of our article. What’s important is that Moule offered enough information so that we could go on to do our own investigation.

Another acknowledgement is that Moule pointed out the reputation of Sinclair as a “politically conservative corporation.” Sinclair has used its stations as platforms to disseminate “politically charged content.” He offers a few examples that speak to Sinclair's bias such as Sinclair directing its stations to air “Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal”—a documentary critical of John Kerry's anti-Vietnam War activities right before the 2004 presidential election as well as morning show segments hosted by Sinclair Vice President Mark Hyman “a conservative commentator,” with an obvious right-wing bias, according to an article from Media Matters for America. He also interviews Rachel Barnhart on the bias of the segment Waste Watch but concludes that it “seems solid, fair, and addresses issues of concern across the political spectrum” without defining those terms or offering any empirical evidence aside from the anecdotal. Of course, this all goes back to Samuels who brushes the concerns away.

Finally, we want to recognize the author's attempt to look beyond the TV market. He writes about other mediums that are being radically changed in the local media market. Aside from the new contract between 13WHAM and 31WUHF, Moule writes specifically about Messenger Post Media laying off its entire Monroe County reporting staff. He also mentions consolidation in the local radio market. He cites Saffran saying that local radio has lost its localism and that “format duplication is common.”

Criticisms

Our first criticism is that the article tended to give the industry and 13WHAM's general manager a platform for their views with no tough follow-up questions regarding the concerns leveled against the industry-wide use of covert consolidation agreements. Both Samuels and Sinclair get the last word in three of four sections in the article. The third section ends with a paraphrase from Saffran who tells us a cautionary tale regarding the downward spiral of corporate radio as opposed to an actual critical position on the TV industry. That said, the article is framed around the positive interview with Samuels and peppered with concerns--not criticisms.

Looking back at our summary, Moule begins the first section of the article by announcing the new agreement between 13WHAM and 31WUHF and giving Samuels space to reassure readers that 13WHAM is “just going to extend [its] news brand on to WUHF.” We're then treated to “critics”—unnamed and unsourced—who raise concerns about FCC ownership rules, mergers of larger corporate media conglomerates, and a few lines about how covert consolidation will deprive us of a “vigorous local media.” After this, one critic, Todd O'Boyle, is cited (only once in the whole piece) about the undermining of ecosystems. At no time are the critics allowed to directly challenge Samuels' reassurances.

Moule’s writing comes off lackluster as he downplays the idea of an informed, vibrant, democratic society. In this section, only O’Boyle is cited as a source. We are not told why he is an important, critical voice, what the Common Cause Media and Democracy Reform Initiative is, and what “local ecosystems” refers to and why they are important. And yet, these all seem like important points to maintain a healthy, democratic society.

After O'Boyle's comment, we go back to Samuels who sorts the whole thing out for us by stating that covert consolidation and the elimination of the WUHF newsroom happened eight years ago; the new agreement is nothing more than a “shifting of voices.” Samuels implies that consolidation is a thing of the past and that we shouldn't worry. The whole issue of covert consolidation agreements and media consolidation in general is downplayed in Samuels' statement. Moule doesn't follow-up with any tough questions, but rather cites Saffran.

Perhaps Moule wanted to get a more local angle on this thing—thus Saffran. The SUNY Geneseo lecturer, however, doesn't raise any critical questions or even concerns regarding Samuels' statement. In fact, Saffran agrees with Samuels. To be fair, Saffran is not asked a moral or qualitative question about media consolidation, though if one looks at the structure of the article, it seems that this would be the obvious next step in its progression. Instead, Moule asks him if the quantity of local news will change.

Moule seems to be suffering from some kind of media myopia. He seems quite able to give a platform for the corporate media position but when it comes to larger ideas and criticisms of heavily consolidated, profit-driven media being the only source of information in democratic societies, he gets confused, or worse, intentionally confuses.

The section continues with Moule doing research into the ownership overlaps between Sinclair and Deerfield showing some potentially conflicted interests between the companies (if you go by the FCC) or company (if you go by the SEC). (We'll talk about this later.) This goes back to the use of shell companies by Sinclair and other media corporations. Moule doesn't dig deep enough to articulate those connections in the article. This does give him an entry point to introduce another critical voice into the discussion--specifically Free Press and its report “Cease to Resist: How the FCC's Failure to Enforce Its Rules Created a New Wave of Media Consolidation.”

Rochester Indymedia read the 44-page report and out of that, the only thing Moule notes is that Free Press emphasizes Sinclair’s aggressive use of covert consolidation agreements. With that in mind, he then writes specifically about the number of stations bought by Sinclair between 2011 and 2013. He tells us that covert consolidation can “diminish the quality of local journalism” (though we're never told by Moule what the quality of local journalism was before the WHAM-WUHF deal went through, or nine years ago before 31WUHF was obliterated).

Sinclair takes the floor at the end of the section. They refute the report claiming they are “operating within the law” (though Moule doesn't explain why they aren't operating within the law) and whereas Free Press's criticism was focused on how many stations Sinclair bought, Moule presents the corporation as a job creator “adding 72 staff members to its newsrooms nationally,” (a different argument entirely) without addressing the issue of why media consolidation might actually be bad for an informed, vibrant, democratic society. To back up the job creator claim, Samuels notes that “four or five news positions have been added,” in Rochester. Moule is comparing apples to oranges here. He's not being consistent with the topics or the criticism.

Section two of the article starts boldly enough with a look at the conservative politics of Sinclair. Rachel Barnhart is questioned as to whether or not Sinclair's politics will negatively impact the programming that goes on at 13WHAM. She specifically cites Waste Watch as a concern because she feels that it is biased. Telling the audience that something is wasteful before they even get to view it is putting the cart before the horse. Moule tell us—refuting Barnhart(?)—that the segment “seems solid, fair, and addresses issues of concern across the political spectrum”—based on what? Moule cites no studies nor does he mention any in-depth content analysis of the show (although he does give anecdotal evidence from three different episodes from which he has the audacity to make the claims quoted above). It does make one wonder from whom Moule gets his paycheck.

Barnhart and Dawson state that their former coworkers at 13WHAM will do a great job and not be influenced by Sinclair's politics. Samuels jumps in to let us know that 13WHAM gets content from the outside too, not just from Sinclair. Anything broadcast from outside distributors will be “balanced in its entirety.” The last word for this section is given to Samuels with the droning refrain of nothing will change and that the creation of solid, local news will continue.

In the third section, Moule talks about the layoffs at Messenger Post Media. He doesn't write specifically about covert consolidation agreements but rather media consolidation in local terms. Moule tells us it's hard to figure out how other mediums are impacted when a change occurs in one specific medium—like when a whole newsroom is laid off for a group of local papers. He doesn't speculate about what impact is felt when more and more of our media comes from fewer and fewer sources.

In the game of downplaying the importance of covert consolidation, Saffran tells us that, locally speaking, the slashing of the Messenger Post Media newsroom has far more impact than anything going on in the local TV world. The section concludes with the SUNY Geneseo lecturer noting that duplication of content and a loss of localism can be expected if TV goes the way of corporate radio. This is the only section that is not ended by the industry or Samuels.

The last section of the article is essentially the cheerleading section for 13WHAM and Samuels. We’re told about potential program changes once the agreement starts, that 13WHAM will have more exposure and more profits, that competition is alive and well in the local TV market, and that again, nothing will change.

The laughable assertion made by Moule about there being competition in the Rochester TV market leads us to the second criticism we found in the article. Moule offers a very limited scope of the TV station ownership landscape. We don’t have competition; we have a stale ownership oligopoly. Related to this, and shown to be downplayed above, is the use of covert consolidation agreements that further consolidates sources of news.

who owns 7.png

The covert consolidation agreement between WUHF and WHAM gives Sinclair a 50 percent share of the local television market. This means that Nexstar (WROC), Hubbard Broadcasting (WHEC), and Sinclair (WUHF & WHAM), are the three owners of local mainstream TV media. YNN (now Time Warner Cable News) and PBS are excluded because of different regulations for cable and public broadcasting. These three companies not only dominate our airwaves, but Nexstar and Sinclair have used covert consolidation in other markets with the same outcomes, though Hubbard has actually expressed opposition to these kinds of agreements.

Above we mentioned that Moule did show some potentially conflicted interests between Sinclair and Deerfield. However, in Moule’s analysis, these companies are two separate entities. He casually mentions that these companies use “sidecar agreements” to jointly run stations.

The mention of “sidecar agreements” is important, but Moule does not elucidate why they are important. Sidecar agreements, bluntly, are shell companies. A shell company “is a company which serves as a vehicle for business transactions without itself having any significant assets or operations,” according to Wikipedia. In this case, the shell companies—sidecars like Deerfield—are owned by their parent company, Sinclair, according to the SEC's Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Jenn Topper and S. Derek Turner (who both work for Free Press) explain in an editorial published on November 6, 2013 in The Baltimore Sun how Sinclair uses shell companies:

Consider Sinclair's longtime shell, Cunningham Broadcasting. Like many of the companies created to sidestep the FCC's rules, Cunningham has no physical presence, and is even headquartered at Sinclair's flagship station WBFF in Baltimore. Sinclair, through Cunningham, controls Baltimore's WNUV.

 

Furthermore, under Securities and Exchange Commission rules, Cunningham is considered the same company as Sinclair. And when it communicates with investors, Sinclair refers to its shells, which include Deerfield Media and Howard Stirk Holdings, as "our sidecar companies." Similarly, it refers to stations nominally operated by these shells as "our stations." (Sinclair, through Deerfield, controls Baltimore's WUTB.)

Shell companies allow Sinclair to grow because, while these companies are technically owned by Sinclair according to SEC rules, they are not recognized as the same company by the FCC. “So we have one set of rules for the FCC and another set of rules for the SEC. It's clear that the SEC's attribution rules reflect reality, while the FCC's approach reflects a politically useful fantasy,” according to the Free Press report.

Just to recap, in Rochester, the broadcast license and facilities (what facilities?) for 31WUHF are owned by Sinclair as well as the physical facilities (4225 W. Henrietta Rd.) for 13WHAM. The news and sales workers for 13WHAM are Sinclair employees according to Moule's article. Deerfield owns the broadcast license for 13WHAM—and according to the FCC, these are considered two separate companies—even though as noted in the editorial above, the SEC recognizes them as one company. The Free Press report repeatedly criticizes the FCC—a politically appointed commission—for not enforcing its own rules.

Our last criticism in “Dialing it down,” is the lack of explanation regarding how covert consolidation undermines democracy. An example is in order. When two stations are presenting the same pro-hydraulic fracturing news--both owned by one corporation with an economic interest in natural gas, it undermines the diversity of viewpoints--and dissent--in the community and potentially creates a dangerous reality for the people living in affected areas where fracking is taking place. When different demographics of the community are excluded from the dialogue, in this case scientists, activists, Indigenous people, and those who consume their water from local sources (all of us), it undermines democracy and public health. Democracy calls for informed participation from many people who make the decisions that directly affect their lives. If you are only presented with a few viewpoints—fracking is great, or fracking could cause problems, therefore we need to frack responsibly—then the reality disseminated by the mass media is not only biased toward a specific capitalist agenda, but might very well be dangerous to your physical health. (And really, what the hell is responsible fracking anyway?) A system of profit-driven, consolidated media will use the tactics of spreading disinformation and creating divisions within the community as distractions to their own and their advertisers' economic agendas. (Check out Josh Fox's "The Sky Is Pink" for a great example.)

Democracy is undermined in other ways as well. For instance, when one station does the work of two as we saw with the liquidation of the WUHF newsroom through the covert consolidation agreement between Sinclair and Nexstar. When profit-driven media consolidation goes on without regulation or interest in the public, newsrooms are cut down or scrapped altogether in favor of wire reports or syndicated copy from the parent company. (Moule reported on this with regards to GateHouse Media laying off its whole Monroe County reporting staff for Messenger Post Media.) Local news and information is traded in for more profits and less overhead. There are fewer reporters, producers, and local stories--and according to an article by April Glaser and Jason Smith, one in three newsroom layoffs affected women and people of color.

Tom Rosenstiel, Director of the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, testified at an FCC hearing on March 4, 2010 about the reduction of reporters and how that affects the generation of local news. He testified that...

From 1998 through 2001, we saw measurable decreases in the level of enterprise in stories. We saw more instances of cameras being sent to events without correspondents. We saw a higher percentage of tell stories, those narrated by the anchors, use of press release material and syndicated material.

 

Overall, the percentage of stories with a reporter on scene fell by 30%. The percentage of stories that were syndicated material rather than locally produced rose by 62%. The number of spot news stories, those that were truly live, local and late-breaking, dropped by 31%.

The research conducted by the PEJ did find that TV newsrooms tended to maintain their investigative and spotlight news teams because of their importance to the station's brand. What's been affected, according to Rosenstiel's testimony, is the “level of local reporting in other work.”

Educator and writer, David Cay Johnston, also speaks about this increase in less-than-accurate and unaccountable reporting when he says that beat reporting is “fundamental to journalism, but our foundation is crumbling.” Beat reporting, according to Johnston, “means finding sources and sniffing out news, then a firm foundation of knowledge about the topic is essential, though not sufficient,” and goes on to say that this foundational knowledge needs to be paired with a deep curiosity and tenacity to look at all kinds of public documents and then ask sources tough questions about what those documents show. Instead of an informed public getting new and accurate information, we get cheap news. Johnston continues...

Far too much of journalism consists of quoting what police, prosecutors, politicians and publicists say—and this is especially the case with beat reporters. It’s news on the cheap and most of it isn’t worth the time it takes to read, hear or watch. Don’t take my word for it. Instead look at declining circulation figures. People know value and they know when what they’re getting is worth their time or worth the steadily rising cost of a subscription.

Stations are not able to cover the news and events that matter to the communities they are located in because parent companies are focused on the bottom line. Rather than holding government and business accountable, these media conglomerates function within a capitalist system that rewards them for their greed and distortion.

Conclusion

Jeremy Moule's article “Dialing it down: local media changes” from December 25, 2013 published in City Newspaper reads like a fluff piece for 13WHAM and Sinclair Broadcasting Group. While Rochester Indymedia appreciates the fact that City actually reported on covert consolidation, elucidated some of the ownership overlaps between Sinclair and Deerfield, referenced Sinclair’s political bias, and looked beyond the TV market to the changing media landscape in Rochester, we felt the article severely downplayed the issue and didn't push the local players enough.

Moule (or his editor) wrote an article that gave 13WHAM General Manager Chuck Samuels and the corporate TV news industry a platform to voice their pro-consolidation and capitalist agendas while simultaneously downplaying the underdeveloped criticisms of covert consolidation. The article frames Moule's interview with Samuels in a positive light that highlights the new agreement between WUHF and WHAM. Moule neglected to articulate the ownership oligopoly in Rochester's TV market and the role that covert consolidation agreements play in the consolidation of media that destroy newsrooms and deprive the public of a nuanced, informative, and democratic media. Moule barely discusses how covert consolidation agreements are a threat to democracy. He also leaves out for-profit media’s precarious (distrust of government / anti-regulation) and totalizing (commercial dominance) nature within the context of the local news landscape. At some points in the article it appears that Moule is trying to intentionally confuse readers, while making evaluations of inconsistent arguments. At the end of the day, Moule doesn’t do the work of the people, he writes for the advertisers and corporations. What could have been a highly charged, objective, and informative piece of writing about covert consolidation agreements and their effects on local media, the product produced, and the workers involved in the production process, instead becomes a piece of writing that supports the status quo and downplays the seriousness of the issue.

Additional & Related Information:

The Wolf of Sesame Street: Revealing the secret corruption inside PBS’s news division | Shedding Light On TV News’ Dark Side: Watch Defensively | The Death of Local News | Media Consolidation: The Illusion of Choice | Cease to Resist: How the FCC's Failure to Enforce Its Rules Created a New Wave of Media Consolidation | Outsourcing the News: How covert consolidation is destroying newsrooms and circumventing media ownership rules | Covert Consolidation in Charleston, South Carolina (check out the video) | FCC Votes To Curb Media Consolidation in Local TV Markets