http://money.cnn.com/2003/06/02/news/companies/fcc_rules/index.htm Sad, sad, sad day. Can ANYONE honestly defend how this whole affair was handled? From Powell Jr. (a prick if you ask me) holding ONE public hearing on the most significant change to media ownership rules in 50 years to the Media refusing to cover this story for fear that the American people might have objected....this is a truly sad chapter in American history. I have the feeling that 20-30 years down the line this decision will be looked at in the lens of history as alot bigger than people realize now.
I find this to be sad myself. These rules were set in place to prevent monopolies from setting up in the media. Now, Ted Turner can buy up a few networks and push his agenda. Rupert Murdoch can buy more networks to push his agenda and so on. Pretty soon the medial will either be just left wing or just right wing and no in-between.
When I was growing up and wanted to get the news my choices were pretty much: 1. TV news from either ABC, CBS or NBC. 2. Local newspaper (usually not a ton of choice there either) 3. Radio (*yawn*) Now I have all of the above plus cable which has Msnbc, CNN, C-Span and FNC. Plus the internet which has news from dozens of countries and political perspectives. And the internet only really emerged after Duran Duran had already started singing about Too Much Information. So should I really start being concerned about a dearth of information sources?
Here's what Ted has to say on the issue: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56132-2003May29.html
Glad to see hyperbole is alive and well on bigsoccer. I lend this about as much credence as the theory that we need agricultural subsidies to prevent a global conspiracy by agribusiness to hike up prices.
What's amazing is the spin that's being put on this even after it's all done. The FCC's official News Release announcing what we all knew has occurred is entitled "FCC Sets Limits on Media Concentration" with the subtitle "Unprecedented Public Record Results in Enforceable and Balanced Broadcast Ownership Rules." I wouldn't say that every aspect of this has been a joke, but it's been pretty damn close. The fact is that, while the FCC generally works from a "means justifying the end" principle where the result is pre-ordained and then the R & O is written to uphold what has come down from up on high, it's like the Commission took active pains to avoid what 90 percent of the public wanted to happen. Even the so-called "public hearings" were a farce. Adelstein and Copps tried to do right, but in the end, there was basically still 1/2 a day of the usual policy wonks and hired guns you'd see lobbying the Commissioners every day anyway followed by a 1/2 day left for the public to comment. It was a nightmare, and do you think the public's statements that came after lunch and 3 hours of testimony got the attention they deserved? Not a chance.
Re: Re: FCC Relaxes Rules Or from where I sit, there will be either right-wing media or slightly-less-right-wing media. That said, there is still plenty of alternative media sources. We need to very consciously seek out that media, rather than just switch on the mainstream tube, which will just chant Bush's agenda ad nauseum.
Oh Really Colin? You know something is amiss when the NRA and Moveon.org agree on something... You know something is wrong when the FCC has admited that public comment was 97%!!!! against it. A recent examination of 9,360 comments available on the FCC's Web site found 97 percent opposed to further deregulation. After weeding out meticulous position papers in favor of deregulation filed by lobbying groups and attorneys for private companies, researchers from the Future of Music Coalition were able to identify just 11 private citizens who wrote in support of Powell's consolidation agenda. That 97 percent mark will go up to more than 99 percent, because this week 105,000 National Rifle Association members buried the FCC with comments in opposition to further media mergers. The NRA is nervous that greater consolidation will mean liberal, "gun hating" companies will control the news. At the same time, MoveOn.org, the liberal grassroots organization that sprang up in opposition to President Clinton's impeachment, is preparing to deliver an anti-consolidation petition to the FCC next week. That petition will boast approximately 180,000 signatures Eric Boehlert, Salon Magazine Clear Channel now owns 1,225 Radio Stations, approximately 970 stations more than its closest competitor had. Now they can move into television, intenet and newspaper. This all happened after the 1996 Telecomunications Act. Doesn't this make you at ALL NERVOUS?
One hearing. Powell takes 44 junkets on the industry dime. Murdoch, supporting the war and the new rules, will get the OK to buy DirectTv, whereas Justice killed EchoStar's request to do the same. Clear Channel, another favorite of the Bushes, orchestrates an outrage against the Dixie Chicks. Democracy in action.
You're aware that if EchoStar had bought DirecTV, that would have eliminated one of two DBS platforms, right?
If the ownership limits were still 12-12-12 and Networks weren't allowed to own their primetime programming (like back before Fox came around), this might be true, but considering ownership limits have been chipped at for years, you're just confirming Colin's statement about hyperbole.
I'm with Colin on this one. There's virtually an unlimited number of news sources available now. Things will only get better. http://www.onlinenewspapers.com/
And you understand the inherent contradiction that letting Murdoch expand, then? Fine, stop a merger of platforms. But then let local markets get engulfed? No matter how deep Murdoch/ News Corp/ Fox gets into a market this Administration will not stop them.
Murdoch's stuff isn't even journalism. They are simply driving an agenda. They are essentially the Bushies PR agency. Brilliant, isn't it. Does anyone have any doubts that they won't fix the next election, too?
Wow, that's an incredibly scientific way of measuring public sentiment. Not. Well, if Clear Channel's stations start playing music I don't like I'll sign up for XM.
FWIW, Trent Lott yesterday came out against this. And really, that's not too surprising given his constituency. The changes in the law hurt smaller markets like Jackson, MS more than the big cities like NY and DC. National and global news will always be available through a variety of diverse outlets, but if local news becomes more concentrated than it is now, people in smaller cities will be reduced to as little as three media companies -- and that includes all mass media: radio, TV, and newspapers, since they will all integrate. With all that said, I've never been too concerned about this because it doesn't affect people in the NY Metro market nearly as much. I don't listen to ClearChannel radio, I don't read the NY Post, and I rarely watch local news. But people in other cities may have a very different view of this, and I'm interested to hear how things go for the next couple of years.
Re: Re: Re: FCC Relaxes Rules Then I'll sign up with Sirius radio. If they buy Sirius then I'll listen to college radio. If they buy college radio (!) I'll listen to internet radio like Spinner.com. Do you see how ridiculous your position is? The notion that the apocalypse is upon us because the FCC raised ownership limits from 35% to 45% -- which apparently will result in the complete ownership of every single media outlet in the world within 10 years -- is completely absurd.
Re: Re: Re: Re: FCC Relaxes Rules That's all fine for you but there has to be some concern for the families that actually rely on something like over the air radio for news and diverse entertainment. They can't afford XM, Sirius or Internet radio. They're the ones being left out in the cold and and they're the ones who need the free, over the air media that the FCC claims it is trying to save.
Colin, you have to recognize that there's a difference between national media and local media. Virtually all of the alternatives you list are national, but the real changes (if any - like I said, I'm willing to take a wait-and-see approach on this) are going to be felt locally. When two of the five network affiliates, the #1 selling newspaper, and the top 2-3 radio stations in a single mid-sized market (St. Louis, Tampa, Jacksonville, Charlotte, etc.) are owned by the same company, I don't think that fosters a diversity of public opinion. And remember, we are talking about the public airwaves - they're not buying and selling private assets, they're buying and selling things that belong to us in the first place. Are you, like me, willing to take another look at this in, say, two years to see how it's affected local media, or are you so dead set for dereg that no outcome could change your viewpoint?
Re: Re: Re: Re: FCC Relaxes Rules I don't really think my position is that "ridiculous". I will agree it is next to impossible for ONE owner of all media, but three or four conglomerates is not far fetched. I'm more concerned about access for everyone as not every American can listen to internet radio as they can't afford a computer, or XM, or Sirrus. What you are proposing is allowing the can of worms to be opened hoping that none will slime their way out. I say we just keep the lid on.