Author: john

Prelims over…back to blogging

My preliminary exams were finished last week, and the edits have just been handed in. I’ve been out of the loop for quite awhile as far as news goes, but have had quite a bit of time to think again about why I blog.

After doing so much reading, it’s obvious to me that scholarship is an exercise of communication. Since I’m no longer taking classes or teaching in my department, the only real connection I have to the discipline of mass communication is through reading. Studying for prelims has been a great experience, but in some ways it’s not quite enough: in my position I need some way to think about the issues I’m studying (I find writing the best way) and to possibly get some feedback about my ideas.  Even if nobody ever reads this blog, I find that it is a useful exercise to reflect on both the issues of the day and on broader social issues.

I’m sure catching up on news reading will bring a few belated posts…time for another “slashback.”

Newspaper ownership: public vs private

The Times has a story today about the differences between a publicly (read: shareholders) and privately (read: mogul) held newspaper. They don’t appear to really offer much of a deep analysis either way, but prior research in fact has.

I recently came across an article by U-Iowa Law faculty Randall Bezanson about this very distinction and its impact on press law (“The Structural Attributes of Press Freedom: Private Ownership, Public Orientation, and Editorial Independence,” 2003). The article refers to a study by Bezanson, Cranberg and Soloski with an interesting finding (Taking Stock: Journalism and the Publicly Traded Newspaper Company, 2001). The study attempted to answer the question, “whose opinion has the greatest impact on a newspaper’s content?”

Was it the audience? Was it advertisers?

Nope…it was the investment market. I have not read the actual study, so I cannot speak to the exact nature of the differing impact, but the finding seems very relevant to this story.

Also in the Times today is a piece about the legal status of YouTube (compare to the previous post).

On a more personal note…I’ll be taking preliminary exams very soon, so there likely won’t be any posts until November.

Cheers,
-john

At YouTube, another day, another copyright battle

This headline from a blog post on CNet sums up well what I’ve been thinking a lot about lately: The state of copyright law ensures that an emergent business which is not on unquestionable legal ground must endure a great deal of pressure from content owners.

What do I mean by the state of copyright law? Currently, service providers are granted immunity from copyright as long as they take down infringing material at an owner’s request (DMCA). YouTube could arguably fit in this category because they don’t monitor what individuals upload until they receive one of these letters (which they obviously follow through on). Yet, on the other hand, if one makes a ‘business model’ out of infringement (Grokster), there is liability for the infringement of users.

The legislation and case law in this case has created a situation which (as is common in copyright) is far from clear for owners, providers, or users. The result: if YouTube chooses to fight, may be a trip to court which would resolve the issue–but in what way? Will the courts create a threshold of how much infringement a business model could allow? This could create further complications for other providers in the future.

As copying becomes easier and managing control becomes more complicated, simpler rules will serve business and users the best because of a decrease in litigation. From what I can tell (at a very quick glance), the Copyright Modernization Act proposes to add greater complexity to this very issue.

I’ll try to post more about the Act and the pending WIPO treaty sometime soon.

Other Sources:
Copyright Axe To Fall On YouTube? (Slashdot), YouTube in Copyright Cross Hairs? (Reuters/Wired)

FCC Destroys report with findings contrary to policy

The FCC (nobody’s saying exactly who) has allegedly ordered the destruction of a report which found in part that:

local ownership of television stations adds almost five and one-half minutes of total news to broadcasts and more than three minutes of “on-location” news. The conclusion is at odds with FCC arguments made when it voted in 2003 to increase the number of television stations a company could own in a single market. (AP)

This is quite a surprising cover-up and may be seen as evidence of the push within the FCC towards media consolidation. I’ve heard it claimed that one of the arguments in support of consolidation is that there is no hard evidence that it causes a harm to media content or communities. This report appears to speak to this concern.

Sources:Media ownership study ordered destroyed (AP), Officials Ordered FCC Report Destroyed, Says Ex-Staffer (Broadcasting and Cable)