Internet is seen as a viable competitor to TV, radio and newspapers 

There's something special about the U.S. Federal Communications Commission. Just typing those words or pronouncing them makes my eyelids droop, my head nod downward, and drool form at the corners of my mouth. It's almost better than counting sheep. But boring as the FCC may be [yawn], the coming "Review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996" on June 2 [zzzzzz] will likely allow more big media companies to get bigger, with newspapers allowed to buy TV stations in the same market. Now that's a wakeup call for the media watchdogs.

Any change in media ownership rules usually boils down to a simple conservative/liberal divide: the unfettered free market should decide who owns what; or, there aren't enough media outlets controlling what we see on TV and hear on the radio. So far, the Internet has been brought up by the FCC and proponents of the rule changes as a valid competitor to TV, radio and newspaper. But Salon.com's Farhad Manjoo basically lays out the argument for why his own site -- an independent news source -- is no match for TV or newspapers in mass media influence.

But Manjoo touches briefly on the chief irony in the debate right now: The Net itself is playing an important role in helping the opposition to FCC rule changes get their message across. In other words, people like Eli Pariser at progressive lobby site MoveOn.org are tallying the people who oppose rule changes on their online petition (180,000), and taking donations online (4,700 people giving $180,000), while also saying "it's sad we have to resort to this medium." Pariser is dead-on when he tells me that "most Americans get their news from TV and radio, and not the Net," and that general interest sites like Salon and Slate are not reaching most Americans.

Then again, MoveOn's online efforts helped push the story to the front page of the Washington Post yesterday, with reporter Frank Ahrens noting that there were "hundreds of thousands of e-mails and postcards urging the FCC to put off a decision." The issue is not so simple, and opposition for the ownership rule changes comes from conservative and liberal groups. But will consolidation change the online media landscape, already dominated by large media Web sites? And will the small fries still have a voice?

A new second tier online

The answers are hard to come by because few people know exactly what will happen after the rule changes go into effect (the odds of the FCC putting off changes are between slim and none). Those that oppose consolidation believe that fewer owners of more media will trickle down to online media, as adjuncts to so many big media companies. But administration officials and some conservatives like to point to the power of independents online.

"On the Net, you can go to Google News and get access to over 4,000 news sources," says Richard Diamond, the deputy director of media relations for the FCC. "You can get the perspective of the BBC, Al-Jazeera, it's not limited to one point of view. Plus there are cases of stories appearing on the Net first, major stories being broken there." Diamond admits that the Net isn't ubiquitous yet, but does have an impact. Even though there hasn't been a Web-only media powerhouse yet, he says, there still could be one.

James Gattuso of the conservative Heritage Foundation hadn't really stopped to consider the effects of rule changes on the Net, but thought they could have a slightly positive effect. "Cross-investments could be a good thing for competition, by bringing mid-level players into competition with the bigger ones," he said. "Online journalism is growing so fast, and market share is really less important than the opportunity there. Plus, when you type in 'media ownership' or 'media consolidation' in Google, you get page after page of people's arguments. A lot of people say their voice isn't being heard, but they dominate on Google and Yahoo searches."

The most interesting aspect of the rule changes could be an increase in converged newsrooms that share resources to create stronger Web presences. Jonathan Dube, publisher of CyberJournalist.net and senior producer at MSNBC.com, sees this as the main impact online. "We may see more local sites like tbo.com, the excellent Media General site in Tampa that serves as the online home for both the Tampa Tribune and WFLA," he told me. "If that happens, we'd see more robust local news sites -- with better ability to package newspaper and video content -- but we might also see fewer local news sites and thus less competition."

More resources or less?

There's also a cynical way of looking at media consolidation and its effect online. Say more big media companies buy up more outlets and lower the number of highly trafficked news sites online. That means less big media viewpoints, and perhaps paves the way for the alternative viewpoints to be heard. Could less be more for the voices in the wilderness?

MoveOn's Pariser doesn't buy into this argument and notes that "we reach only a fraction of the audience that [big media] do." He sees the problem online being the proliferation of niche sites -- geeks reading about geek news, non-profits reading about non-profits -- and no general interest sites taking hold where geeks can read about non-profits.

One thing seems certain: Change is coming to the media landscape, and it could well change the online media landscape. Media General, which runs the Tampa Tribune and other media properties, sent me a statement about the FCC rule changes and its plans for the future.

"Our experience in Tampa, where we are our industry's leading practitioner of convergence, demonstrates that local communities can be better served by the common ownership of newspapers and TV stations," the statement read. "The combined resources of both platforms can more effectively provide faster and higher quality local news to the community... When the FCC rule changes, we plan to swap and purchase newspapers and broadcast stations. Our goal is to advance our convergence and clustering strategies in the Southeast. We will be interested only in properties that provide growth in revenues, operating profit and cash flow."

So big "converged" newsrooms are coming to a town near you, and perhaps deeper local sites -- but layoffs and less competition could be a by-product.