1. 1
Introduction
One of the biggest consequences of consolidated commercial media and the decline of
print media is the effect on local reporting. As local newspapers and magazines lose reporters
and resources, commercial media is growing more powerful, with six companies now owning
90% of U.S. media.1
Today we're left with inadequate local reporting around the country,
leaving communities vulnerable to decisions that people in power would rather keep from the
public.
In this paper, I argue that local media systems have become severely diminished across
the United States, and examine the effect of not having proper journalism in our communities. I
also discuss the present and future of local media including what is working, what is not, along
with ideas for the future and the barriers that will stand in the way. These barriers are inadequate
funding and staffing for local investigative reporting, the decline of print media, corporate
media's control of local news, the rise of “professionalism” in journalism and the rocky
relationship between local news and the internet. These problems are at the core of the dismal
state of community journalism. These have affected the central purposes of local media, which
are diversity, localism, and competition in media markets according to the Federal
Communications Commission.2
Without solid local reporting, a story that could spark community organization can go
unnoticed. Even if some form of citizen mobilization occurs, it won't be properly covered
without a free local press. Without the voices of upset community members and autonomous
journalists, we are subject to a very narrow spectrum of ideology in the media. Those who do
cover such topics are often unpaid, part-time journalists. Nonetheless, I see hope in local media.
1 Lutz, Ashley. "These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America." Business Insider.
http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6
2 "Localism Proceedings." http://www.fcc.gov/localism

2. 2
There are still talented and ambitious writers, and television, and radio reporters. Even though
local journalism has fallen apart to a large extent, there will still be people pursuing uncovered or
underrepported stories. They just need more funding and institutional support.
I begin with a brief history of the U.S. press starting with newspapers, which saw the
emergence of commercialization and professionalism in journalism. It is then joined by radio,
which led to the creation of the FCC, and then Television which accelerated the rate of media
consolidation. The Internet will come after I have laid out a history of traditional local media
Journalism's move to the web has magnified a decades long crisis in journalism, but is not the
primary cause of our deprived local media systems, as it has often been accused. Through this
history I attempt to show how the changes in style, and policy making of media has slowly
deprived the quality and quantity of local news. Ownership policy is only mentioned
occasionally in the following section because it is a product of policy making but I discuss it
later in more detail. This history is crucial to looking at the present and future of journalism
because an effective and diverse press system once existed in the United States, therefore we
should aspire to rejuvenate our local press so that it can be the watchdog it was originally
intended to be.
The Rise of Commercial Media
Before the 20th
century the newspaper industry was dense and highly partisan with some
major cities carrying at least 10 daily newspapers in the mid to late 19th
century. At first glance,
the idea of partisanship in the press is unappealing because today one would think of today's
television pundits who put passion before logic. Due to the amount and variety of partisan
voices for readers to choose from, it provided more balance and more fearless reporting than the
mainstream press has today. The U.S. press has been declawed by over a century of

3. 3
commercialization and professionalism in journalism. This has been well documented by media
critics like Robert McChesney and Ben Bagdikian.
The notion that journalism should be politically neutral, nonpartisan, and objective did
not emerge until the twentieth century.3
Before then, such a press would have been nonsensical,
even unthinkable. The purpose of journalism was to persuade and well as inform, so the press
tended to be highly partisan. The free press clause in the First Amendment to the constitution
was seen as a means to protect dissident political viewpoints. Most newspapers were closely
linked to a variety of political parties. The public understood that if government could outlaw or
circumscribe newspapers, it would largely eliminate the ability of opposition parties or
movements to mobilize popular support. This severely weakens democracy. The government
actively subsidized the press through printing and postal subsidies. A partisan press system can
be very effective in a democratic society as long as there are numerous well-subsidized outlets
providing a broad range of opinions.4
Commercialization of the media began in the late nineteenth century, causing immediate
problems for the partisan press. Sensationalism, a watered down form of journalism, emerged
around this time as yellow journalism and gained heavy circulation via William Randolph Hearst
and to make matters worse, these owners began acquiring more papers. Newspapers had long
reflected the views of their owners, but there was little danger in this as long it only came out
through one paper. Now there were papers around the country carrying the editorial slant of one
individual.
Readers became weary of the sensationalist nature of yellow journalism, leading to the
rise of professionalism in journalism; an attempt to make the papers more believable, less
3 McChesney, Robert Waterman. The Political Economy of Media: Enduring Issues, Emerging Dilemmas.
4 McChesney, Political Economy

4. 4
controversial in order to regain their reputation. It attempted to eliminate this heavy editorial
slant, by creating a universal code for all professional journalists in the U.S. Savvy publishers
wanted their journalism appear neutral and unbiased, otherwise their businesses would be far less
profitable. As a result, they sacrificed their explicit political power to aid their economic
position. Publishers pushed for formal “schools of journalism” to train professional editors and
reporters.5
Professionalism in journalism did ease many of the problems that were developing in the
partisan press system, but some practices have come to work against the strength of journalism.
These practices were no doubt attempts to prevent bias, but instead led to different types of
biases. These are: a reliance on official sources, avoidance of contextualization, and avoiding or
underreporting stories that conflict with their owner's interest, as well as stories which would
interfere with another commercial interests (to avoid creating an unnecessary rival). In effect,
professionalism in journalism favors government officials and corporate executives6
.
Relying on official sources is essentially a good practice, but the extent to which this
reliance exists enables government and corporate public relations, both of which rose in the wake
of professional journalism, to tell the story. The journalist is encouraged to use as many of their
words as possible, often resulting in the inability to insert their own voice when they hear or read
something they know to be a lie or a spin. Today this also exists during television or radio
debates. Guests have statements and responses prepared, leading to an almost rehearsed debate,
while the host asks the questions and nothing more. There's also an emphasis on what the most
popular sources (like the president) are up to. One important role for journalists is to interpret
developments for the reader. By simply being a messenger, the audience is left to figure it out
5 McChesney
6 McChesney.

5. 5
for themselves, which is difficult unless they're news junkies.
Related to the need to interpret news is to provide contextualization. The primary reason
why journalists often avoid this is because it puts them in danger of showing ideology. One
strength of the partisan press was that it attempted to take every important issue and place it in a
larger political ideology. Again, this partisanship is dangerous today, because of the shrunken
news market. Most of the slant today is towards the Democrat or Republican parties, leading to
extremely biased contextualization. When there were ten newspapers in every major city, there
could be ten different frames through which a story was interpreted. The absence of this gives
even more power to public relations, because they can give their own background.
The third bias is what Ben Bagdikian refers to as “dig here, not there.” These are biases
that are favored by media owners, and journalists who climb the organizational ladder.
Corporate wrongdoing passes under the nose of investigative journalists, unless the
transgressions are blatant, while stories concerning governmental wrongdoing, especially in
programs intended to benefit the poor and working class, are overlook. Most dailies have long
contained massive business sections and no labor coverage, for example. Local news media
rarely does hard-hitting critical examinations of the most powerful institutions and families in
their own communities. This is extremely problematic, because no one is going to cover such a
story from outside the community.
In the 1940s, newspaper owners continued growing by adding to their newspaper chains.
William Randolph Hearst had a nation-wide string of 28 newspapers, and by 1944, the industry
experienced a net loss of two hundred papers. As a result, 40% of newspaper markets were
considered non-competitive.7
The concentration would grow later in the 20th
century, But now
7 Foner, Eric. "William Randolph Hearst." History.com. http://www.history.com/topics/william-
randolph-hearst

6. 6
I'm going to transition to radio, the regulation of which would accelerate media consolidation.
When radio went through the regulation process, it was handed to private interests via the
Radio Act of 1927, specifically the 1928 General Order 40. In 1927 NBC had twenty-eight
affiliates and CBS sixteen owning 6.4 percent of the broadcast stations. Four years later they
together accounted for 30 percent of the stations. All but three of the forty clear channel stations
were owned by or affiliated with one of the two networks. When the number of hours broadcast
and the level of power are considered, NBC and CBS accounted for nearly 70 percent of U.S.
broadcasting by 1931. By 1935, only four of the sixty-two stations that broadcast at 5,000 or
more watts were not affiliated with a network. Commercial advertising, which barely existed on
a national level prior to 1928, grew to an annual total of 172 million by 1934. One commentator
noted in 1930 regarding the emerging status quo that “nothing in American history has paralleled
this mushroom growth8
This set the precedent for media regulation, and as television emerged, the FCC (created
by the 1934 Communications Act) ran television through the same process over the next 20
years. However it is worth mentioning that soon after NBC and CBS had acquired television
stations across the country, ABC was spun off from NBC when the U.S. government determined
that the two-network setup was anti-competitive in 1943. Apparently these three radio and
television giants were suitable enough competition, because they would reign over television
until the 1980s.
Newspapers, radio and television were now on the free market, despite the utter lack of
public consideration by lawmakers when making these decisions. The first half of the 20th
century had seen drastic media changes through new technology, style changes, and
privatization, leading to consolidation and a gradual weakening of journalism.
8 McChesney, Political Economy

7. 7
Although technically newspapers were the first forms of media consolidation, it would
not compare to radio or television in terms of concentration until the 1980s. By then six
newspaper chains controlled most U.S. newspapers. Through a process known as clustering,
metropolitan monopoly daily newspapers purchase or link up with smaller daily news papers in
the surrounding region. The move took a lot of pressure off of the small daily papers, but
decreased the amount of truly local voices.9
Television and radio which were still owned mostly by CBS, NBC and ABC, continued
their dominance during this period, but finally came across some new competition in the 1980s
with the emergence of Fox. In addition, cable T.V. emerged with The Cable Communications
Act of 1984, which was intended to promote competition and deregulate the cable industry. The
act established a national policy for the regulation of cable communications by federal, state, and
local authorities., which amended the Communications Act of 1934.
The intentions of promoting competition and deregulation were contradictory, but were
parallel in the mind of conservative Senator Barry Goldwater who wrote and supported the act.
As a result of the act, commercially leased access did not provide cable subscribers with a
diversity of information, because diversity was never mandated by local franchising authority
and unaffiliated programming on leased channels rarely appeared. In the 1998 court case Time
Warner Entertainment Co. vs. FCC, the court deemed the 1984 legislation ineffective in terms of
unaffiliated programming. It wouldn't be long before cable companies and media outlets would
merge, furthering undermining local content provided by unaffiliated programming.
Radio became king of media concentration, starting with the 1996 Telecommunications
Act. Before this legislation, a single company was allowed to own 28 stations nationally, and no
more than four in a single community. As a result, over half of radio stations were sold, and
9 Mcchesney, Robert W., Digital Disconnect.

8. 8
every market is dominated by two or three firms that own nearly all the stations between them.
Common complaints over poor radio content can be traced back to this act, as it “stripped radio
of local content, especially journalism, and substituted generic, inexpensive programming.”10
Now that a history of media regulation and the resulting ownership policy has been
described, we turn to how this policy-making has affected local media outlets.
Current Ownership of Traditional Media
The commercialization of journalism raises serious questions about institutional integrity
that have been ignored by politicians and underreported by corporate media. The goal of
corporations, by definition is to maximize profits, because their stakeholders depend on this goal,
otherwise they take their money elsewhere. This puts journalism right into the free market,
meaning that for profit outlets rely on circulation of viewership to survive. Advertisers are
welcome in corporate media to boost profits. The profit motive can also push outlets to water
down their content. Today most local news outlets focus on crime, sports, and weather.11
This
content is typically uncontroversial and is meant to avoid losing viewers. Local T.V. news and
newspapers remain the most popular source of news consumption, but through corporate
ownership, local reporting isn't providing the information citizens need.
Types of Media Ownership
In 1999, the Federal Communications Commission changed the Local Television
Ownership Rule, allowing a single company to own two television stations in the same media
market, leading to the creation of dozens of duopolies nationwide. The result of these mergers
has significantly increased coverage of local government, politics, construction and growth but
decreased its coverage of public safety, and non-dominant groups or minorities. In addition
10 McChesney, Political Economy
11 Real News Network

9. 9
Duopolies provide no significant increase in localism, defined as the amount of locally produced
news, the geographic focus of coverage, the number of local reporters featured, and the amount
of locally-produced enterprise stories. While the number of enterprise stories has decreased, the
amount of time dedicated to enterprise stories increased.12
For most of the 20th
century when a media merger was approved that resulted in a TV
Newspaper combination that violated the ban, the acquiring company was given a temporary
waiver for a short period of time to dispose of one of the properties to come into compliance with
the rule. Following the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC was required to review all of
its rules on a regular basis, especially the newspaper-TV ban. However, in 2000 the FCC began
approving a series of cross ownership mergers, granting waivers from the ban. Temporary
waivers were granted to allow companies to dispose of properties that were in violation of the
rule in an orderly fashion. However, starting in 2000, the waivers were rolled over year after
year, in anticipation of a change in the rules. When the FCC tried to virtually eliminate the cross-
ownership ban in its 2003 rulemaking, protest developed in Congress and a Federal Appeals
Court blocked the deregulatory attempt.13
Some media owners have argued that the newspaper-TV combination would result in the
production of more news by the TV station, but that has not been the result. Instead the paper
and station often share stories while more diverse ownership would provide more original
content. A Free Press study tested cross-ownership against the goal of media policy to provide
“the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources.” In
testing whether or not the existence of a newspaper-TV combination resulted in more news being
produced in a market, a larger number of news outlets in a market, or slanted news, the study
12 Smith, Laura K. "Consolidation and News Content: How Broadcast Ownership Policy Impacts Local Television
News and the Public Interests." Journalism & Communication Monographs 10, no. 4 (Winter 2009).
13 Cooper, Mark. "Newspaper-TV Conglomeration Reduces Local News Production." Conference Papers
International Communication Association (Annual Meeting 2008).

10. 10
found that “the results uniformly support the restriction on cross ownership.” Markets with
newspaper-TV combinations do not produce more news or lead to a larger number of stations
producing news. Cross owned TV stations tend to slant the news and the slant is in the same
direction as the editorial endorsements of the cross-owned newspapers. Therefore The long-
term impact of newspaper-TV combinations is detrimental to the public policy goals of localism,
diversity and competition.14
Joint sales agreements allow different stations in the same market to pool resources.
Shared service agreements go even further, allowing different stations to even share news scripts.
The FCC technically prohibits the owner of a station that is among the top four in ratings from
owning another top-four station in the same market. However, joint sales agreements have
allowed media owners to get around the restrictions. A broadcaster buying a station can recruit
or create a separate corporate entity to own the station. In return for a fee, the broadcaster
provides a range of services for the station owner by selling ads and negotiating retransmission
fees to assuming editorial operations. Large broadcasters, including Gannett, Sinclair Broadcast
Group and Media General, have used such deals to operate more than one station in local
markets.15
Joint Service Agreements or Shared Service Agreements exist in about 94 local
television markets across the country, almost half of the 210 local TV markets nationwide, and
up from 55 in 2011, according to the Pew Research Center.16
In March 2014, the FCC voted to remove these deals, a rare attempt by the agency to roll
back consolidation rather than encourage it. Following the vote, broadcasters will be declared
the owner of a station if it sells 15% or more its advertising time. Those affected by the new rule
14 Cooper, Mark
15 Yu, Roger. "FCC bans TV stations from joint ad sales, fee negotiations." USA Today.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/03/31/fcc-rules-on-joint-sales-deals/7131049
16 Powell, Tracie. "Broadcast Partnership Limits in the Crosshairs." Columbia Journalism Review.
http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/fcc_shared_services

11. 11
will have two years to comply, by ending such deals or lowering the amount of ads sold on
behalf of another station. Activists and organizations like Free Press praised the move, while
station owners objected. A spokesman for the National Association of Broadcasters said that
“joint sales agreements allow local TV stations to survive in a hyper-competitive world
dominated by pay TV giants.”
This may be true in some cases, but the important aspect here is that new ownership
should add much needed diversity to these markets. Currently women own just 5 % of the 1,400
commercial broadcast television stations in the U.S. African Americans own only three stations,
two of them by former conservative pundit Armstrong Williams.17
A Routledge study investigated whether or not ownership does matter, and found it to be
very significant to news production. It also expressed an important point, that the ownership of
stations “must be viewed within the context of the media system of the television markets in
which they reside.”18
That has important implications for the policy-making process. The
policies of the FCC regarding media regulation are directed at individual media entities, but
have an effect on the overall market. The findings suggested that various consolidated ownership
profiles of individual stations can negatively affect the amount of local content on the stations.
Consolidated ownership within the market negatively affected the proportion of local content on
local television news broadcasts in the market as a whole.19
The fact that this consolidation of ownership affects content is the main point to consider.
While diversity in ownership is important, diversity in content is imperative. When multiple
news outlets are running the same stories with the same slant, it defeats the purpose of having
multiple outlets because the shared ownership also eliminates the competition that should exist
17 Yu, Roger. USA Today.
18 Yanich, Danilo. "Does Ownership Matter? Localism, Content, and the Federal Communications
Commission." Journal Of Media Economics 23, no. 2.
19 Yanich, Danilo, Ownership.

12. 12
between outlets, and therefore localism, which depends on diverse voices.
Public Broadcasting
The U.S. modestly subsidizes public broadcasting, contributing $82,613 in 2011.20
Public
broadcasting was intended to provide a safehaven for unprofitable but important broadcasting,
but even that funding is constantly being threatened. Their annual revenue has grown from
$2,280,463 to $2,835,927 between 2001-2011, but unsteadily, reaching a peak of $2,922,690 in
2007.21
The inadequate funding has forced these outlets to become ad supported; pushing them
into the free market that they're supposed to be exempt from. The naturally unprofitable content
draws less interest from advertisers, leading public broadcasting to produce more popularized
content. This cycle undermines the purpose of designating an area of broadcasting that isn't
meant to worry about advertisers.
Countries that have shown more dedication to a free press subsidize their media much
more heavily than the U.S., and most of those countries are statistically more democratic.22
Funding for public media per capita is only $1.43 in the U.S. Norway, the top funder contributes
$130.39, while ranking # 2 in Press Freedom and #1 in the Democracy Index in 2008. South
Korea, ranked #15 still spent significantly more, on public media funding at $9.95 per capita.
Media subsidies are controversial, as one often assumes that government interference will occur,
yet when done right, the countries are ranked more democratically.23
Also, as I've pointed out
that the government, along with corporations already influence our media. In the commercial
media system, journalism is largely in the hands of the people it is supposed to hold accountable.
When the Supreme Court has examined what a free press means, it does not endorse this
20 Corporation for Public Broadcasting. "Public Broadcasting Revenue: Fiscal Year 2011."
http://www.cpb.org/stations/reports/revenue/2011PublicBroadcastingRevenue.pdf
21 Public Broadcasting Revenues.
22 Mcchesney, Robert W. Digital Disconnect. New York: New Press
23 McChesney, Digital Disconnect.

13. 13
neoliberal, free market journalism model. Freedom of the press is in the Constitution to make
self-government possible according to the majority opinions in the 1945 Associated Press v.
United States, and the 1971 Pentagon Papers (New York Times v. United States case). The spirit
in several of these opinions is that the state has the duty to see that a viable press system exists. If
such a media system does not exist the entire constitutional project will fail. If the existing press
system is failing, the state needs to create a system that will meet the constitutionally mandated
requirements. These opinions do not suggest that the First Amendment is meant to provide a
black check to corporate media to do as they please, regardless of the implications for self
government.24
The Internet: The Once and Future Savior of Journalism
The Internet has received much of the blame for the crisis in journalism, with some
identifying it as the cause. However, there have serious issues in policy-making leading to
questionable media ownership regulation following the rise of mass media. This has led to
media concentration, creating a destructive editorial slant that favors those journalism is
supposed to hold in check.
The evolution of new, digital media has merely enhanced the crisis in journalism by
pulling away advertisers, thus affecting profits in all forms of media. This has exposed the flaws
in free market journalism, in that technological innovation has diminished economic growth
rather than spur it. The Internet increased advertisers' reach, which used to depend on traditional
journalism to attract customers. Today they can use nearly any website to advertise. Now that
this long existing crisis in journalism has been established, we move to the pressing issues in
digital local media, which has added even more damage to the integrity of local media systems.
Although the history of Internet began decades before the Communications Act of 1995,
24 McChesney, Political Economy

14. 14
this is the crucial starting point for this subject. The yet to be unlocked potential of the Internet
had its users eager to see it grow. Blinded by their excitement, very few users were thinking
about who would own the Internet and how it would be regulated. Media policymaking has such
a poor track record in public involvement that even if Internet users had been more concerned
about these issues, the agency would have probably still commercialized the Internet. However,
these questions still should have been raised when the Internet's fate was being decided.
There were few who truly understood what the Internet was and how to use it, which
largely explains why its regulation wasn't a public concern. In 1995, only a third of the nation's
population owned computers, and even fewer had internet access, yet once again legislators were
leaving it to themselves to decide the fate of the most important communication technology since
the color T.V. The effects of this legislation are being felt 20 years later, with the FCC just
recently announcing their plans to neuter Net Neutrality. This would allow Internet Service
Providers to discriminate among their users which I will go into later. The Communications Act
of 1995 assured that the market, and not public policy, would direct the course of both the
Internet and the information highway.25
In regards to local media an opportunity for cheap, efficient local news platforms with
potential for growth was thrown out the window. It is no doubt that the Internet offers a cheap
and efficient platform today, as professional and amateur journalists can post content instantly,
and often for free, but potential for growth is minimal in the commercial media system. Local
journalism was not a significant source of investment in the commercial boom that followed the
1995 legislation nor will it ever be under this system. Media in the digital age also has to be
considered in the light of broadband prices that are beyond a segment of the population.
This leads to a necessary analysis of how to define the Internet. The first two decades or
25 McChesney, Political Economy.

15. 15
so of its existence hardly resembles that of a private good because it was publicly funded during
it's development. In other words, corporations didn't deserve the internet, nor were they its
rightful heirs. A public good on the other hand can be defined as either non-excludable or non-
rivalrous because individuals cannot be effectively excluded from its use or use by one
individual does not reduce its availability to others, respectively. If the good in question falls
under both of these categories, it is a “pure” public good. This is where trying defining the
internet gets tricky.
In regards to non-exclusion, Internet access comes with a price. One has to pay a
monthly fee to have constant access, but this can't account for those who use public internet
access, or those who use other peoples' connections. Therefore no matter what Internet Service
Providers charge, they ultimately cannot prevent people from accessing the web.
The Internet is also a non-rivalry because it is not finite. ISPs have been using artificial
scarcity, a technique long used by the oil industry to raise demand through the illusion of low
supply. In this case, it's wireless spectrum rather than oil which is being warehoused so that no
one else can use it. Verizon and AT&T have huge advantages in the current system of spectrum
allocation and show no signs of stopping. In 2011, AT&T had license to $10 billion worth of
unused spectrum, while it lobbied to have more spectrum diverted to it, thus limiting competition
as well. One of the original architects of the Internet, David P. Reed insists that the
electromagnetic spectrum is not finite and that the problem could be solved by policy making,
stating that “arguing that the nation could run out of spectrum is like saying it was going to run
out of color.”26
In short, there is no marginal cost to providing Internet access.
The Internet is currently facing a critical juncture as the FCC has voted to discretely
remove net neutrality. FCC Chairman and former telecommunications industry lobbyist Tom
26 McChesney, Digital Disconnect.

16. 16
Wheeler insists that “the agency would stop any deals that put smaller companies or consumers
at a disadvantage.”27
The decision lies with the President on whether or not a more expensive
“fast lane” can be set up by Internet Service Providers. As I mentioned earlier, there is no
marginal cost for providing this speedy service for everyone, it's simply a way for ISPs to further
increase profits. The broad implications for this is that smaller companies will be put at a
disadvantage. This is an even bigger disadvantage for small media companies, because their
mass media competitors share ownership with ISPs. There is much more to say about net
neutrality, but not for the purpose of my subject.
Case Study of Media Outlets in Seattle
To display media issues more clearly, I've laid out Seattle's media market profile, which
has its share of pros and cons. While a thriving alternative weekly/monthly print media exists, it
only has one daily newspaper, and heavily concentrated radio and TV markets. The 1999 WTO
protests painted a clear picture of a conflict between mainstream media and Seattle residents, and
it still relevant today. “This is what Democracy Looks Like,” a documentary on the protests
shows local television stations interviewing mostly law enforcement officials and praising their
efforts rather than the diverse crowd of thousands in the streets.28
The brighter side of media
during these protests was the creation and efforts of the Independent Media Center, which
provided coverage favorable to the protestors to the rest of the world via indymedia.org. The site
continued to grow as a voice for protesters and for years has maintained a web of independent
media voices worldwide, although it's less active today.
The biggest competitors in the local TV race are Gannett's NBC affiliate KING-TV; Cox's
CBS affiliate KIRO-TV; and KOMO-TV, Sinclair's Communications' ABC affiliate. KIRO
27 Nagesh, Gautham. "FCC Chairman Defends Net-Neutrality Plan." The Wall Street Journal.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303468704579574122637947700
28 This is What Democracy Looks Like. VHS. Directed by Jill Freidberg.

17. 17
maintains three reporters in Washington, DC to cover news of interest to its viewers. The three
outlets are often separated by tenths of a rating point, so the competition is there, but it is
nonetheless concentrated and lacking in diversity like most local T.V. markets. The T.V. stations
all use corporate resources to gain an edge. Gannett also owns Northwest Cable News, and
independent KONG-TV, on which it repeats several KING newscasts. They are the largest group
owner of stations affiliated with NBC and CBS nationwide.29
KOMO had been the last television station in the Seattle market to be owned by a local
interest, Fisher Communications until being bought by Sinclair, the largest owner of local
television, plus all of Fisher's Univision affiliate KUNS-TV, and three radio stations: KOMO-
AM, KVI-AM and KPLZ-FM).30
These all operate out of the same location.31
Fisher had created
44 hyperlocal neighborhood Web sites just a few years earlier which now appear to be under the
wing of BeLocal, a collaboration between KING and The Seattle Times.32
It sells advertising into
a local ad network that includes hyperlocal blogs and other niche online publications in Western
Washington.
Seattle has three public television stations. Government-access television (GATV) run by
the city, airs public affairs, community service, and arts. The station is funded partly by Cable
television franchise fees and a $5 million grant from Comcast. They have shifted much of the
government accountability-oriented programming to live streaming on the Internet, best accessed
with high-speed Internet access. KCTS-TV is Seattle's PBS member station. It operates three
feeds: a primary, general interest station; KCTS 9 V-Me, which serves the Spanish-speaking
29 "Seattle." Mediaweek 19, no. 32 (September 14, 2009): 39. Communication & Mass Media Complete,
EBSCOhost
30 “AM Query Broadcast Station Search.” http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/am-query-broadcast-station-
search (accessed May 5, 2014).
31 Banel, Feliks. "Hear it now: A look at Seattle's radio history." Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Hear-it-now-A-look-at-Seattle-s-radio-history-899755
32 Cook, John. "KING TV, The Seattle Times start local online ad network for blogs." Puget Sound Business
Journal. http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/techflash/2010/10/king-5-the-seattle-times-to-start.html

18. 18
community; KCTS 9 Create, which features cooking, arts and crafts, and travel programs. In
2009, KCTS aired a 160 episode series on local public affairs, personal finance, economic issues,
and business affairs. SCAN is Seattle's public access cable television network and a 501(c)3
nonprofit. Although its funding is limited, SCAN often airs more locally-produced public affairs
programming each week than all the city's broadcast networks combined.33
A few years ago, The Nielson company bought consumer research company Arbitron,
commercializing its portable people meter ratings service in mid-July. This apparently caused
station owners to change formats. Bonneville's KIRO-AM threw out its simulcast of News/Talk
KIRO-FM in favor of Sports.34
After failing to find a buyer for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the Hearst Corporation
shut down the paper. The city of 600,000 people, in a county with a population nearing 2
million, now has only one major daily print newspaper, The Seattle Times, a growing reality
nationwide. The P-I switched to an online-only publication, with a smaller staff. The Times, has
been able to convert 84 percent of P-I subscribers, increasing the Times' circulation by 30 percent
to 260,000. The local Blethen family owns 50.5% of the Times, but the other 49.5% is owned by
the McClatchy Company which owns 30 papers. This is an example of a shared service
agreement.35
Seattle is blessed with a pretty large and diverse print market outside of the dailies. The
city has at least 20 weekly papers, many of which are foreign language, plus 12 neighborhood
news sites. There are also 4 college outlets, along with a handful of magazines covering
environmental or ethnic issues. Radio is considerably concentrated, with Clear Channel,
Entercom, Salem Communications each owning four stations while Hubbard Radio, Bonneville,
33 Fancher, Michael. "Seattle: A New Media Case Study – State of the Media.”
http://stateofthemedia.org/2011/mobile-survey/seattle-a-new-media-case-study.
34 Fancher, Michael. Seattle Case Study.
35 Fancher, Michael. Seattle.

19. 19
and the previously mentioned Sinclair own three.36
Clear Channel is the dominant outdoor
advertising provider, like most of the country. They also have the advertising contract for the
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.37
A 2010 case study of Seattle's media reached a mixed conclusion. The people of Seattle
value an accessible government, accessible education and prosperous communities and they use
new tools to achieve those ideals. Seattle has strong open records laws and the city aspires to
broadband access that is high-speed, affordable and widespread. Community outreach efforts and
new media training are high priorities among officials, who have proactively suggested solutions
to information problem. However, four firms own 51% of the area’s local news market, evidence
of highly concentrated media ownership and the less wealthy parts of Seattle don't see the
journalistic coverage that more affluent neighborhoods receive. 858 journalists were still
practicing in Seattle, an impressive number considering the amount of jobs lost in 2009. The
journalists lost have been replaced by a blogosphere that provides complementary rather than
replacement coverage. Much of the paid investigative reporting capacity is gone, and a
significant segment of the population is unconnected and cannot afford to be otherwise. The
report concludes that these issues need to be addressed should be a “high priority for Seattle if its
reputation as a hub of media innovation is to be truly earned.”38
Conclusion
This study reinforces my thesis on local news coverage. It is clear that it has become
significantly ineffective through poor policy making, which has led to a corporate takeover of
90% of U.S. media. The currently pending mergers of Comcast/Time Warner and
DirecTV/AT&T further emphasize this point, and show that this consolidation isn't going to end
36 “FM Query Broadcast Station Search.” http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/fm-query-broadcast-station- search
37 Seattle, Mediaweek.
38 Seattle case study

20. 20
without state intervention. An editorial slant has developed as a result which is contradictory to
the intent of journalism to hold those in power accountable. The goal of local media systems to
maintain diversity, localism and competition has not been effectively pursued, when 150 years
ago the press in U.S. communities, although flawed, thrived on these three fronts.
As an alternative, I endorse a model put forth originally by Dean and Randy Baker and
promoted by Robert McChesney and John Nichols, of a “citizenship news voucher.”39
I would
also suggest other potential models that would give indirect subsidies to nonprofit journalism,
which has shown the most dedication to the concept of a free press, despite financial hardship
and marginalization as a result of minimal consideration by policy makers. The optional $200
subsidy for nonprofit journalism in the Baker plan would allow citizens to promote the media
outlets they appreciate, while keeping government and corporate entities away. There would still
be a niche for corporate journalism, and corporate media as whole will probably continue to exist
unless there is some serious dismantling of corporations in general. Therefore it would be
important to make sure that the government doesn't let the newly financially stable nonprofit
outlets fall into corporate hands again.
39 McChesney, Digital Disconnect