The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is scheduled to vote on new media consolidation rules on Dec. 18 that would permit a newspaper to own a broadcast station (whether TV or radio) in the same market. The stealth rule change was proposed by FCC chair Kevin Martin on Nov. 13, 4 days after the last of six whirlwind public hearings on, among other things, media consolidation. Great way to get the clairvoyant public involved, Kev--tell them about the proposed rule change after the hearings! To Chairman Martin's credit, however, he did at least argue his case publicly in a New York Times op-ed, also published on Nov. 13. It turns out that, over the last 30 years, 300 daily papers have perished. According to Martin, if we continue to "turn a blind eye to the financial condition in which [newspaper] companies find themselves"--i.e., according to fellow FCC commissioner Michael Copps, typically posting a mere 17-18 percent return--then "our very democracy is at stake." So much on the line has motivated Martin to loosen outdated ownership rules in a daring, last-ditch effort to save the intellectual diversity of our public spaces. If only your local neighborhood multimedia conglomerate could swoop in to save your local neighborhood media struggling to compete against your local neighborhood multimedia conglomerate, thereby maintaining the all-important diversity of perspectives! Damn the red tape--all it does is get in the way of the obvious solution.

There are, of course, a few naysayers, notably including those who drafted a 2004 FCC study that suggested that continued media consolidation would, um, harm local coverage. But don't worry about it: the FCC ordered its staff to destroy all copies of that draft report, again demonstrating how best to get around the Kafkaesque convolutions of red tape. And of course the proposed rule change does include limitations and safeguards. For example, the new rule would pertain only to the top 20 markets--a mere 43 percent of American households, or roughly 120 million people. That means a majority of Americans won't even be affected (assuming the corporations don't exploit the gaping loopholes)! Moreover, a company owning a local newspaper would be prohibited from purchasing one of the top four TV stations in the same market, thereby forcing the company to gobble up the lesser-known, possibly independent broadcasters instead. Pheew. Just when you thought the fox was in charge of the hen house...

In fact, what is the big deal if a few corporations own all of the major news sources in your area? It's not like the same companies control the production and content of those sources. If that were the case, you would surely have noticed it by now. Instead, who doesn't enjoy the remarkably diverse local flavor of, say, radio stations when driving from place to place in the country? You don't hear the same music and the same pre-recorded fake chummy chatter no matter where you go. No sir, from here to Hicksville, it's different pre-recorded fake chummy chatter. A veneer of local color isn't going to fool anyone. How could it?

Consider an example that's close to home--my home, anyway. WTSA is a southern Vermont radio station operating in the Brattleboro region. Until three weeks ago, one of its DJs, John Ashley, had worked there since November 1984, for much of that time doing the 3-7 afternoon drive, running the popular, encyclopedic survey of oldies on Saturday mornings (6-10 am), bantering (some might say bickering) with co-host John Clarke, and talking with, rather than at, over two decades worth of local, loyal listeners, ages three to 93. All of it live. As noted by a Dec. 2 blogger at ibrattleboro.com, their radio audience was not a narrowly defined subpopulation targeted by advertisers, but the Brattleboro community at large. It was the issues, needs and tastes of that community, conceived as broadly as possible, that John A. and John C. tried to respond to. In the process, over their decades of local involvement, each came to embody the intricate co-evolution of person with community that the pre-recorded pastiche of mass-produced corporate programs can only parody, not imitate. Of course, the price of their community-involvement shtick is that it's not "cutting edge," with all the whimsy, all the passing fads, all the gloss both bright and shiny, that "cutting edge" implies. You've got your choice between superficial luster and a potentially deep and enduring relationship. Only one of them takes time, effort, thought, or commitment. One of them only takes money.

How could multimedia conglomerates compete with that, local veneer or no? Or, in other words, why worry about changes in arcane FCC rules when, in the end, the choice is obvious? You've got depth, history and commitment on the one hand and chintz on the other; relationships that have developed and matured over decades, or, if you prefer, the practiced, pretended familiarity that polled well with appropriately representative focus groups of the target subpopulation in the community. The choice is between content that reflects individual personalities and interests, and content that reflects the glare and grind of the latest, corporate-sponsored billboard. Truly, this is a choice for only the most discerning.

To the relief (one suspects, perhaps, the glee) of your friendly local multimedia conglomerate, the new ownership at WTSA put their discernment on display last week by giving John Ashley a gentlemanly twenty minutes' notice. (John Clarke, sensing the drift of progress, had already moved on.) Under this new regime, Brattleboro can look forward to what promises to be an entertaining if short-lived spectacle: the locally-owned radio station trying to compete against corporate media by remaking itself in corporate media's image! It's a novel strategy, rather like David putting aside his sling and taking on Goliath mano-a-mano. I can only applaud the spirit and bravado of the new owners, not only for their ceremonious disposal of the obsolete, but, even at such risk to themselves, for their embrace of the new: it's cheap, but it's shiny.

The new owners have also given me some perspective. Why make a big deal about an obscure FCC rule change? It's irrelevant when the things and the people worth fighting for are instead just thrown away.