Slashdot Mirror
FCC Approves Media Consolidation
evenprime writes "You can expect more media consolidation in the future. CBS is reporting that the FCC has approved the media deregulation that was previously discussed on Slashdot. Expect Clear Channel, Viacom and their kin to get bigger, and the radio to have even less diversity (a situation that some people think is responsible for falling CD sales)."
...and no rules to bind them...
I gave up watching TV and listening to the radio long ago. There's simply nothing good on anymore, and the radio has been crap for years. I'm sure many of you feel the same way.
RaGe
We're all just noise on the wires..
That's all I have to say about that.
More to the point, is there anyone, ANYONE at all who thinks this is a good idea besides the peeps at the top who stand to get more money?
GeekNights!
Late Night Radio for Geeks!
"If I were a record seller, I'd lay heaps of blame on radio, which used to be 80 per cent of the reason people bought music. ..... Today, that figure is closer to 20 per cent, insiders say."
I know the radio sucks, but I had no idea that the record industry felt the same way. Seems like everything to do with music needs a remodel.
"I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
Neo-conservatives strike again! Thanks Mr. Powell!
The continuing decline of the overall quality of US radio has been my primary motivation in finding alternative music sources. I tried shoutcast and spinner as well as some of the smaller webcast groups. Eventually, I just started listening to Radio 1 from the BBC. This now streams into my home 24/7 as well as my laptop at work. I have never looked back. Hopefully as folks start becoming more disgusted by the dumbed-down and monotonous crap that Clear Channel pumps into Everytown, USA, folks will start to look abroad for entertainment. The music is out there, you just have to look beyond the borders.
Here ya go!
Radio 1 - Rock and Pop
Radio 1 Xtra - Rap and Hip Hop
Some of the music is exactly what you hear in the US on Clear Channel stations, but there is a hell of a lot more music-base to generate the playlists.
While you're there, be sure to read/stream the news. CNN has been becoming even more remarkable selective in what they post lately. Another symptom of the disease that infects the deregulated media industries.
Enjoy!
they will realize they made a mistake
It's strange indeed that the over-the-air broadcasters successfully complained about the threat of cable, when GE, Disney, Viacom and Fox are hip-deep in cable properties themselves. Gotta love them lobbyists!
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
I like all kinds of music.
As long as the radio plays both top-40 and pop, it doesn't really matter to me.
Best Windows Freeware
deserve's got nothing to do with it...
Perhaps it will be up to PBS to step up and become a real news source much like NPR is on the radio. (True NPR as its own biases, but they seem much less pronounced than any of my alternatives.)
So I guess we can expect more of the Clear-channel-tells-me-what-I-want-to-listen-to shit, huh?
Fantastic.
See here.
The media are already too big not to offer the same rehashed content over and over again... and yet they want to merge...
Note that authors and other content providers usually work in small teams that can fit in most small board rooms (a large-sized university class could hold anywhere from 5 to 15 TEAMS in comfort...)
Yet the content owners want to merge their teams of lawyer to sue everyone else more effectively. They also happen to become the corporate equivalent of "unions" when negotiating contracts with the content providers...
And our governments don't fine them a million for each time they think about merging instead of providing exciting, valuable content for which most of us would pay...
Has Powell, at ANY point, actually outlined how he thinks that allowing for further broadcast television consolidation will help it compete with cable? I could have SWORN the main reason people get cable was for the diversity of the programming.
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
Sounds like it's time to start maintainin
a list (web site, blog...) of the
non-alignend radio & TV stations....vote
with your tuner.
...I think I am going to be sick.
Clear Channel getting bigger won't be good for anyone. Now the RIAA will have more power to fight file sharing, while ignoring the fact that the reason they aren't selling as many records is because most of what the push out is complete and utter fertilizer.
(/local/home/curiosity)-#who -u|grep thecat|cut -c 44-49|xargs kill -9
It increases the ownership from 35% to 45%, but prevents mergers from the big 4 (Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC). I'm not sure the % increase would make a huge difference anyway, but by not allowing the big guys to merge will keep some semblance of diversity in programming. That's assuming you think there is currently any diversity in OTA offerings.
Also the radio markets are still limited to a max. of 8 in markets of 45 or greater stations. Same issue as above, if there is no variety now, how in the world are they going to make it much worse?
-- Rick
There are a few independent radio stations left that are quite popular and financially successful: FM 107.3 "The Wave" Smooth Jazz in the Cleveland area is quite popular and gives away daily two tickets to a tropical vacation.
All those found conversing with the thought criminal will be treated in the same manner. Have a nice day. Or else.
Fine by me. In fact, maybe more than fine. If the entire modern entity that is radio wants to specialize and specialize further, when tech changes enough, they're gonna fall hard, just like any other entity that adapts itself to one set of conditions and attempts to preserve it.
Tweet, tweet.
We can finally get Hal... er.. that is, Carson Daily to bring a digitized... er, again, I mean a personalized local Top 20 program to Temple, TX! Howard Stern will start pushing Textile Fabrication Vermont Teddy Bears to the local Wilsonart guys! It's a great day to be an American!
With media conglomerations owning local channels, there is no incentive to provide news with a local slant. Thus, no one will hear about local issues. Since (thanks to the incredible human intelligence) nothing exists unless we see/hear it, small cities will cease to exist. I say that only partially in jest, but think about how many local issues that get squashed because it conflicts with a more profitable (in the minds of the corporate master) slant? Local environmental impact? Oh, no. Mustn't give that airtime lest it impact the profit machines in the big cities. Also, how about this for a twist on the first amendment? Condider offensive material. People in different areas have different standards, and THAT'S OK. If your city believes that the Golden Girls are the harem of Satan, it should be able to keep Golden Girl re-runs off their local stations. More power to'em. We shouldn't force global culture to be homogenous, even in the name of "Free Speech" and equal access. Ahh... yet more reasons for rejoicing in our household. We have taken our media budget (TV, movies, etc...) and plowed it into books and other activities.
Deregulation of the conglomerates will limit diversity and stifle competition. If the big companies aren't restrained, they will simply push out the smaller competitors.
ok troll, but the consumer is also a producer (or else, he has no money to consume), and economies of scale always hurt the employement.
Word Axis
Does this affect XM as well? Most of the mainstream radio stations play garbage (except for classic rock :). However most satellite radio stations (XM) or music TV stations (the channels you get with digital cable) usually play a good variety. Anyone know what will happen here?
somebody sets up 'public access' style internet TV? IPv6 has great multicast handling, and we're getting more and more bandwidth at home. We essentially have all the tools, and millions of potential channels. Anything you want to watch, when you want to watch it, all for the price of cable or dsl.
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
The party in power has now purchased 24/7 favorable media coverage in the upcoming election - and didn't have to spend a dime. How about them apples, Senator McCain and Senator Feingold?
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
Now we get to see one point of view on all the media, this sucks.
Watch, soon Microsoft or AOLTW will just buy every news channel in the country and then begin to spam us with propaghanda..
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Step One: Build a Media Empire.
Step Two: Buy out the US Government
Step Three: ????
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Soon, there will only be a single, united group of consolidated conglomerates, where it will be impossible to discern if what you are watching is entertainment, news, or just a clever marketing ploy. The saddest part of all is that the average citizen doesn't know or care. From American Idol to soundalike "Gangsta Rap," -trademark used by permission of ClearChannel - it is a seamless integration into our culture, where we are being trained by the richest 1% to be complacent with whatever is produced. The ultimate goal is to turn our lives into an MTV frenzy.
And it is working.
During the Iraq war I heard it said that the Iraqis had state run media, controlled entirely by the government.
We have corporate controlled media. Which is worse, I wonder?
Like figuring out which dildo hurts least going in...
"Regulations in the radio business, on the other hand, were actually tightened in some areas to limit the number of stations that a company can own in one market."
Doesn't make sense, since Bush is chummy with Clear Channel... In any case, if its true thank god, radio conglomerates are ruining America.Visualize the world of wine
One thing that disappoints me about this, is that the vote was on party lines, with Republicans on one side and Democrats on the other. Are Republicans (generally) really in favor of simultaneously deregulating while continuing to grant the government-backed monoplies that prevent free market competition? Or is this just the usual case of whoever-happens-to-be-in-power being corrupt, where Republicans (the people, I mean, not the politicians) are shaking their heads at how they've been sold out? Republicans, please answer: are you getting what you wanted, or are you being betrayed by poseur "Republicans"?
Or have you not figured it out yet, so you're suffering from a vague uneasiness that you can't explain? ;-)
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
What isn't mentioned is that there is growing bipartisan distaste for this ruling. Trent Lott and several democrats have spoken out against it and are talking of bringing the issue to congress. Hopefully more republicans will jump off ship and support Lott and the others.
-Sean
Just remember kids... we created these media monopilies so you don't have to worry about complex choices and hard moral decisions. Just twitch when Clear Channel tells you to. Also remember to support their advertisers, and nobody will get hurt.
Republican Michael Powell, the chairman of the five-member FCC board, said the new rules are more likely to withstand legal challenges than the old rules, which had been rejected by U.S. courts.
Michael Powell is the son of Colin Powell in case you didnt know.
This means that in the future, the government will now only have to write one letter or make one telephone call to one board of directors of a single company to control the flow of propaH^H^H^H^H news throughout the entire usa.
They are already controling what you see on the news; read about it here.
And I quote:
(March 22):....it is not conducive to maintaining an overall neutrality in the Palestine uprisings to show any pictures of the American peacenik that was run over by the Israeli army bulldozer. This is only to be mentioned as a "tragic accident" for which the IDF "is truly saddened."
(Feb 10)....It is not permitted at this point to use or refer to any film clips, stills or articles emanating from any French source whatsoever.
The consolidation of these powers in the hands of a single person, say the person who inherits Murdoch's empire is truely firghtening, not only for the citezenry of the USA, but for the whole world, because now any flagrantly law violating military action can and will be sold to the american poplulation, and subsequently exported anywhere in the world, justified with bald faced lies transmitted through this consolidated and all powerful deception machine, which the Neocons are building.
Even Ted Turner is against this. It is a huge tragedy for the USA and the world, no doubt about it.
The BBC is a government subsidized quasi-monopoly. Using the BBC as a good example when it comes to media consolidation is abolsutely stupid, since they stand for what we are NOT wanting to happen to US media.
I love KEXP, the student run radio station associated with the Experience Music Project out of Seattle. Check them out at http://www.kexp.org/ It's listener supported (I'm a member) but free to all.
So, go out and get an Audiotron, and toss your AM/FM receiver in the trash.
As far as this latest ruling goes. It sucks. What needs to happen is radical change that vastly changes the value of the spectrum that people are using. Once these companies merge they'll be impossible to pull apart.
I think right now we need to free up more spectrum for public use, plus defend the WiFi space from being totally commercialized. Perhaps them we can have low cost bandwidth available everywhere and help keep us free from the monopolization of the airwaves.
The other avenue to fight back involves bringing back many of the FCC rules on community service, and the fairness doctrine. Fat chance, but worth writing and calling your congress-critter...
it was so hard for the bush administration to manupulate all these news sources so that they publish their version of the news stories. hopefully, the Iraq-War III would have better coverage suitable for Bush Jr-III (does such beast exist?) administration. now it will only require 5 phone calls to media head to tell them what to publish.
as for myself, i read domestic media only for domestic news. all international news, i get through foreign sources exclusively which are not tied to any US multinational sources.
The people are ignorant, why give more power to people like the RIAA and other corperations to rule over people lives?
Like I said most people are ignorant and they believe whatever the box says to them.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Jukebox Jihad
That whole comment and the "What would Elvis do to stop piracy?" really annoys me to death. The Jihad comment for taking the word of the month (you know, terror, evil people, so on, so forth), and appling it to something that doesn't relate in the least.
Why doesn't the industry start talking about real leaks in their profits? Bad press for suing kids for $97 billion comes to mind, a price fixing scandal in the mid 90's gets on that list too, but above all, the state of music, the state of repetative crap that continues to be put out... it's like if 31 flavors determined that most people liked choclate and vanilla. You could get those two and only those two flavors at the counter. The others were still available, but you would have to go to black-market 31 flavors to enjoy it, all the while being called a criminal for spending money you never would have spent if you never made the effort to look for more flavors in the first place.
The industry must nevertheless also content itself with conducting business on a more modest scale, painful though the process might be. No one needs to spend in excess of $40 million on a record, as Sony did with Michael Jackson's 2001 flop, Invincible, for instance, when the White Stripes can muster a hit record for $10,000.
That's because the White Stripes is good, and Michael Jackson is getting old. By the way, I like how they skip mentioning that the "flop" sold many millions of records, just not on the same scale as previous, and I don't believe that "Elephant" (latest White Stripes) has cracked 1 million sold anywhere yet...
SecondPageMedia - Wha
..this puts the power back where it belongs, in the hands of the general public. I don't know about you folks, but I can't stand the government doing everything for me. GET THE HELL AWAY FROM ME, I'll stand up for myself should I need to.
What I'm worried about is this: Are we, the general public, capable of sending the right messages to the large corporations, or are we cattle, following where we are led, buying what we are told to buy.
Welcome to life under the Republicans. Please remember this blatant, greedy power-trip in November 2004. Thank you.
Globe199
When I hear a good song on the radio, I quickly get a pen to write the title down. But guess what? They never name it. Another cd sale lost.
Only the most popular (top ten) singles are treated fairly (artist and title given).
I know I can use the numerous electronic appliances sucha as sattelite tv ) that will enable this but simple radio is much more mainstream.
I, for one, welcome our new Clear Channel overlords.
Oceania is now allied with Eastasia. Oceania has ALWAYS been allied with Eastasia.
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
Reference to Paranoia?
My journal has hot
Has anyone else heard this statistic or know where I can find a source in print?
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
is that it is just an FCC rule and given time it can be changed easily...unlike a law passed by congress.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
just my two cents:
t shitshitshitshitshitshitshi tshitshitshitshitshitshitshitshitshitshitshitshits hitshitshitshitshitshitshitshitshitshitshitshitshi tshitshitshitshitshitshitshitshitshitshitshitshits hitshitshitshitshitshitshitshitshitshitshitshitshi tshitshitshitshitshitshitshitshitshitshitshitshits hitshit
1c: shit
2c: shit
and an extra dollar as a tip:
shitshitsh itshitshits hitshits hitshits hitshitshitshitsh itshitshitshits hits hitshitshitshitshit shitshitshitsh itshitshitshitshitshitshitshitshitshitshitshitshi
america is certainly leading the way.
i'm going to invest in a bomb shelter in a few years, starting up a eco-collective and ignore the rest of the suffering world.
considering what huge impact media has, this seems like another nail in the coffin of whatever free speech remained in the states.
i'm sure the rest of the world will soon follow.
now we can all just sit back and enjoy the war with eurasia.
crap. i'm going back to reading sci-fi, and pretending the rest of this shit-for-brains world doesn't exist.
f64 : ranting and raving at the same time!
option 1: don't despair, organize! option 2: resistance is futile, despair!
The agency was also six months behind on completing its biennial review. Under a congressional law, the FCC is supposed to revisit its media rules every two years. ... and some urged the agency to ignore its deadline.
Revisiting the rules so frequently gives too much opportunity for rules to relax to quickly.
It's like continually asking the question "were we right?", then rolling the dice.
It's a complex issue, requiring lots of information to be collected and assessed. If this is rushed, it makes it too easy to make a bad call.
To badly paraphrase "the progress of a society cannot be increased just by speeding it up".
I think the Ents had it right.
Esteem isn't a zero sum game
(There is of course the need to make something that doesn't suck.)
sulli
RTFJ.
Is that this is a good thing for content producers. Think of it this way:
When consumers major media outlets completely cease to produce anything other than plain gelatin in terms of content, who will fill the void? More and more media choices are available every day. Even through the mainstream channel of cable and satellite options, there are more choices and more content produced.
When people find something creative and appealing, it will give a leg up on the regurgitated reality fare offered by the major players.
Anyone who thinks that they get the straight scoop from any major outlets - NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, Fox News, slashdot.... - needs to have their preconceptions evaluated.
The future of broadcasting is not to be found in the major media outlets. They will be left behind by the next generation of media. It's coming, and making programming more mindless will only hasten the death of TV as we know it.
This could be a great thing.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
Im sure the fact that this passed had absolutely nothing to do with the $2.8 million travel tab that FCC officials have been showered with by the people they are supposed to regulate. Not a thing. Does anyone except the people that stand to profit from this really think its a Good Thing?
no
. . . that all news will become Fair and Balanced!?
Or is that Fairly Unbalanced?
Dan Gillmor wrote a column in advance of this decision, worth a read at http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/598 9915.htm
Im glad you like it,
but please don't forget its the British taxpayer/licence payer thats paying for your enjoyment,
is that really ideal or should you put your efforts into your own public radio at your own countries expense ?.
We dont begrudge it , but iam sure many licence payers wouldnt be so keen if they said on the next payment
"oh btw we raised the price 50 quid as 20 million Americans want to use our resources too"
unfortunatly at some point the BBC will have to draw the line (geo-location etc) they cannot keep increasing bandwidth for non UK residents/citizens without someone picking up the tab.
It's like asking "How will this affect HBO's fall lineup?"
150 years ago, 80+% of the work force was on farms, growing food.
Today, it's less than 3%.
According to your thinking, 77% of the work force is unemployed. Oops, no they got higher paying jobs elsewhere.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
So, there are going to be two possible things that can come of this: One, the media companies will be effective at giving people what they want. In this case, both consumers and the media companies win.
The other option is that media companies are not effective at giving people what they want. In this case, people will stop listening to them and the media companies will lose. Consumers will lose a little in that the radios in their cars will become pretty much useless. However, they'll be able to branch out into other forms of entertainment -- DVDs, video games, independent music, web surfing, and so on. The real winners will be the companies that figure out how to give consumers what they want.
I think that one can make a pretty good argument that the media ownership rules have outlived their usefulness. When each city only had 4 TV stations, a dozen radio stations and one newspaper, the rules made some sense because it guaranteed a wider variety of information and entertainment. But now, if I don't like what's on my local radio station, I can stream music from some independent station across the country. If I think the news from my local ABC news/newspaper/6 favorite radio stations is biased, there are a thousand options for me on the internet.
I'd argue that local broadcast media (TV/radio) and local newspapers are something of an anachronism anyway, for everything but the local stuff. I don't receive the local paper, because I can go online and read the news (for free). I rarely watch network TV because I have 50 cable stations and I'd rather watch Comedy Central than ABC.
To me, this seems to be equivilant to complaining about how few choices we have in bus and train transportation, while ignoring the fact that we have so many choices in cars, motorcycles, scooters, bicycles, airplanes, taxis, rollerskates, subways and so on.
Probably the most significant statement surrounding all this was made by Viacom Stations Group head Fred Reynolds, quoted in a NY Times story (frrbbb): "We're in the business of making money." So much for the public interest, convenience and necessity.
I agree. This is horable.
This obsession with "Diversity" in everything in American Life by some of the liberal elites is strange.
There are already a wide range of views and opinions on all media forms, but for some, they hate that a few have such disproportionate share of the audience.
I say, what the hell is so wrong with this?
You can't force people to watch or read something they don't want, but these diversity types would have you think that somehow your choices are being limited by some strange powerful force.
In this age of the Internet, anybody can be publisher, broadcaster, or viewer, so these rule changes reflect this new reality we live in.
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
Just a friendly reminder to try your local national public radio stations. Although these stations aren't typically going to play current new music, often they do indeed run programs which feature new artists in various genres. Their website's music section, which lists upcomming scheduled music radio programs, reviews, and other things, is here.
At NPR's website, one can enter their zip code and your local NPR frequency will be shown to them.
On a side note, Clear Channel. Good Lord. Anyone here from Cleveland or familiar with the once-mighty WMMS? It was, during the late 60's and throughout the 70's and 80's, a great station. After several takovers and a seeming going-off-the-air-forever-stunt, Clear Channel picked them up. Today it is this pop-metal station that is the same format in every city. It is a really sad skeleton of a once-revolutionary radio station.
Loomis
"The television is the retina of the mind's eye" - Videodrome
seems like you get around a lot
Kidding aside, I absolutely agree with you. I think Dean Kootz put it best in his novel "Sieze the Night" when he stated that the collective intelligence of a family drops 5 IQ points per TV in a household.
We only wish we got diversity of programming. There may be 100's of channels, but there doesn't seem to be enough programing to go around. Far too many channels seem to show the same things. Most shows just seem to be the same thing as another, but with a different cast if you're lucky.
Oh well.
According to this story at Yahoo, News Corp and Viacom are already in violation of the 35% reach rules as a result of mergers:
News Corp. and Viacom Inc., which owns CBS and UPN, stand to benefit from a higher national TV ownership cap because mergers have left them above the 35 percent level. Those companies, along with NBC, persuaded an appeals court last year to reject that cap and send it back to the FCC for revision.
Basically they merged, never divested some stations to become compliant, and have tying up the courts with appeals.
All this FCC decision does is take it out of the courts and make the mega-media companies happy. They have been breaking the rules all along and instead of punishment, they get rewarded. This decision does nothing good for us, the consumers, who OWN the airwaves.
Let us not forget that airwaves, just like public lands, are owned by all of us, the people.
There was a time that in exchange for having a broadcast license, a radio or television station used to have to file reports to show that they were airing programming in the public interest. Now they simply fill out a postcard for the FCC every 5 years or so. Basically they use OUR airwaves for THEIR profit and we get LESS options as a result.
If you want to make change, get out and vote. Call your senator or representative and let them know you are displeased. Believe it or not, they DO listen. They may not respond to every message, but they do keep a tally on how may letters they receive per a given subject and with enough letters, they will do something.
--Jon
From the article: "Record companies should start flooding the Internet with bogus MP3 files that look like songs, but that explode on contact inside the hard drives of Internet thieves. Anyone who illegally downloads an MP3 file via KaZaA or any of the myriad peer-to-peer (i.e. thief-to-thief) services would at best get a corrupted file, and at worst a ruined hard drive."
... the radio provides me with all of the FREE music I can handle. And yes there are a few non-ClearChannel stations left in this country.
Is this guy NUTS! Why does he think destroying someone's private property (i.e. their hard drive) will make them become a customer of the RIAA? I already refuse to buy any CDs because of the whole "enhanced" non-CD garbage. And no I am not "stealing" the music I listen to
yep, i'd give it a troll certainly. the only comment /. made regarding this store was with "from the monopoly-players-pass-go dept." no, one liners about how bad big monopolies are or how big business really sucks and we should all move on to greener pastures of using the wonderfull apt-get except for a win98 partition for games. nope, they're merely posting a story that they probably had submitted 20,000 times and figured the /. crowd wanted a discussion on it.
10,000 radio & TV stations
1,000 channels
100 years of broadcast history
10< owners
And still nothing to watch.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Can't say it enough. KEXP is the best radio station in the country.
Listen to the live stream.
Listen to the streaming archives.
Love music again.
Sure, they can't save TV. But they are saving radio every day of the week.
-r
Just because something is free does not mean you have to take it.
For taking the country your father has been defending and handing it over to us. I'm sure he is proud of you. Love, Verizon
I don't know what the big deal about companies being able to own more stations.
In the old days, it was true that you could only get a few stations from majoy networks, but today we have HUNDREDS of stations on cable, sattelite, and the internet.
If Clear Channel buys 8 out of 45 stations everywhere in the U.S. what's the big deal? Even if they bought EVERY channel what would be the big deal? If you don't like it, don't listen, if people don't listen, they won't be able to get advertisers, if they don't get advertisers they don't get money, if they don't get money, they go out of business. Problem solved!
It's not like T.V. and Radio are a TOOL that you HAVE to use to get your job done (I.E. a car, Windows, etc.). They are entertainment. If people don't like it, they don't need to watch.
"Much work is lost, for the lack of a little more." -Edward H. Harriman
Here in the Philadelphia area we have stations like WXPN as well as a plether of college radio. Between those stations and NPR, I don't even bother with comcerial stations.
Many cities have the like, find something in your area and support it.
If all else fails, join WHYY / NPR.
Now I understand why I could by all those fancy radios at the local dollar store...
Insert Witty Remark Here ===>____________________________
Because the BBC is government subsidized it tries extra hard to be "independent". Unlike, perhaps, FOX, which is "idenpendent" but toes the Bush line most closely. Just look at the Jessica Lynch coverage from the BBC and compare with what you see in the US. Them complain about bias, and compain to FOX
development.lombardi.com
The Good Ol' Boys (of Media) announced today that their formats will now be expanding. "We've got both type of music - country and western."
Double plus good, that! Looks like news, sounds like news, but there's no news in it.
He who controls the media, controls the people.
The BBC do have the advantage that they're a government-funded public service, rather than a profit-making business. In the worst case, that'd make them as bad as you describe, but they seem to have avoided that.
:-)
(They do have pretty serious competition on mainstream TV from the commercial ITV and Channel 4, although commercial radio is bad enough here that the BBC wins by default)
They're often rather critical of the government, actually, and in many disputes they're accused of being biased by both sides, which might well mean they're uncomfortably close to being balanced.
It's amusing to see the grandparent post commenting on Radio 1's larger playlists though, since some of the Radio 1 DJs have been known to complain (subtly, of course) about the commercial crap they're made to play. I hate to think what Clear Channel must be like if that's an improvement
It's no more independent than any other media. In fact, the BBC was charged by one of their own reporters of skewing the news coverage of the Iraq war.
First Fuck the FCC post!
"Jihad" apparently more closely means "Religious obligation". More specifically, the act of charity and help for your fellow believers.
So, instead of "Jihad", think "Bring-and-buy sale". Or "Oxfam", or "Bernados".
I'm already bored by the fact that most radio stations manage to play the same set of 12 songs all day long, over and over and over. A local Clear Channel radio (who else) in Austin even plays the same songs at the same time. So every time I leave home for work, I feel like Bill Murray in "Groundhog day".
Does anyone know of an in-dash CD player without FM radio?
"I suppose you don't like tabloid newspapers either!"
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Thus continues the fall of America into bland mediocrity, and that is at best. I wouldn't be surprised if they manage to kill the new Low Power FM (LPFM) regulation next.
So it seems that the internet will continue to be the only source or real news and music anymore.
Hopefully people will finally get sick of the drudge TV and radio have become and demand things be put back the way they were. I mean seriously, look at what crap cable is now.
I have Time Warner Cable in Cincinatti, the standard cable and it makes me want to puke.
I get a few local channels which of course play crap. I've got CSPAN which comes in full of bars in the image, not that I watch that anyway unless I need to get to sleep fast. I've got three religious channels, which to 95% of the world is unwatchably boring, not to mention I'm not Christian anyway. I've got two PBS channels, which probably are better viewing than most the rest of it put together. A few crap movie channels like TBS and TNN and TNT. Discover channel, comedy central, cartoon network and news. That is IT. Oh and I have nine channels above 70 which show a test pattern 24/7, one of which has someone chanting the local weather over it. I pay about $40 a month for this "privilage".
If it were not the only way to get high speed internet where I am at, I would not even fucking bother with cable. I only wish I had enough techy neighbors to get a bunch of us together and buy our own T1 and set up a wireless neighborhood access point... Sadly, all my neighbors tech expertise ends at giving their John Deere an oil change.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
The BBC's Jessica Lynch "expose" was recently exposed as a fraud.
/.ers make -- thinking that "independent" means "agrees with me."
You make the same mistake a lot of
Too many people are discussing this as though the problem is what it does to diversity. It's not that it will make it harder to find good music (it's already nearly impossible) or that you won't hear a wide enough diversity of opinion (you already don't). It's not about consumer rights, it's about democracy. Concentrated ownership allows them to lie unchallenged. Even if the lies are caught and publicised on political websites, etc., the majority will never hear anything but the lies. Exit democracy, exit a functioning republic.
Behold the riant ape! Beware, his crooked thumbs!
Look on the bright side, kids; people in my area can, between two stations, watch The Simpsons four times on the average weekday, and soon maybe six or ten!
I for one, am quite pleased with this decision. It is a great day for Sienfeld re-reuns.
Bored with karma, be a fan/freak
I strongly disagree with the halfbaked idea that the government should start taking less of my money! How DARE you even suggest such a possibility!
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and this one is no different. While I applaud the intent, the implementation is disasterous.
For starters, the broadcasters have claimed for years that attrition due to cable TV and DBS broadcasters was eating into revenues. True.
They also claimed that this was likely to hurt smaller-market and independent broadcasters the most. True.
What the broadcasters *didn't* tell you is that they own many of the cable channels that are hurting them. So at best, the claim that over-the-air broadcasting is in trouble is only a half-truth. It is in trouble, but they are the ones who have made it so.
The intent of the FCC is to hopefully be able to allow smaller-market and independent stations continued operations because they'll be part of a larger group ownership. This will ostensibly allow the smaller station lower operating and programming costs. True.
Unfortunately, what they don't tell you is that this requires that the independent and local programming be replaced with mass-produced content or full-network programming. It'll also mean loss of jobs as production and operations staff is moved to primary stations.
Worse, this does nothing to solve the original problem. Michael Powell stated in a recent interview that he was concerned that in many markets, you don't get to watch local sports teams without ponying-up $60 for basic cable services. Well Mr. Chairman, I hold the FCC responsible for this problem. First, the Commission let cable companies like Comcast, or mostly-cable outlets like Fox Sports, bid on the rights to sports broadcasts. Not to mention that the FCC simply refuses to reign-in the outrageous costs of cable and DBS services, claiming a free-market will solve the problem.
So instead of fixing what's really wrong, the FCC applies a giant band-aid and sticks head in sand.
So, my home town had an advertising company that had a virtual monopoly on bill boards. It was kind of irritating. Billboard space was very expensive, and it was becoming increasingly difficult for small companies to advertise their services. .. and now a brief tangent ..
.. their goal is to attract the maximum number of eyeballs to their advertising spots. It's all about the advertising. Now, what happens when people loose interest in your single TV channel in a market? You have two options: roll the dice and try to develop a popular TV show, OR, buy another channel, also flooded with crap, but guaranteeing a sharp increase the number of eyes who are looking at your channels. Suddenly, your advertising space becomes much more attractive.
... so, back to our billboards ...
The broadcast industry derives their money from advertising. Their goal is not to provide good programming
Once a company has a monopoly in a closed market (such as broadcast television -- the FCC isn't allocating any more frequencies for that), they no longer have any incentive to produce good programming if they're making enough money from their advertisements.
Clear Channel bought our local monopolistic billboard company, almost as soon as the state (or city, I forget) rubberstamped an approval on their monopoly, and the city no longer lets people build more billboards within the city limits. Another closed market.
Clear Channel now owns a significant percentage of our local radio stations, the majority of our billboards, our major ticket sales systems, and several other major media holdings.
They have no reason to keep prices down, because there are enough big companies and non-profits (read: write offs) here to keep them going strong as they increase their prices due to the recession and/or inflation.
They have no reason to improve their programming.
And now, the chairman of ClearChannel, makes this response to the further deregulation of the broadcast industry:
"Clear Channel is deeply dissapointed with today's FCC vote to re-regulate the radio industry. While the FCC is supposed to act in the public interest, today they missed the mark by a mile."
(from their web site)
Wow. What can I say?
Now my news choices are TV, /., DrudgeReport (aka let's see what's in the Washington Post today), and english.aljazeera.net, if that every comes back up.
You are not the customer.
Go here for the best live stream of a great NPR radio station. Great music variety throughout the day:
WDET
enjoy! I know i do.
Living in the Boston area, I'm blessed by having several college stations to choose from. You won't find a more rich mix of music anywhere on your dial.
****
"I'd never want to join a club that would have me as a member" - G. Marx
Must take blue pill . . .
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
There is no media concentration! Clear Channel controls less than 10% of radio stations. If the worst comes to pass and they double what they control it would still be less than 20% of stations.
Yes, but here in Oregon, they've decided to screw NPR/OPB by not giving them ANY of the state funding they had already budgeted... now would probably be a good time to actually donate to NPR if you like it so much...
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Is it me or are the 1984 quotes so 1994? Orwell would have been for this. This about freedom. Having the government tell you what you can and cannot own in a free market is, well, Orwellian!
Does anyone see this leading to an increase of the number of pirate radio stations here in the US. The psuedo-monopoly that the BBC has is in some ways what caused an explosion in pirate radio stations in the UK. They're everywhere..you can even listen to them online
What will the effect be in this country??
What planet do you live on?
i'm not a troll! i'm a terrorist! f64 : crack remarks while on crack
I, for one, welcome our new Clear Channel overlords.
and the radio to have even less diversity (a situation that some people think is responsible for falling CD sales)
First you try to tell us that the economy is sluggish, so record sales will be slower, and now you're trying to tell me that less diverse advertising means they sell fewer albums. I wish you'd quit trying to use disinformation tactics.
Everybody knows the reason record companies sell fewer records is because of rampant evil music pirates and mp3!
Sincerely,
Joe Newspaper-Reader
Except,
I don't see the option to put limitations back in. So if it does become a monoculture, there isn't much the FCC could do.
I think the only times I've listened to the radio are when I'm in my car ... those couple of seconds between when I turn on the car stero and when i press play on the CD. I think there are maybe two shows that I watch occasionally on regular network TV ... the bulk of broadcast TV is just ridiculous these days. As for print publications, I pretty much just read USnews and world report.
... it's not worth my time anymore so I've got so much more free time to spend on other more productive things ... Now all I need is a-la-carte cable services and I'd be all set.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I kind of like how the media has become consolidated and homogenized
Is the recent mistreatment of the Dixie Chicks. The head of Cumulus Media, which owns 41 radio stations, decided himself that none of the stations would play the Dixie Chicks any more.
See this link for more on this. What we see and hear is decided by corporate heads and lawyers.
Expect to hear (or to not hear in this case) more of this.
I tell you what, let's all just admit that a station is "independent" when it agrees with our views, and "biased" when it does not. I mean, please, the idea that the BBC tries to be independent is just as ludicrous as the idea that FOX is fair & balanced.
I think there would be a whole lot less complaining if CNN still ruled, and now that Fox does, the socialists in this country are scared half to death.
Now I no longer have to decide whether to watch Friends repeat A, Friends repeat B, or Friends repeat C, since all the stations will be showing the same repeat!
/. types are. If you're going to put your money where your mouth is on the whole small government thing, then this is a step in the right direction. Less regulation, less government intrusion on issues that can be handled by the free market. Radio sucks now, so I just don't listen (seriously, I only listen to NPR or nothing now, usually nothing). If more people followed through and put their money where their mouth is, the free market would take notice, and quality programming would return to the airwaves. It's unfortunate that so many people can't live without TV or Radio that they'll watch whatever schlock comes on and just complain about it later.
Seriously though, I've thought long and hard about this. My first knee-jerk reaction was "WHOA! Look what happened to radio! BAD!". But then I thought about it some more. I am a very Libertarian-leaning person, as it seems many
Now I need to go drink some (decaf) coffee.
What exactly have you seen/heard/read during the administration of the FCC by Michael Powell that would indicate to you that any decision they've ever made was done to serve the public interest?
Don't forget NPR along with National Association of Broadcasters has vehemently opposed community microbroadcasting. That coupled with the advertising is enough to keep me from supporting them ever.
As much as I enjoy (some of) their content I think its sometimes better to let something die to give something else the opportunity to fill the vacuum. Or we continue to limp along with the steady Clear Channelization of public radio.
Quack, quack.
I thought the summit was in Switzerland, but the riot spilled over into France, where it sort of petered out because everyone was on strike (well, it is summer) :-)
I don't know whether to be happy or sad.
After all, the more stations a company owns in a given market, the more variety of programming it will provide. Let's look at a contrived example:
The town of Example, TX, has 10,000 residents and 5 licensed commercial broadcast frequencies. 70% of the population like pop, 20% like country, 7% like rap, 2% like disco, and the final 1% like ska. With 5 companies owning the frequencies, we'll get 3 rock and 2 country stations, because that gives everybody the largest possible audience. If we go to 2 companies (we'll call them Clueless and Cheap Channel), we'll get 2 rock, 2 country, and 1 rap. If Cheap Channel buys out Clueless, we'll get 1 station of every type and everyone in town will be happy.
So, as you can see, consolidation is good for variety. And besides, it's not like there were ever any dissenting voices or minority opinions on commercial radio. Those always have been and always will be found below 92 MHz on your FM dial.
The current rule change is just a continuation of rules changes from the past. The worst changes were done years ago when the limit on number of stations owned nationwide was lifted. That allowed radio to become truly homogenous across the country rather than reflecting the local community. Howard Stern in the mornings, Opie and Anthony in the afternoons, pumping out the same show everywhere iva transmitters in cities far and wide. Infinity gets to fire a bunch of staff by automating their stations all over the US. Funny that it cut both ways...when Opie and Anthony caused controversy in NY they got fired and that meant they got fired everywhere. :-)
Although I despise the idea of paying for radio in the car, I hope XM sucks enough listeners from regular AM/FM that the media conglomerates are forced to program for the communities they serve. This is probably a pipe dream since Clear Channel and Hughes/DirecTV is parterned with XM, so little by little all the airwaves are being sucked up (literally).
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
The FCC's next goal is to "deregulate" the Internet. You'll have to pay packets will pay a toll going both directions, rendering the Internet too costly and cumbersome to use. DSL and Cable modem services are capped to 9600 baud. Users stop using the web and email, flock to BBSes in hopes of cheaper data traffic. Again, pr0n pictures take 1 hour to download. The US Postal Service has record sales after SMTP and UUCP are made illegal because they claim to offer "electronic postal delivery services." Deja vu? "Deregulation" is code for government corruption allowing big business to screw customers. Gee, I wonder how these FCC commissioner assholes are going to vote after they just flew in from their 5-day, $10,000, all-expenses-paid vacations courtesy of the industries they are supposed to be regulating.
/. cares, err... who owns them?
The problem is the voters must not know about it, or care enough to do anything. Maybe the media isn't doing its job because it's OWNED BY THESE SAME BIG BUSINESSES!
At least
The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
Give VPRO in the Netherlands a try. They are a free thinking public broadcasting company, and a lot of their radio programs were DJs playing exactly that what they like, and to hell with any listeners statistics. They introduced me to a lot of music I would otherwise never have heard. Haven't been in Holland for a while so I don't know the situation now, but the music on their site is great.
On at least one point...
...this was result of the 2 year anniversary from the last review
The FCC is supposed to review every 2 years, but the last review was actually 8 year ago. In another 8 years things will be pretty awful if the critics are right.
Also, if the media becomes one great big company, who is really going to go up against it? That company would effectively control politics in this country.
I'm keeping my eyes on the boarder for now.
Really, there isn't anything to worry about. ClearChannel wouldn't ever mis-report the news. They are more than happy to even put the news of FCC's "vote to re-regulate the radio industry" right on their home page
Wait, "re-regulate". WTF?
Therefore, you would not only need to setup your own station, but you would have to create the content as well.
And that's what people should do if they don't like corporate media. Come up with something better.
Viacom: I have an announcement!
Clear Channel: What's that?
Viacom: I have seen "The Matrix Reloaded".
Clear Channel: Please continue.
Viacom: It has come to my attention that the power of choice will ultimitely lead to the destruction of the Matrix.
Clear Channel: Interesting.
Viacom: It is my suggestion that we eliminate choice.
Clear Channel: FCC?
FCC: If what you say is true, we must consolidate all media immediately.
Viacom: con..so...li..date?
FCC: We can have all media consolidated in 3 easy phonecalls.
Viacom: Uh...Okay.
Clear Channel: Excellent, well that is settled...So, who's seen the new Xmen?
IMNSHO, this will be the great privatizing of the profits and socialization of cost, and the nationalization of outfits like Clear Channel. I'm glad I'm starting a new newspaper right now, and I wonder if we'll ever get megaconglomerates trying to take us over. (I doubt it.)
What this will likely mean in the short-term is that medium-sized media companies such as Lee Enterprises will get bought up, essentially meaning that newspapers will generally recite only one line, which (through an amazing coincidence) will be the same line you hear on TV and/or the radio. That's just my opinion as a slightly informed media activist; I could be wrong.
It will be interesting to see if there's an upsurge in interest in Indymedia outlets if the FCC votes to allow this. And my feeling is that they will, by a party line, with son-of-Sec. of State General Powell, Michael Powell, giving the key vote allowing it to happen.
That democracy you thought we had actually has been comatose for some time now. This will shoot it in its paralyzed leg.
------
That said, here's a group that's making a difference in fighting the conglomeration: mediareform.net, a group concerned that is concerned how journalism has become dumbed-down entertainment and how shrinking the diversity of media ownership has muted much of the debate and placed an extraordinary degree of economic and social power in a very few hands. (Witness the recent rush to war.)
As always, start looking at your local Indymedia chapter. There's two new ones in Kansas City and Cincinnati that I don't think are on the main site yet.
And have fun.
-- haaz.
...the Golden Rule. You know...he who has the gold makes the rules.
It's rather sad, really. Here's a good example why: My home state is North Dakota. When Grand Forks and Fargo had a three-day ice storm during the winter of '96-'97, there was a radio station in town which 24-7 covered every single piece of news or announcement related to the event. Even with the phone lines down, our high school speech team was able to use the radio to tell everybody back home that we were alright.
On the other hand, a little more than a year ago, Minot (town of about 38,000 people in central North Dakota) had a train carrying anhydrous ammonia (cheap fertilizer) that derailed in the town early in the morning. Everybody instinctively turned on the radio (either after hearing the crash, seeing a huge white cloud of ammonia coming their way, or feeling the smoke burn their lungs) to find out what was going on, only to hear music. Six of the seven radio stations in Minot are owned by ClearChannel. Afterwards, when asked for a comment, ClearChannel said that they were in the business of playing music and selling advertising, not 24-7 local news coverage.
It's about the money.
My Friends, Please know that consolidation will not bring an end to diversity in the media, while all of this was regulated you had 2 or 3 companies in radio and television (ABC, CBS) both of which were tilted to the left; and it was difficult to find opportunities for the other view points to be expressed or squeezed in (Right Wing people; Rush Limbaugh, Fox News) --in the meantime new people with new viewpoints arrived ,also, deregulation happened--
Today we have the NPR(left) in radio and then the array of others , of varying view points now. Furthermore, none of the "EVIL" big corporations would survive and grow if people did not listen and like them.
One could argue that since deregulation, the progressive/liberal media lost its grip on the media and it become more diverse.
Thank you
And just who approved the horrendous Telecommunications Act of 1996 that opened the door to this mess in the first place?
Bill Clinton.
Who signed the DMCA even though he acknowledged it was "probably unconstitutional"?
Bill Clinton.
This isn't an anti-Clinton bash. This is to point out that BOTH parties are responsible for this mess. The corporations have been planning this and buying the legislation they want for a LONG time.
Oh, please. Government subsidized means catering to the people who control the purse string in government.
This is absolutely amazing. Out of one half of their mouths, slashdotters scream government corruption and tyranny (read patriot act) and out of the other half of their mouths preach that only the government can be trusted with stewardship of the media.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Tell me about it... ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, NPR, NYTimes, WashingtonPost... I'm getting tired of being innundated by liberal viewpoints. Its high time for competition!
Just some thoughts.
Wasn't he a supporter of LPFM? Was that just a put-on that he expected to get struck down by congress?
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
The Newspapers, TV Stations, and Radio stations will soon have the same parent company.
In reality this will hurt in that Newspapers will be bought by bigger corporations (clear channel), and the content will be dumbed down, local personalities will be "Right-sized" to control profit margins in place of Market researched personalities.
This hurts, and you will notice the difference. Right now newspapers and newsstations keep each other in check by double-checking facts. Soon you will have one person double-checking facts for the radio, newspaper, and television. You get one slant, one idea, and one perspective from all three. That is where the diversity will be lost. I hope you like reading BBC newspapers over the internet, because soon that's where the best news you get will come from.
I've been listening to Radio 1 Xtra for a while. I find it kind of lame that I have to turn to the British government of all places to hear good hip-hop on the radio when I live in the San Francisco Bay area, #4 radio market in the US. At least we have good college radio.
At this point the only commercial radio I listen to is classical, I can't really see it making radio that much less diverse. At a point advertisers don't want to have to buy time on 5 similar stations.
It doesn't matter, the web is next: soon TimeWarner will instigate QOS, bandwidth caps, preferential routing to make sure you're only streaming the *right* content. It will be achieve via lobbying in Washington, the sheeple will be sold the same BS: "it's a good thing, you'll see". Read Lawrence Lessig to know what I mean. Besides, it's sad because one should not have to listen to foreign media to be informed in his own country.
there's no place like ~
Everybody is using examples of how today's (regulated) media sucks to argue that tomorrow's (deregulated) media will also suck. That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me.
To make matters worse, the review is anti-consumer.
If you look at the Media Access Page, you will see that the federal courts force the FCC to "re-justify every major ownership rule or strike it from the books" every time there is a review.
The problem here is that the same corporations that want the relaxed rules also are among the largest soft-money donors. They buy the legislators and then demand favors.
I'd say you've proven yourself wrong by the fact that your inane rant was summarily modded down into oblivion. Stupidity gets modded down. Seems like a good system to me.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
I'm happy with the way TV is. I look to the internet for some of my news, tv for some, paper for some, watch a bit of TV, enjoy movies and the sexual inuendo that saturates our society (I 3 Boobies) and am a happy, ignorant clam.
Oh, btw, and you 'i dont listen to radio/watch tv so i dont care' folks are just missing out on the magazine/newspaper/website side of things here.
Sig & Below
Yuck Fou
I don't want to say too much right now, because I feel betrayed and I am at the day job. IANACS (I am not a constitutional scholar), but given my limited knowledge, the FCC is supposed to REGULATE wireless communication in the name of the public and for the public good. This is because the airwaves are PUBLIC property. My hope is that people will wake up soon, but I fear this is not going to happen, since conventional wisdom states that most people get their news from one of these major corporations that stands to gain from media consolidation. Strangely enough most people I know don't it seems, maybe I just spend time with like-minded individuals. I was going to make this a completely cynical comment, but several ideas give me hope. 1. People will wake up and realize something is amiss. I believe the people of America can only stomach so much, before they take action. 2. There are still plenty of community driven media outlets, and I think people DO pay attention to them. 3. These companies will get so big they will trip over themselves, and I think this is already happening. Recent Examples of #3: Nullsoft's WASTE Sony Entertainment vs. Sony Electronics Of course, people I associate with may just happen to be more media savvy than most people. It is very likely that the mind of the average American is being underestimated. This issue really makes me want to ask some difficult questions of the powers that be. I may have some more insight into this after listening to the media center staff and board tomorrow morning. Stay Tuned. I'm going back to doing my day job. Disclaimer: I work for a community media center.
Check out my workday freakout suppressant, WFMU--listener-sponsored freeform music, talk, and live music streaming 24/7.
Conspir8or
One day before this FCC vote to relax media ownership restrictions further, Wired News ran this article saying that satellite radio was finally starting to take off in the U.S.
That cannot be a coincidence. Granted, more people are jumping on the XM & Sirius bandwagons because they cost less than before, but still, FM radio these days is so big a vacuum that it has to be filled by something...
Visit me on the web at Permanent4.com.
The article from The [Toronto] Star points out that it's as shitty up here as it is in the U.S..
We used to have a good alt-rock station, called CFNY (102.1 FM). Then, slowly, they started to change. They started to cash-in on their image, calling themselves "The Edge" (tm) and playing more Lenny Kravitz.
Then they were acquired by CHUM-City, which owns Q-107 - the Toronto classic-rock outfit. They actually pretend to compete with each other, which is the most sickening display of market monopoly you can watch. CFNY went as far as to secure the web-domain www.no-stones.com to show their true colours (which in retrospect will only serve to alienate anyone with a wide latitude of musical taste).
Alt-rock radio is dead in Toronto. No more Buzzcocks, no more The Fall, no more pre-"Let's Dance" Bowie. It's as if punk never happened, and post-punk was just a passing 80's novelty.
*sigh*
I guess if the Leafs were in the Cup right now, I wouldn't feel so bad. Unfortunately, 2003 will not be remembered as The Year of Toronto (hello SARS)...at least not for the right reasons.
This wasn't just plain terrible, this was fancy terrible. This was terrible with raisins in it. - Dorothy Parker
I'm rather shocked I haven't seen any complaints about the lack of diversity in news coverage that this will promote. Everyone has been yelling about the lack of diversity in entertainment broadcasting, but compared to news coverage that seems a bit of a minor detail. After occassionally checking out CNN's coverage of the recent war in Iraq I'm rather dismayed at any decision giving more power/control over the airwaves to such organizations. Am I just being a conspiracy theorist to suggest a more sinister potential behind decisions like this? I just can't see how allowing even more centralised control of the media is anything but a death signal for a democratic system.
CNN's one sided coverage of the decision to go to war was apallingly 'patriotic'. If American stations are only going to air news that supports the current administrations position, how can one expect the people as a whole to make informed decisions? Will CNN ever mention the false accusations that where made against France in what was basically a media smear campaign of a nation that disagreed with the Bush admin's plans? Nope, not good for ratings. America's most trusted source for news, there's a joke I won't be laughing at anytime soon.
There were several available online petitions to simply fillout and click to submit--how many of us actually bothered?
Not happy with biased news? Tired of being handed opinions rather than facts? Well, if you stood by and did nothing, stop whining and eat the pile of poo you actually helped create.
Liberty isn't free. We need to be vigilant and consistently take sensible action before tyrants take over out of pure self-interest.
So stop your whining on Slashdot until you actually do something constructive like contacting your representatives to tell them this issue will decide how you vote in elections.
Advertisers should expect rates to increase with the reduced competition too. This will naturally lead to smaller companies in other markets going away along with the smaller media guys. OTOH, perhaps some of them will find alternate means of advertising. I find more and more people who can live without cable - there must some way to reach them :-)
Bingo.
If some of you would read a little closer, this change affects the radio portion of media little or none at all. It cracks me up how people want good radio and want more programming and syndicated shows but dont wanna be bothered with the fact that there actually is a cost associated. Do you actually think that non-top 10 markets would have any syndication or decent programming if they were still owned by billybob over on the east side of town? The bashing of successful companies is getting quite old. If companies like Clear Channel and CBS DIDNT do a good job, they wouldnt be as big as they are.
I'm a single male, in college, I have no wife or kids, lets assume I have a job that pays $30,000, I pay federal taxes, I get no returns. Why? Because I have no kids, I'm not married, i get no exemptions except for school tax credit, so maybe I can get $1000-2000 back at the absolute most.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
From clearchannel.com:
Clear Channel is deeply disappointed with today's FCC vote to re-regulate the radio industry. While the FCC is supposed to act in the public interest, today they missed the mark by a mile. This FCC action will extinguish the substantial consumer benefits brought on by radio deregulation
What's up with that? I can't help but wonder what this stinks of. Are they trying to look like the "good guy", while secretly getting in position to reap the rewards, or do they fear a bigger competitor taking the market away?
I expect to get my news from an aggregate/agent from many sources. These sources/feeds will be a combination of subscription/ad driven/professional reporting/blog. They will be a blend of text/audio/video from fast (realtime) and slow (downloaded) connections.
I doubt very much that I'll be able to distinguish between what was a newspaper, television, or radio station.
I see the current rules as a being very irrelevant in 5-10 years.
George W. Bush does not have the mental capacity to run a government. He is only able to sell the government to rich people. If you doubt this, read the stories below from the New York Times, The Guardian, the Washington Post, and the Houston Chronicle.
More U.S. government corruption:
War Profiteers card deck.
"Speaking to Pentagon reporters in a video teleconference from Iraq, General Conway said, 'What the regime was intending to do in terms of its use of the weapons, we thought we understood.' He added, 'We were simply wrong.'" [last paragraphs]
Powell believes he may have lied to about weapons in Iraq: Powell's doubts over CIA intelligence on Iraq prompted him to set up secret review.
"Could be the greatest intelligence hoax of all time."
More about war profiteers and conflict of interest: Lawmaker Questions Scope Of Iraq-Related Contracts.
Questionable accounting practices -- The U.S. government becomes another Enron scam:
Questionable accounting practices in the U.S. government: "The U.S. government is broke." George Bush gave U.S. citizens a tax cut, but it was fraud. The tax cut will be paid by money the U.S. government will borrow.
Questionable accounting practices at Halliburton, Vice President of the U.S. Dick Cheney's company.
Humor -- George Bush Nigerian Scam Letter:
Subject: FW: IMMEDIATE ATTENTION NEEDED: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
URGENT ASSISTANCE - FROM USA
IMMEDIATE ATTENTION NEEDED : HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
FROM: GEORGE WALKER BUSH
202.456.1414 / 202.456.1111
FAX: 202.456.2461
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am GEORGE WALKER BUSH, son of the former president of the United States of America George Herbert Walker Bush, and currently serving as President of the United States of America. This letter might surprise you because we have not met neither in person nor by correspondence. I came to know of you in my search for a reliable and reputable person to handle a very confidential business transaction, which involves the transfer of a huge sum of money to an account requiring maximum confidence.
I am writing you in absolute confidence primarily to seek your assistance in acquiring oil funds that are presently trapped in the republic of iraq. My partners and I solicit your assistance in completing a transaction begun by my father, who has long been actively engaged in the extraction of petroleum in the United States of America, and bravely served his country as director of the United States Central Intelligence Agency.
In the decade of the nineteen-eighties, my father, then vice-president of the United States of America, sought to work with the good offices of the President of the Republic of Iraq to regain lost oil revenue sources in the neighboring islamic republic of Iran. This unsuccessful venture was soon followed by a falling-out with his Iraqi partner, who sought to acquire additional oil revenue sources in the neighboring emirate of Kuwait, a wholly-owned U.S.-British subsidiary.
My father re-secured the petroleum assets of Kuwait in 1991 at a cost of sixty-one billion U.S. dollars ($61,000,000,000). Out of that cost, thirty-six billion dollars ($36,000,000,000) were supplied by his partners in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and other persian gulf monarchies, and sixteen billion dollars ($16,000,000,000) by German and Jap
out of the other half of their mouths preach that only the government can be trusted with stewardship of the media.
Umm, that's not what the poster said at all... quit building strawmen. The poster said it's possible for a government-run media outlet to still be an independant, viable news outlet without being biased (and is, arguably, more likely to, since they must try so hard to shirk the stigma of being government owned and operated). They did NOT say that ONLY the government can be trusted to run an unbiased media outlet.
Incidentally, another datapoint which supports this theory (in contrast to your assertion that "Government subsidized means catering to the people who control the purse string in government") is the CBC in Canada. It is, technically, a crown corporation (i.e., government run). However, it also happens to be one of the highest quality news outlets I've come across. Even-handed, unbiased, and generally quite intelligent.
A similar situation occured last December in central North Carolina, when the biggest ice storm in years knocked out power to more than a million people in the area. Nearly all of the (mostly Clear Channel-owned) FM stations that could broadcast at the time were still playing the same old Dave Matthews and Fleetwood Mac songs that they always played, totally oblivious to anything happening outside. Luckily, we have a few locally-owned and/or operated AM talk radio stations that filled the void and got important news and info out to people.
Local radio presence is important in any market, especially in times of emergency. I get the feeling, though, that only local and state civic leaders will be able to do anything about that...
Visit me on the web at Permanent4.com.
Yes, Clear Channel is a minority shareholder in XM.
You tell me how to manage payoffs to 10,000,000 individual Internet Radio broadcasters with nobody noticing. With the first step being how to figure out who is worth paying off.
Tech Public Policy stuff
...how nobody complained about the fact that pre-cable TV had only three news channels to watch? (ABC/CBS/NBC) But now that companies like Clear Channel and News Corp. offer something other than mainstream left-leaning claptrap, it's now "OH NO! IT'LL BE THE END OF FREEDOM AS WE KNOW IT!" Considering how many intelligent people troll these boards, I'm surprised so many ditch said intelligence when it differs with their particular point of view. Consider that nobody says a damn thing when Ted Turner buys up another media service, but when the owner of Fox News wants to increase his holdings from 2.5% of the market to around 4% people go ballistic. Nope, no political agenda here, nosirree.
... That's what I thought.
Oh, and another thing: do you people really think the Dixie Chicks thing was started by the radio station owners? The owners didn't come up with the idea--their listening audience did...and in large enough pissed off numbers to incite a response from many radio stations. If that isn't serving the consumer, I don't know what is. When was the last time you ever heard NPR present a positive segment on tax cuts? Or welfare reform? Or limited government?
Go ahead and baa some more, sheeple.
These neo-Conservatives work on the belief that an unrestricted market will be the cure for all ills, yet the closer we get to this situation - the worse everything is! A market that relies on a government enforced artificial monopoly will never be unrestricted. If they really wanted the airwaves to be an unrestricted market, they should let anyone broadcast without restriction.
Lower income people DO pay taxes. Lower income people pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes than rich, just ask warren buffet.
Warren Says Bush Tax Cut is Stupid
Even the rich are against this tax cut, they dont WANT the money and they flat out tell people they wont spend it.
Personally, I think we should do away with income tax completely. Instead, tax the goods that people consume.
I completely agree with that. But if we taxed the goods, people would consume less and the economy would slow down. It depends on the percentage of tax on each good, but currently states do tax goods.
"Those that buy the goods pay the taxes on them. More expensive items, same tax rate, but more is paid."
Thats already done, so I guess we need to raise taxes in this area, fine, but I think the income tax should still exist.
Anyway the tax cut is bad, the worlds richest people know more about the economy than you, if warren buffet says hes not going to spend the money and to give it to the poor, why the hell dont you listen to him? Hes going to get most of the tax cut anyway.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
OK, first let me say I don't remember where I heard this story, but...
Clear Channel has a habit of buying more than one station in a town, from what I understand. Because they buy more than one station in a market, they tend not to be staffed - just looped programming. Somewhere in one of the Dakotas, Clear Channel bought up four stations in one town (effectively, all the stations in that town). One day there was a weather emergency and the police/local officials wanted to warn the town. They tried to call all the radio stations thinking that would be the best way to alert everybody. At all stations, they got a recorded message informing them that they could call Clear Channel's home office during business hours.
Can you imagine that happening in a big city?
Granted, there are many more media outlets in large cities, but... wow.
Warren is one of the richest men in the world, and he says he doesnt WANT a tax cut, he says he doesnt know what to do with Millions of extra dollars besides put it in the bank along with the billions he hasnt spent.
Warren calls it Class Welfare.
By Warren Buffett
Tuesday, May 20, 2003; Page A19
The annual Forbes 400 lists prove that -- with occasional blips -- the rich do indeed get richer. Nonetheless, the Senate voted last week to supply major aid to the rich in their pursuit of even greater wealth.
The Senate decided that the dividends an individual receives should be 50 percent free of tax in 2003, 100 percent tax-free in 2004 through 2006 and then again fully taxable in 2007. The mental flexibility the Senate demonstrated in crafting these zigzags is breathtaking. What it has put in motion, though, is clear: If enacted, these changes would further tilt the tax scales toward the rich.
Let me, as a member of that non-endangered species, give you an example of how the scales are currently balanced. The taxes I pay to the federal government, including the payroll tax that is paid for me by my employer, Berkshire Hathaway, are roughly the same proportion of my income -- about 30 percent -- as that paid by the receptionist in our office. My case is not atypical -- my earnings, like those of many rich people, are a mix of capital gains and ordinary income -- nor is it affected by tax shelters (I've never used any). As it works out, I pay a somewhat higher rate for my combination of salary, investment and capital gain income than our receptionist does. But she pays a far higher portion of her income in payroll taxes than I do.
She's not complaining: Both of us know we were lucky to be born in America. But I was luckier in that I came wired at birth with a talent for capital allocation -- a valuable ability to have had in this country during the past half-century. Credit America for most of this value, not me. If the receptionist and I had both been born in, say, Bangladesh, the story would have been far different. There, the market value of our respective talents would not have varied greatly.
Now the Senate says that dividends should be tax-free to recipients. Suppose this measure goes through and the directors of Berkshire Hathaway (which does not now pay a dividend) therefore decide to pay $1 billion in dividends next year. Owning 31 percent of Berkshire, I would receive $310 million in additional income, owe not another dime in federal tax, and see my tax rate plunge to 3 percent.
And our receptionist? She'd still be paying about 30 percent, which means she would be contributing about 10 times the proportion of her income that I would to such government pursuits as fighting terrorism, waging wars and supporting the elderly. Let me repeat the point: Her overall federal tax rate would be 10 times what my rate would be.
When I was young, President Kennedy asked Americans to "pay any price, bear any burden" for our country. Against that challenge, the 3 percent overall federal tax rate I would pay -- if a Berkshire dividend were to be tax-free -- seems a bit light.
Administration officials say that the $310 million suddenly added to my wallet would stimulate the economy because I would invest it and thereby create jobs. But they conveniently forget that if Berkshire kept the money, it would invest that same amount, creating jobs as well.
The Senate's plan invites corporations -- indeed, virtually commands them -- to contort their behavior in a major way. Were the plan to be enacted, shareholders would logically respond by asking the corporations they own to pay no more dividends in 2003, when they would be partially taxed, but instead to pay the skipped amounts in 2004, when they'd be tax-free. Similarly, in 2006, the last year of the plan, companies should pay double their normal dividend and then avoid dividends altogether in 2007.
Overall, it's hard to conceive of anything sillier than the schedule the Senat
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Hacking DirecTV over TCP/IP using Linux
Yes the war on iraq is justified by Saddam having WMD and the Dixie Chick can't sell even one ticket to their concert tour...
So where do you suppose people will go for real news?
The internet?
For those of you who speak before reading or doing any research (especially clear channel bashers)....do a little reading! Radio was RE-REGULATED!
Except, I don't see the option to put limitations back in. So if it does become a monoculture, there isn't much the FCC could do.
It takes a partisan 3 to 2 FCC vote to relax regulations so the conservative CEO's of Fox and Clearchannel can have yet more power, but it would take a huge (think ma-bell proportion) congressional act to cut them back down if they ever get too big.
I really wish the FCC had to explain (and justify) why they think it's in the public interest to allow mega media companies to expand further. So far their reason is, "well, we couldn't think of any good reason not to!", even though thousands of americans emailed and called in plenty of reasons against deregulation.
$8.95/mo web hosting
Not all NPR stations get government funding. Check out WMNF for one that is community supported. Of course, they are a hell of a lot more liberal than the college-affiliated stations you are complaining about. Their music is better, too....folk, industrial, reggae, blues, electronica....beats the heck out of the "all-dead-white-guys-all-the-time" programming on most NPR stations.
You link to a single post from a Slashdot user making unsubstantiated claims about NPR as evidence of its bias? I listened to NPR during the impeachment, and I certainly don't recall hearing them play "We Shall Overcome" during any breaks. A Google search for 'NPR "We Shall Overcome" impeachment' yields less than a page of results, none of which (after a cursory glance) has anything to do with the claim in the post that you linked. A Usenet archive search yields zero results. If there were any truth to this claim, the FreeRepublics and WorldNetDailys and Fox Newses and conservative newsgroups would have been all over it.
It's ironic that you complain about not being able to trust NPR and then use examples like this as your evidence.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
Since the majority of soft money goes to Democrats, perhaps Powell isn't going to listen to the corps that overwhelmingly support the opponent party. We're talking big-news and not big-oil here, after all.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I dont think so.
Internet Radio is here to stay!
www.95bfm.com
"Other Radio Stations Are Still Shit"
Do you not understand what "re-regulate" means? What the industry was looking for was...lets say it together kids...DE-REGULATION....and what happened as the opposite...ready kids? RE-REGULATION...not that hard to understand.
They're now gone. The broadband audio stream is now a feed from Denver station KBCO. Same format, but the LA foundation is long gone, as are the DJ's that were there. (For those who know the station, I think Nicole Sandler is working somewhere in a New Mexico station as their Program Director. But I digress.)
Why do I mention this, off topic though it may seem? Because the slashdot blurb is right - there isn't any more diversity on the radio unless you go to public radio, college stations, or the AM band. The broadcast stations are picking up their money on low-quality music because that's what somebody $ay$ is popular.
And the RIAA has the audacity to say that, if I want to decide what I listen to in CD's, I should base my decisions on what's on the radio. In that case, how about I give them The Finger, and listen to these guys (a jazz station in Long Beach) - and donate when I can.
This sig no verb.
oh great, an AC with a purpose, to be a grammar-nazi. and possibly a regular nazi....
tell me oh great prestidigitator of the written word, how ever did you come up with such a creative and insulting sig. to complete your post of excellence. did it come to you in a dream, during a wank, a ferocious nose pick, or some other past time? do your views of others stem from being ripped from the teet too early/late... please, please tell me, i can no longer bare not knowing.
just in case you are as slow as your post would indicate, you are an obvious LOSER... check your dictionary pinhead, i believe you will find I have used the correct spelling.
it's trolling shitheads like yourself that make sites based on the discussion of information, or news just a little less informative...
sure, i could change my settings so i wouldn't have to see the type of tripe you spew, but then i wouldn't have the oportunity to blast such a self important twit.
you may now go back to patting yourself on the back for pointing out a spelling error.
If the ressource necessary to make an entry are sooo high that no independent can make it thru, then how is this different than forbidding effectively by law to have them belong to the big five ?
As I said many time here, Censor, oppression and control do no need to be at a point of a weapon. There are far more subtil method , especially if you hold the media channels... Tsk.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Republicans get just a bit more than the Democrats.
Both sums are really sick though.
No, I'm not being a shill. No, really.
This sig no verb.
Now, it would be nice if the FCC would use (rather, relax) their police power over the airwaves and allocate more bandwidth for wireless networks, and also relax power limits so we could build high-speed wireless networks (something like the coast-to-coast net mentioned here earlier, or just to share a connection in the local area). But that would allow more competition in the communications and media markets so don't expect it to happen anytime soon.
The Limbot is invited to tell me just what kind of "ultraliberalism" a Fortune 50 company is likely to sponsor. He is also invited to tell me about how liberal Warren Buffet is (owner of Berkshire, owner of whe Washington Post.
The whining about the "ultra-liberal" mass media used to come from conservatives.
The mass media isn't ultra-conservative, they're the same people who promote and broadcast and sell the entertainment content that the Religious Right whine about.
The proper description for the agenda of both PBS and the mass media is corporatist. The agenda is about social control via news management for the benefit of the people who buy advertising, and that isn't your average "progressive" group and that isn't the average limbot.
Tech Public Policy stuff
...Rupert Murdoch purchased the FCC yesterday in exchange for UPN.
I am currently not obliged to divulge that information as it might compromise the agents in the field
Yeah, their liberal bias is so blatant. I mean, just look at the leftist looneys they have commenting on NPR: heritage.org
I think if you follow the link, you'll see that NPR allows all kind of views on their programming. I mean, have you ever listened to Marketplace? It's not exactly Communist Party material. I agree with the parent - ultraconservatives have gotten to the point where they believe that anyone who doesn't think as they do must be a liberal pinko.
to pop Pump Up The Volume in the DVD player and start dreaming of my very own pirate radio station.
Yarr!
I gave myself to Jesus, but now he never calls
my friends mom moved to Temple to become a lesbian....just out of nowhere, she starts an internet relationship with what she thought was a dude, but when 'he' told her 'he' was really a chick (a lesbian GYNECOLOGIST at that), his mom didn't want to back down....it was weird. left him her car, and shitty house full of 45 cats.
at least she took her daughter with her. gross.
Very few PBS stations have the guts to carry
Democracy Now, Counter Spin or Free Speech Radio News
Deregulation is to Consolidation as Jon Katz is to Common Sense - they just don't have any corelation. In fact, if you "oh this is bad" mindsets would pull your head out of your ass, you'll see that the big media companies are actually looking to sell off their different media units. That's right, big media like AOL/Time Warner are actually going to get smaller.
If you think that the public has more power than the large corporations, please go and work for GW's reelection campaign. The rest of us know better. Corporations run this country. Until we overhaul the way Congress does business, it will only get worse.
choking on it?
UCA! UCA! UCA!
Let's look at the situation here for a sec.
If everyone here is preaching diversity of opinion, why are all the up-moderated comments of the same mindset that consolidation is evil? Answer: moderators voted with their points. This is the same as the real-world, only the reason that what's on the radio is there is because people voted with their dollars.
Those that are of the opinion that we need to bring back the fairness doctorine need to give me +3 Opposition for presenting an opposing view to this monotonous thread. Sound ridiculous? IT IS.
QED. - JT
Does anyone know how Powell gets his job? Is he appointed by Bush or is he elected? Has Congress approved his appointment? If so, we should pester our congressmen to impeach him. His mandate is to protect the public's interest not big business. He has failed at his mandate. Therefore he should be fired. Plain and simple.
Quit playing Monopoly with Bill.
Linux - of the people, by the people, and for the people.
What use are large companies??????????????
Small companies are better for the economy, more competition.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Um, actually de-regulation is not the opposite of re-regulation. In your case , 'de' refers to "remove or remove from" while 're' refers to "again, anew". Not the same thing, with quite distinct meanings. To claim that a relaxation of existing regulations is to "re-regulate" an industry is quite frankly bullshit.
I can understand dismissing broadcast media as something you don't care about. But if you combine the effects of this ruling along with the death of DSL competition. This could really get worse every year.
If the FCC uses methods such as these to try to revitalize the economy by giving big media "a break", big media will get bigger every year we are in a recession.
Imagine 5-6 megacompanies controlling both broadcast media and the pipes to the internet. It seems like a frightening idea to me. But the way we are headed, it does not seem impossible.
C-Span is the only news resource that can actually be called "fair and balanced", because all they do is show you what actually happened. Little to no analysis. It's awesome, and will only become more valuable as media consolidation moves forward.
They have 3 TV channels, a radio station, and streaming web feeds of everything. They even have a video library of notable coverage and events, all available for free.
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
I think that goes for OS's too
With respect to large numbers of people not being able to receive the content, the issue is personal economics rather than infrastructure. There are multiple suppliers for satellite-fed television channels that allow all of North America to receive major media content.
:)
Now there is competition in the area of satellite-based radio content - again meaning that the folks without local stations can receive information from "Major" media outlets.
At any rate, even if it is 40M people, that's just 13% of the estimated 291M people in the states today. 13% is not that many people, although apparently just 50M votes is enough to contend for the presidency.
(The fact that only 100M votes are cast in this country is another indication of problems we face. We're too entertained and unplugged to be motivated to express our opintions. - except on Slashdot.)
Those people without cable, satellite TV or radio can go to the public library to get government-funded access to alternative sources of media.
People have choices. Hopefully the dearth of difference between the major content producers will spark others to create.
If not, perhaps bland programming will get people in our country to break the addiction we have to entertainment and start to engage in real relationships again. Or maybe I'm just hopelessly optimistic.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
They will buy each other up and announce mergers, until theres maybe 2.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
During the invasion of Iraq, many USians (including myself) started following foreign press to get our news because the native news sources were so unreliable in their war coverage. I suspect we'll see more of this as independent news sources slowly get bought up and assimilated.
Although this won't help the situation of news information all coming from one source, I have found a new and better way to get exposed to music:
Have you found Gnod?
You tell it 3 of your favorite artists, and then it names a bunch it thinks you'll like, asking if you like it, don't like it, or haven't heard of it. It's intelligent, personalized, and it evolves.
The following is brought to you by the Ministry of Information.
[Begin Sarcasm]For Immediate Release:
The Republican National Committee is pleased to announce that it fully supports the recent FCC decision relating to broadcast media ownership requirements. It has long been the opinion of this body that the vast majority of broadcast communications have been terribly one-sided with regard to the sacred views and opinions expressed by the vast majority of true American patriots.
By eliminatiing these outdated and unecessary rules, the FCC re-establishes the constitutional principles of "free speech" so long missing from the country's airwaves. No more will the people be forced to listen to the self-righteous posturing of liberal idealism.
That being said, we at the RNC would like to announce the immediate retention of the following organizations to assist in our efforts to restore reason and values to the American Airwaves:
We would also like to take this opportunity to announce our latest proposals for further streamlining the Federal Government, lowering tax-payer burdens, and increasing national security.
Under our newest plan, the following departments and agencies would be eliminated:
Of course, we are sure that the FCC reserves the right to review this decision at a later time [ed.: like if and when a democrat somehow manages to get elected]
[/End sarcasm]
Either we are really screwed, or the wheels of fortune will turn and this will become an advantage in the near future.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
mailto:mpowell@fcc.gov
Let this corporate whore know that little brother is watching as well.... And oh yeah.. Turn off your TV.
Conspiracy theorist always complain about consolidation with claims that it "hurts competition" or "raises prices". But in many cases it does lower costs and lowers prices for consumers. In a business sense, consolidation doesn't always guarantee success for "the corporation" anyway. If that were the case, HP would dominate the market and AOL shareholders would still be happier than pigs in shit. Point is, it can go either way with consolidation. Just like any other business decision.
....pocketbook. It's the only way to get to these clowns.
:) ).
Seriously, The only way they will listen is if you let they're sponsors know you won't touch the products they're hawking.
If you're going to make a list, make a list of sponsors (that way, we don't have to listen through all the crap
Leave it to the republicans and their mindless conservative followers to actually make government BIGGER than it was before.
And it is so easy now to see the american public as those workhouse boys, intellectually scrawny, minds all malnourished, forced to spend all day on the treadmills of the corporations, every so often peeking in at the big shots, feeding themselves richly on the profits but always whining about how poorly used they are.
And just in case you read this wrongly, I'm all in favor of free enterprise, but I think the kinds of corporate consolidation, monopoly and cartelling that we see now is far from being free enterprise as we need it. And the way the government and corporations are colluding is closer to communism and fascism than I'm comfortable with.
What obvious things happened after the telecom deregulation in 1996?
1. Cable prices went up and I (along with many others) don't have any choice in selecting a cable provider.
This shows that deregulation doesn't always increase competition and benefit consumers. In fact, it had the opposite effect!!!
2. Companies like Clear Channel now own 1,200+ radio stations rather than the previous limit of 40.
And you say larger media companies will get smaller as a result of deregulation? Your conclusion directly contradicts recent and verifiable history. How exactly did you form your conclusion? Did you pull it out of your ass and hope people would buy it simply to avoid being labeled a "paranoid"? The "if you disagree with me then you must be a conspiracy theorist" argument was overused for years and lost its impact on people who can see through bullshit.
3. Clear Channel stopped playing Dixie Chicks for making a political statement that management did not agree with.
This is a verifiable example of how censorship can occur when media companies get very large. Other artists with similar opinions obviously got the message they'd better clam up or risk losing airtime.
And whether we agree or not with the Dixie Chicks is totally irrelevant--actually UNDERSTANDING and DEFENDING the Constitution of the USA is what is important for true American citizens. You did read the entire Constitution at least once, right?
While I disagree strongly with your opinions and obviously incorrect statements, I will fight to defend your right to express them.
Again, the best reasonable guess as to what will happen as a result of this deregulation is to look at recent history regarding similar events like the Telecommunication Act of 1996.
Stop being a liberal or a conservative: be rational and exercise common sense.
A few years back, when Murdoch was a Canadian citizen...
You've got your media barons confused. You're thinking of Conrad Black. Rupert Murdoch's an Aussie. Black owns lots of newspapers, whereas Murdoch only owns one (New York Post?). Not sure if Black owns any TV stations.
-- Will quantum computers run imaginary-time operating systems?
1. What does 'consolomodnination' mean?
2. Is that big GAP sale this week?
There can be only one!
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
I think it interesting that many people didn't know that this was going to happen. The only thing I can think is this:
Who benefits from the relaxing of the rules? Big Media certainly.
Who is the source of information in most of the country? several large Media corps. Why would ABC/CapCities/Disney, AOLTW/CNN, CBS/Viacom, GE/NBC (and possibly MS), Vivendi, Clear Channel, Sony, and/or FOX care about the rules by which they operate?
something else that passes my mind. Seeing how vengeful the current government is regarding things spoken against them, is it possible that the media has been soft on the Government for precisely this reason?
"the difference between myself and a madman is that I am not mad" -Salvadore Dali
Radio 1. Talk/News.
Radio 2. Classical/Jazz/Blues/Alternative.
Radio 3. Indy. Wicked.
Free streamed concerts by cool bands.
Nice new-media convergence, combines musical, visual and performance arts.
Canadian Indy specific.
In theory... Small companies are good for the economy. They aren't very large, so they continually listen to their customers, in order to keep their support. Large companies can better afford to sell products for less, so in the end the consumers should see savings. In reality... Have you ever watched "Max Headroom"? You know how all the companies are huge monopolies that decide what we (common man) should hear, see, and know? You should watch an episode or two. Small business goes out of business be cause big business basically eats the small business. Big fish eat little fish. In the end the consumer only knows what we are told by the big fish.
Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
And YOU can fiddle while Rome burns. Go ahead and wallow in your ignorant bliss. One day you'll realize.
The "children" example was in relation to the state of knowledge we have before the media pushes THEIR knowledge to the majority of us. I kind of figured that argument would be too complex for a conservative to grasp.
Yes we can change the station but, once again, your simple shouting ignores the complexity of the situation. What shall we change it to, oh wise one? Another station owned by the same corporation? Yeah, that's a good choice. And why do you choose some wacky conspiracy story and assume that's what I'm talking about when I ask for truth in broadcasting? Can't you see that's a non sequitor and makes for an invalid argument? Once again, oversimplification rules.
Also, you assume I want to ban things I don't approve of (as in your Cartoon Channel rant). How did you get that? If anyone is banning anything it's the corporate media who is banning quality information in favor of infotainment. As an example, how much did you hear on the networks or Fox News about the FCC vote? (See? Look at that right there. That's what's knows as a valid argument as compared to a rant.)
And as for sending me to North Korea, Cuba, blah, blah, blah . . . Damn, Stalin! Are you calling for exiles for people whose opinion you don't approve of? What kind of country is this turning into? You people are scary.
- Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
Expect Clear Channel, Viacom and their kin to get bigger, and the radio to have even less diversity (a situation that some people think is responsible for falling CD sales).
Which in turn will promote more P2P sharing, more legislation and criminal cases against regular people trying to resist the marketing spoon of big corporations.
I've been watching some of FCC hearings on C-SPAN about this topic - it's just a monkey circus with a pre-determined outcome.
The government, in the end, is responsible for this situation, what it seems for quite different reasons from this point of view. Don't let handful of media corporations form a cartel, control the whole market, illegally squash competition, fix prices at wholesale and retail levels, and then expect something productive or fair to come out of it.
FCC screwed up big time on broadband just recently, only to be fooled by greedy telecoms with empty promises, and now this. Time for a regime change, I say. FCC is supposed to benefit public good, not media cartels.
They could do a great marketing job with those call letters.
98.1 - Whatever.
I bet that greedy war-monger of an arse-fuck ( Rupert Murdock ) is behind this.
Democracy carries with it the assumption of independant media. Without it, there is no news - only government propoganda. What is the difference between what the US is striving for and what they just removed from Iraq? Answer: George Bush is uglier that Saddam. Other than that, same same.
And I checked my e-mail this afternoon and it had a message from the president of Clearchannel.
In it he says "We are generally disappointed with these additional regulations; however, it will be some time before we see the details of the final order."
and
"The bottom line is that the FCC's actions were deregulatory for every industry other than radio which was RE-REGULATED, even though radio is already a VERY competitive medium, arguably much more so than any other medium. Our Radio people will tell you this is not an easy business: we have plenty of strong and healthy competitors in every market, which of course includes not just other radio stations, but newspaper, TV, Cable, Yellow Pages, Magazines, Direct Mail and Internet sites.
We think the FCC's action has the potential to negatively impact the radio industry's opportunities to offer diverse and compelling programming to listeners because it puts more limits on station ownership going forward. The evidence, including the FCC's own studies, has clearly shown that consolidation has INCREASED the amount and diversity of programming for consumers. We think consumers lose."
I think the message is amusing in a wierd sort of way.
First, ClearChannel isn't terribly affected by the changes, at least as they stand. The radio cap was left at 8, so they aren't going to be buying up a lot of new radio stations because of this ruling. The item that may give them more potential is the ability to buy newspapers that are in the same market as their radio stations, but radio diversity will not be affected by that.
Second, very few people have mentioned the unfortunate fact that something had to be done; the courts were prepared to throw the current cross-media ownership rules away completely on First Amendment grounds. Those who are informed on both sides of the issue acknowledge this fact. You may disagree with the changes that were made today, but please don't argue that the rules should have been left the same or even tightened, as they would have been dumped anyway.
Lastly, I don't believe that the changes are effective until 60 days after they have been published by the FCC, so there is still time to write your Representative/Senator to encourage them to overturn the ruling.
For a better review of what happened today, see the FCC's website with the commission's opinions.
If you play to the lowest common denominator you sacrifice diversity and (because this is communications) sacrifice choice and freedom. If you don't play to the lowest common denominator then you risk pissing people off, which causes those "people" to crack the whip and complain. So, the larger a company gets the more likely it is to AVOID taking on challenging issues, AVOID pissing people off, and thus AVOID providing a diverse outlook on the issues.
If you are the ONLY market in a town (as CC has all but become in many towns) then you existence has nothing at all to do with "keeping the people happy" and EVERYTHING to do with "not pissing anyone off" - especially when a portion of that "someone" may represent regulatory agencies. the important issues get ignored out of self interest (just as they were in this case) and, with no competing viewpoint in the market debate is utterly stifled and the back room politics gets deeper still - just as in the FSU, just as it does in China.
Either I'm missing something here, or Clear Channel is.
e as es/20030602_Corp_FCCStatement.pdf
They're response begins "Clear Channel is deeply disappointed with today's FCC vote to re-regulate the radio industry. While the FCC is supposed to act in the public interest, today, they missed the mark by a mile. This FCC action will extinguish the substantial consumer benefits brought on by radio deregulation in 1996."
http://www.clearchannel.com/documents/press_rel
Who owns those stations? Are they individually owned/operated or run/sponsored by the sattelite companies themselves?
And even then, don't all the media conglomerates have a stake in both companies?
--D
You're right, the FCC doesn't ban anybody from owning a radio station, and I personally don't the FCC should limit how many radio/TV stations a company can own.
BUT!!!
Did you ever bother to ask, "How is it possible with all the available Radio and Television spectrum available, that ONLY 5 companies make up a majority?"
Radio technology has advanced at a phenominal rate, and the equipment has gotten rediculously cheap, so why don't we see smaller/nimbler radio/TV broadcasters out there, especially with so many people creating so much content on the Internet?
Could the FCC be possibly regulating the industry so that the Barrier to enter the market is so high that it effectively kills smaller/nimbler competition?
Think about it:
1. Radio/TV is sustained with advertisement which are derived from ratings.
2. There are a limited amout of ratings.
3. In order to sustain yourself as a broadcaster, you must capture a big enough slice of the pie to cover this barrier to entry.
4. The bigger the barrier the entry, the more ratings you'll need to sustain yourself.
Maybe that would explain why the National Assocation of Broadcasters gave $2,502,700 dollars to various politicians.
I don't mind corporations owning as many TV, Radio stations as they want, but I want something in return.
*** Short Range TV/Radio Broadcasting ***
Since, I've been talking about Barriers to Entry, then why not lower them?
Here's how you do it:
* The FCC should Offer Inexpensive Short-Range TV/Radio Licenses, so broadcasters could operate a station on a budget of a couple thousand dollars a year rather than hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.
Will it happen? No fucking way. That would give any asshole to opportunity to offer the public cutting edge TV/Radio a lot cheaper than the larger broadcasters, which would SEVERELY eat into thier margins.
Could it be that free enterprise in this country is a sham? Could it be that neither Republicans or Democrats actually give a shit about equal justice and equal economic opportunity?
If you really think this is a free country, I challenge you to try to get your town to build a municipal fiber-optic infrastructure to deliver high-speed internet access and then watch how fast Verison, SBC, or whoever controls your local telecommunications infrastructure slaps so many injunctions on your ass, that it'll make you head spin until you vomit.
Fuck you, I want this country to return to a REAL free market that isn't obstructed by FCC "deregulation" (Give us real deregulation), Corporate Welfare, CEO's CIRCUMVENTING (slap THEM with the DMCA) the entire PROTECTIVE purpose of FILING remotely accurate information to the SEC, and rabid Patent/IP Lawyers litigating entire industries to death (thanks to their $28,000,000 to the democrats).
You may say this country never had a real free market. Fuck you, your socialism, and your little dog too!
Thanks, That felt pretty good.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
The whole point of becoming a monopoly is that one doesn't have to bother to spend money on putting out good products or new, radically good ideas anymore. The public will either buy whatever swill you give them or leave the market.
Of course, an increasing number of people are leaving the market.
Certainly, there are people who look forward to the 'latest and greatest' music from their Clear Channel station. Just as you look forward to the home version of the successor to XP.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Woopie-Doo.
This will effect my life in this many ways: 0
Why? Without sounding to cocky...I gave up the addiction of glowing phosphorous and frequency modulation long ago and cant tell you the myriad of ways my outlook has improved.
Im not concerned that every zombie in a lazy-boy is getting all their information from one source. Was that the kind of mentality I would have been able to convince outside of this new regulation...no, and I gave up caring about that lifestyle long ago. Just because your not on welfare doesnt mean your not still sucking on the governments tit.
In fact its almost its own form of entertainment when I run into 'normal' people. The morons that think every day of their lives will be exactly like the day before. Its a sedentary form of existance that I have no desire to even be in the company of. How many times have I seen expressions of shock when I tell people like that I work with computers and they wonder why I have a tan...simply because they have been fed an image over and over again that people who work with computers are pasty white freaks with no social life...
The rest of us use the Net to get to a lot of foriegn press sites and to the sites of the newsmakers (and their enemies) themselves and lots of other places. While they have their own local biases, at least they generally aren't owned by the people who 0wN Bush.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Are you an idiot or just not reading the article?!?! THEY ARE KEEPING THE REGULATIONS THAT ARE IN PLACE FOR RADIO!!!! Therefore they are RE-regulating radio. If they were de-regulating then the big companies could buy more radio stations per market...BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE!! OMG people read before opening your mouth!
According to Salon (ad clickthrough required), John McCain has scheduled a hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee for this Wednesday. All 5 commissioners including Powell will be there. Your opinions can be sent to Sen. McCain here. The Commerce Committee's listing is here. While it does include Fritz Hollings (D-Disney) It also includes such high-profile opponents as Olympia Snowe (Maine) and Ted Stevens (Alaska). Congress can still stall this. It isn't over yet.
Yes. The people running the Big 5 major labels via payola.
Guess what. EVERY song you listen to on a chain-owned radio station is a paid placement. If you didn't know that, you have no business posting on any public policy issue having to do with music.
People ARE voting with their dollars by NOT buying music as much as they used to. That's why every major label is in financial trouble.
Sound ridiculous? IT IS.
No, YOU are. The reason why the comments you don't like got up-modded (I've never seen one of my comments hit 5 so fast) is that on this subject, everyone else is better informed than you are. Listen instead of sniveling, maybe you'll learn something if you are capable of doing so.
Tech Public Policy stuff
When you have a few rich, white, balding men manipulating your media, it's no wonder that 70% of US citizens believe Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for September 11.
(he wasn't)
How is it not corruption or at the very least, conflict of interest when Dick Chaney is on the payroll of Haliburton? Colin Powell's son on a regulatory board?
Public input to the FCC ran 97% against this move. How much good do you think a few more people filling out online petitions would do? They were ignoring people who actually used their procedures for getting input, so a few more names on an online petition, which is of dubious validity anyway, wouldn't have made any difference.
>"The BBC's Jessica Lynch "expose" was recently exposed as a fraud."
Bullshit. How about posting any references.
Clear Channel's customers are:
The consumers are NOT radio station customers, and the connection between whatever the consumers want and whatever is played on a major chain radio station is a hell of a lot more tenuous than you think.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Hey, while they may have a huge part of the markets in some cities, they hardly monopolize. Of the 17000 or so stations nationwide, they own like around 1400 of them. Oooooo better call the anti-trust lawyers...oooo SCARY! Compare that to M$ monopoly. People pick on Clear Channel for one reason, Glen Beck started advertising the Pro American Rallyes. And they were started grassroots and originally from non-Clear Channel stations. If the left has something that can compete put it on the air. Let's have both sides. This measure allows for no more than 8 stations in markets of 40 or more stations. It's not a bad thing. >
Democrat n. Common variety of two-legged parasite, of the politician family. Claims to support the ideals of liberty, equality, etc. in order acquire votes, and then passes laws to take them away while no one is looking (see: CDA, DMCA, CBDTPA, Bill Clinton, Fritz Hollings, Dianne Feinstein, et. al.; compare: liberal). Often has a thick covering of hair over its ulterior motives (see also: hippie).
democratic adj. 1. Of or pertaining to democracy. 2. (usually capitalized) Intended to screw over Republicans, third party candidates, and/or rich white people.
bipartisan adj. Intended to screw over everyone (see: USA PATRIOT Act).
libertarian adj. 1. In favor of freedom for all people, with a minimum of government interference. n. 2. One whose views are libertarian according to sense 1, but do not necessarily coincide with the Libertarian Party (compare: anarchist). 3. (capitalized) A member of the Libertarian Party; one who is a libertarian as in sense 2, but also extends the same freedom to corporations, and may wish to privatize much of the government (see: Snow Crash).
politician n. (from Fr. polytetien, "many faces") A blood-sucking parasite, related to the lawyer, which can use its multiple proboscides to prey on many people at once (see: Democrat, Republican).
welfare bum n. (see: parent's misdefinition of liberal)
Who Rules America?
The Alien Grip on Our News and Entertainment Media Must Be Broken
By the Research Staff of National Vanguard Books
P.O. Box 330 Hillsboro West Virginia 24946 USA
There is no greater power in the world today than that wielded by the manipulators of public opinion in America. No king or pope of old, no conquering general or high priest ever disposed of a power even remotely approaching that of the few dozen men who control America's mass media of news and entertainment.
Their power is not distant and impersonal; it reaches into every home in America, and it works its will during nearly every waking hour. It is the power that shapes and molds the mind of virtually every citizen, young or old, rich or poor, simple or sophisticated.
The mass media form for us our image of the world and then tell us what to think about that image. Essentially everything we know -- or think we know -- about events outside our own neighborhood or circle of acquaintances comes to us via our daily newspaper, our weekly news magazine, our radio, or our television.
It is not just the heavy-handed suppression of certain news stories from our newspapers or the blatant propagandizing of history-distorting TV "docudramas" that characterizes the opinion-manipulating techniques of the media masters. They exercise both subtlety and thoroughness in their management of the news and the entertainment that they present to us.
For example, the way in which the news is covered: which items are emphasized and which are played down; the reporter's choice of words, tone of voice, and facial expressions; the wording of headlines; the choice of illustrations -- all of these things subliminally and yet profoundly affect the way in which we interpret what we see or hear.
On top of this, of course, the columnists and editors remove any remaining doubt from our minds as to just what we are to think about it all. Employing carefully developed psychological techniques, they guide our thought and opinion so that we can be in tune with the "in" crowd, the "beautiful people," the "smart money." They let us know exactly what our attitudes should be toward various types of people and behavior by placing those people or that behavior in the context of a TV drama or situation comedy and having the other TV characters react in the Politically Correct way.
Molding American Minds
For example, a racially mixed couple will be respected, liked, and socially sought after by other characters, as will a "take charge" Black scholar or businessman, or a sensitive and talented homosexual, or a poor but honest and hardworking illegal alien from Mexico. On the other hand, a White racist -- that is, any racially conscious White person who looks askance at miscegenation or at the rapidly darkening racial situation in America -- is portrayed, at best, as a despicable bigot who is reviled by the other characters, or, at worst, as a dangerous psychopath who is fascinated by firearms and is a menace to all law-abiding citizens. The White racist "gun nut," in fact, has become a familiar stereotype on TV shows.
The average American, of whose daily life TV-watching takes such an unhealthy portion, distinguishes between these fictional situations and reality only with difficulty, if at all. He responds to the televised actions, statements, and attitudes of TV actors much as he does to his own peers in real life. For all too many Americans the real world has been replaced by the false reality of the TV environment, and it is to this false reality that his urge to conform responds. Thus, when a TV scriptwriter expresses approval of some ideas and actions through the TV characters for whom he is writing, and disapproval of others, he exerts a powerful pressure on millions of viewers toward conformity with his own views.
And as it is with TV entertainment, so it is also with the news, whether televised or printed. The insidious thing about this form of thought control is that even when we rea
To all of you "Doom and Gloom" liberal nuts you should have studied more economics. If I remember correctly an "Evil Corporation" produces an evil product, you as the "Holy" consumer gobble up the product and that in turn provides "Evil" revenue to keep them in business. If you are "TRULY" that concerned about one "Evil" company "controlling" the media then stop listening to the radio and watching TV. If you are in the "Majority" that will cause their revenue to drop and open the door for smaller companies to buy into the "Big Evil Company".. Also, if you rely entirely on media to form an opinion then you are hopeless cause. Working in the IT field I constantly hear the same "Evil Company" label used conjunction with Microsoft. If the "majority" of people are really that upset with the products delivered they would quit purchasing them. Get a life..
I'd agree with those points. Late at night on CBC radio, they even rebroadcast signals from other public broadcasters around the world. Deutshewelle, Radio Sweden, RFI, and tons of others. It's a godsend to information-junkie insomniacs like me. I've found CBC's daytime Radio 1 programming to be lacking lately, though.
(For the love of god, why is Richardson's Roundup still on the air? If it wasn't for The World At Six and As It Happens (imagine a public-radio general interest version of Slashdot) I'd go nuts.)
And I don't know about entertainment programs from those other broadcasters, but I do know that CBC really enjoys skewering the government on its' comedy programs. I dare anyone to watch "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" and then claim that the CBC is a mouthpiece of the government. :)
Yeah...those damned "facts" can be so stubborn sometimes.
What facts would that be? The fact that you hate being rogered by an all-powerful hierarchical uberstupid government because you would rather be rogered by an all-powerful hierarchical uberstupid corporation?
The problem with libertarianism is that it expects competition to exist indefinitely without regulation. Fact is, without a moderate amount of regulation, competition will evaporate like so much smoke.
To put it in different words, optimizing the market is a lot like maximizing the area of a rectangle in a Calculus problem. You get zero area if you don't have any regulations and you get zero area if you have max regulations (i.e. everything government-owned). The optimal position is somewhere between the two extremes.
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
The airline industry... the telecommunications industry... the energy industry in California...
Can anybody tell me why de-regulation is necessarily a good thing? As far as I can tell, de-regulation means that the richest companies get richer, the smaller companies get crushed, and the consumers get hosed.
-- The reason it's called the right wing? Irony.
Note that these streams require Realplayer. I was unable to find an mp3/ogg stream anywhere on their site.
The media do not need to donate money to politicians. The sole purpose of campaign money is to buy favorable media exposure (advertisements). The major news stations can offer that for free. Even worse, they can generate negative news.
Politicians know this game. When they favor the media, the media provides favorable news coverage of them. When they oppose the media, the media provides critical news coverage of them. Any politician who wants to stay in office votes in favor of the media.
Case in point. Less than one month before the 1998 election, a bill was submitted to both houses of congress. Hearings were held with preselected witnesses. The committees passed it. They went to both houses of congress for a full vote. The House and Senate both passed the bill by voice vote with no debate. All of this happened in one day. The bill was the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act.
Murdoch was an Australian citizen. He started out inheriting 1 daily newspaper in Adelaide, Australia. He grew to control most daily metro & regional newspapers & magazines in Australia.
He also bought some UK newspapers and had a large run in with newspaper unions that he won with help from British PM Margaret Thatcher. He also eventually took control of BSkyB, the leading UK satellite service.
When he went to the US and bought 20th Century Fox and established the Fox brand through TV station acquisitions he had to change his citizenship to US as a requirement to own as much media as he does.
News Corporation, the parent company of the various media holdings, is still an Australian company.
Cheers VikingBrad
I believe many would agree that the status quo is in a rather sorry state in itself. The deregulations set today will accelerate the homogeneity that exists on the air today. Who trusts which major news network today on US airwaves? I can only trust watching programs such as Jim Lehrer, Charlie Rose, Bill Moyers, BBC World News, and other not-widely-known-to-most-Americans programs; I'd rather listen to their non-hyped programs, even if any of the aforementioned sources present an ideology different from mine. We're all human; we have differing opinions; the major networks do not exactly orient themselves towards actual debate and discourse but to fluff and ratings boosters.
I just hope those from the House and the Senate who opposed today's ruling will act upon blocking these measures, if they have the capacity to do so. If not, I hope someone protests the ruling in the U.S. District Court in Washington.
Google News
BBC News
He has openly said that he doesn't know what "public interest" means, and prefers to let the market decide these things. He is grossly incompetant. Nepotism and cronyism are not how you find qualified people. Since the FCC has refused to regulate the media, which is what it was created to do in the first place, why isn't it just abolished? It serves no purpose.
How ya like dat?
Does anybody have Michael Powell's home telephone number/address?
I'd just like to send him a thank you card.
http://yetanotherpoliticalrant.blogspot.com
The FCC commissioners who voted for this only care about what Bush tells them to do. Bush cares what his political campaign contributors and spin doctors and handlers tell him to do.
Where did you get the idea that Bush cares what we think?
Tech Public Policy stuff
How much good? Impossible to quantify but obviously more good than not doing anything at all. There are over 700 posts about this new in Slashdot today (not including previous stories) and it would take about the same amount of time to post here as it would in submitting the online petition. Second, simply filling out and submitting an online petition is just the first level of participation. If 700+ additional people actually contacted the offices of the 3 republicans in favor of this FCC move and told them they would vote against them based solely on this single issue, then I believe the impact would have been much greater. Enough to turn the tide? Nobody knows because it didn't happen. Most importantly, what do you propose as an alternative to even doing the bare minimum? No action? Just lay down and watch the USA turn into something similar to communist China where people are afraid to voice their political views in fear of the consequences?
If any one tells you de-regulation is necessarily a good thing they are being ideological. However, looking at the actual functioning of any particular market, it happens to be the case the de-regulation is often a good thing. IMHO, the onus must be upon a regulating authority to prove that their activities result in an outcome at least better than that which the unregulated market would produce, on measureable criteria, that at least a majority of citizens agree are desireable.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
"After occassionally checking out CNN's coverage of the recent war in Iraq I'm rather dismayed at any decision giving more power/control over the airwaves to such organizations"
It's called the free press. Let CNN say what it wants to say.
"Am I just being a conspiracy theorist to suggest a more sinister potential behind decisions like this?"
Nothing more sinister than the idea of daring to defend the First Amendment to the Constitution; something you would want to take away from CNN because you want the content of their reporting censored.
"CNN's one sided coverage of the decision to go to war was apallingly 'patriotic'"
No, it was not. It was rather left-wing and anti-Bush (and this anti-Iraq)
"Will CNN ever mention the false accusations that where made against France in what was basically a media smear campaign of a nation that disagreed with the Bush admin's plans"
Because the accusations are true. The facts about the French government's close alliance with Saddam and their support of his mass murders were well known.
" Nope, not good for ratings. America's most trusted source for news, there's a joke I won't be laughing at anytime soon."
Fox is more trusted, as it is fair and balanced and shows both sides (instead of mainly the left-wing as CNN does).
Except for the fact that corporations have little power in America. They are way overtaxed to hell.
They are overregulated, even after this FCC ruling; with popular media outlets being prevented from expanding to serve their audience.
Where I live now (the boonies), we can choose from Time Warner Cable or Charter for our programming, and we can still choose between digital and analog either way. We can also select between those two and Road Runner for high speed cable access. As per cost, for 58 channels and cable Internet (1.4 mbps), we pay $70 (includes equipment). Prior to 1996, we paid $60 for 40 channels and no Internet.
Now take Phoenix Arizona. I could choose between Cox (or Cocks if you've ever dealt with them) and Cable America, and prices and services were comparable at $70 for digital cable and high speed internet.
I'm still wondering how this equates to utter media domination. There are 8,539 FM radio stations, thats up from 5,665 in 1990 (that's BEFORE regulation) and the "big boys" are prohibited from owning more under the new rules anway. Major corporate radio is responsible fore less than 40% of total ownership, and people are capitalizing on the uncertain attitudes of listeners when it comes to corporate radio, thanks to demagogues like you.
That is complete and utter unsubstantiated bullshit. Clearchannel promoted DC and underwrote their world tour. A number of clearchannel stations which specialize in country music may have boycotted them after that stupid bitch Natalie Mains ran her mouth, but eventually the public demand forced those few music directors who made that decision to start playing them again.
As for this "defending the Constitution" tirade of yours, please remove your cephalis from your anus. This was a political decision by a corporation - which is an excercise of their free speech. The constitution protects us from the government, not ourselves. If you had actually read the constitution, you'd notice the part where it says "congress shall make now law...". It's in the Bill of Rights...the first one...if you have trouble finding it, let me know.
Stop being anti-capitalist and swallowing hook-line-and sinker everything you hear on SlashDot.
"I believe many would agree that the status quo is in a rather sorry state in itself. The deregulations set today will accelerate the homogeneity that exists on the air today"
There is less homogeneity over time, in fact. Over time we get more and more news sources: from C-Span with is utterly bias-free to Fox which is centrist and helps balance out left-wing CNN. We get more and more national news media voices, not fewer.
I believe many would agree that the status quo is in a rather sorry state in itself"
Few would, as the diversity of voices is exploding: doubling on television, and well... ever hear of the Internet?
"I just hope those from the House and the Senate who opposed today's ruling will act upon blocking these measures, if they have the capacity to do so."
I hope not. There is no justification at all for having such regulations in place.
"I can only trust watching programs such as Jim Lehrer, Charlie Rose, Bill Moyers, BBC World News"
Bill Moyers???? He is a welfare queen who lies about just about everything. He is a perfect example if why the government budget for PBS and NPR needs to be zeroed out immediately.
"Who trusts which major news network today on US airwaves?"
Fox, because it dares to be factual more than the others.
"the 'winning' majority stuck to a blinded ideology without giving any consideration of other's opinions"
No, the winning majority dared to heed the Constitution: the First Amendment.
" the major networks do not exactly orient themselves towards actual debate and discourse but to fluff and ratings boosters"
So, you want them censored due to fluffy debates?
"This 'regulatory' commission, as Commissioner Adelstein pointed out in his speech, is becoming a toothless tiger."
Great! The last thing I want predator cats to gnaw on is the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Yes, that dreaded First Amendment, which grants free speech: even if your material happens to be too popular (Clear Channel), if your name happens to be Murdoch (Fox), if your debates happen to be fluff (CNN). There are no exceptions.
I'll grant you that I was wrong when I said that the FCC was decreasing regulations of radio industry but:
THEY ARE KEEPING THE REGULATIONS THAT ARE IN PLACE FOR RADIO!!!! Therefore they are RE-regulating radio.
this is wrong. My boss didn't fire me today. Does that me he re-hired me? I didn't divorce my wife today, does that mean I re-married her? If the FCC had put the old ownership rules back in place, that would be re-regulation.
As for this "defending the Constitution" tirade of yours, please remove your cephalis from your anus"
To certain people such as him, it actually violates freedom of speech when a publisher controls its own content.
"I'm still wondering how this equates to utter media domination"
It doesn't. There are about 20,000 radio stations. Clear Channel owns 1,200. Do the math: that is a small percentage.
Sure, there is another part of the story: Clear Channel happens to program very popular music programming, which makes the audience very big. It is pretty much a constant in all the "anti Clear Channel" movement that they basically want to censor it for providing entertainment that is too popular.
"...you believe that nothing America does as the result of slanted journalism "
If you have a wide-open media situation as in America, slanted journalism's effect gets zeroed out, as someone will report the truth.
Uh no. It's not government that needs fixing. It's the citizens who do. Citizens have pretty much disassociated themselves from any kind of responsibilities, trying to have government do it for them.
Lets see:
* there is a reduction in parenting. Citizens are parenting as well as they used to. There has been several studies on this.
* The rise of special interest because citizens no longer care about issues.
* Citizens have generally become apathetic to anything except their next meal and taxes.
Voter turnout continues to be very low. Why don't anybody care about things? Let me ask you about that? What happened to vigorously participating in our government? I guarantee you, if people participated government would be very watchful of what they do.
sri
...yeah, I goofed the math...the 8000 number is for radio stations that are incorporated. The overwhelming majority of stations are sole proprietorships, joint ownerships, or 501c (public radio).
Let me guess, you've never heard of Noam Chomsky, have you? (Or if you have, heard or read what he has said directly and not from what a conservative pundit tells you about him?)
You like Fox News, right? None of Alan Colmes arguments have displayed logic or reason to you? Or Pat Buchanan's opponent on MSNBC (can't think of his name).
Take out all of the showmanship and entertainment value of Rush Limbaugh. Would he still be as popular if he used his *ahem* unique version of logic and reason alone without these things? I can think of some excellent, logical conservative pundits out there. A friend of mine recently introduced me to a smart bloke by the name of Bob Lonsberry. But you have to admit that a lot of the louder mainstream right-wing talking heads out there get popular through entertaining people and keeping them feeling good about their country no matter what it does.
It is your right to hate all things liberal. However, you might want to make an honest objective attempt to know what you are hating before you continue to do so. After I began looking into the conservative viewpoint which I didn't understand I found many constructive challenges to my views and other points I found I agreed with which I never knew were conservative ideals. Quite honestly the thing which prevented me into looking into conservative philosophy the most were those conservative blow-hards screaming their logic and reason in my ear and blinding me to the true conservative thinkers who were out there. You can find quite similar results from the liberal side of things as well.
Happy people make bad consumers.
Except the BBC isn't government run nor funded, they're incorporated as independent corporation under a Royal Charter, their revenue streams are generated from an independently administrated TV licence and government or HM Tresury has no involvement in its funding... since the BBC don't recieve anything from general taxation.
The problem is people equate a public broadcaster with government because they see an instrument of state like VoA and asume everything must be like that, not to mention the lamentable state of PBS or a dry CSPAN creates a false impression. Not to mention a US govt wouldn't allow any dissent from a publicly funded broadcaster, obviously this is a moot point as far as private broadcasters are concerned.
A BBC would never work in the US, it wouldn't even be allowed to get started and try, it's a legacy of a hybird public service concept that used to be found in British society, sadly this has now been eroded by crass popuarlism and commercialism.
Michael K. Powell is Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. He was sworn in as a member of the Commission on November 3, 1997. He was designated Chairman by President Bush on January 22, 2001.
Mr. Powell, a Republican, was nominated by President William J. Clinton on July 31, 1997, and confirmed by the United States Senate on October 28, 1997.
There is an agreement on power sharing at the FCC that gives 2 commissioners to the majority, 2 commissioners to the minority and the chairman to the President or something like that. Mike Powell was appointed in 1997 by Bill Clinton because the Republicans told him to do so. Had the President at this time been an armadillo, Mike Powell would have been appointed by an armadillo...
SNS Not Sig
so plans are around long enough to reach fruition, rather than cutting down a crop mid-season and planting something else.
It makes a lot of sense. It's a time-weighted balance or a time series. A moving weighted average.
Here in Ontario each new provincial government seems to dimantle 25% of the structure build by the prior government, seemingly out of vindictiveness.
Thanks for the book tip, friend! I don't know how I missed The Dosadi Experiment, considering how much I enjoyed the first few Dune books, so many years ago. I'll read it this summer.
Esteem isn't a zero sum game
Check this out: Says it all. Follow the money.
The Tube
http://www.filmtube.com
Watch this great documentary, read Marshall McLuhan...if you are logic you will throw away your TV forever.
Unless you actually enjoy being brainwashed every day of your life.
Pleas, someone mod this up, this can not be hidden from the world.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
I live in San Diego, a market with about 17 English language FM radio stations and Clear Channel owns or operates about 10 of them. And between the CC stations, each station has its own radio format- the only "duplicates" come from non-CC stations who have the same format (Classic Rock, Alternative, Country and top 40)
I find the diversity in music on radio to be appealing; enough so that I don't buy cds anymore because I have no need to. The radio stations play music that I like, there's enough variety in the different stations where if I'm in the mood for rap, I can listen to the rap station, or Tool & tune in the rock station, etc. Some _songs_ appeal to different genres (Tool, for example, is played on the "alternative" and the "heavy metal" stations; Jimi Hendrix on the Classick Rock & Heavy Metal stations) but for the most part, a song would have to be a current hit (and huge) to hear it frequently in listening to a specific station for 3 hours. The only formats that dosn't get any airplay are Classical music and "Big Band" but both can be found on AM stations, and classical music has a part time home on the NPR station.
I bemoan the quality of radio only because of the lack of good new music, but I place that blame at the feet of music producers and not of the radio stations. The music I hear on my radio suits me fine. Its not perfect, but it's not inferior to pre-Clear Channel days when there were 6 stations playing Adult Contemporary/Top 40 instead of the current 3 stations we have now.
Look at all of the artists who produced good music during the 80s and 90s and their attempts in the past 5 years to follow up on that success. It's not Clear Channel's fault that Michael Jackson's music sucks ass now, that Madonna doesn't know what the fuck she's doing
Has the FCC EVER pulled the plug on a commerical network?
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
I have decided that this ruling will only have meaning, if any, for probably at least 5-10 years and a most a generation. And it won't be too different than if it had gone the other way.
Sure, what you get on the TV and radio broadcasts and local newspapers may be schlock, but I've decided it already is today. All of our "major" commercial sources will paste together their views within the stories they cover and you are inevitably forced to cobble together an accurate reading of the news from multiple outlets. News, even more than history, is quite easily rewritten and padded to favor different sides. I don't think that basic problem will ever be solved.
But the "news monopoly" has the same eventual destiny as McDonalds/RIAA/M$/etc. - the barriers to market entry will fall due to technological advances favoring product quality over quantity and the monopolies will find the carpet taken out from under them.
In the end, we'll have a whole new set of news stations, and likely all the choice we'll want. Who knows what they'll use to communicate with exactly, but broadcasting seems unlikely, since it is, after all, the older technology here.
In the grand scheme of things, this measure is not going to do a whole lot.
"If 700+ additional people actually contacted the offices of the 3 republicans in favor of this FCC move and told them they would vote against them based solely on this single issue, then I believe the impact would have been much greater."
You must be misunderstanding what's going on. The FCC received SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND messages from people objecting to this. Over 99% of all input they received was opposed.
The fix was in. This is the Bush administration we're talking about. You know, the one that got into office with almost exactly half the vote - they are doing everything for one side, and one side only. Period.
Interestingly enough, if Fox News was owned by the US Government rather than Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorporation, they couldn't very well have refused to air any advertisements critical of the FCC vote, could they? (Rupert did.)
The First Amendment would protect us from a Government-owned media source, but it is powerless against Government party line coming out of the private sector. Didn't Eisenhower warn us about the military-industrial complex? He didn't forsee that the media would become part of it, though.
You want free speech? Get a state-owned last-mile IPv6 backbone for everyone, free. Constitution will protect us from there.
Or else keep proudly serving your corporate masters. We all know they have the consumers' best interests at heart...
I found it strange to see Sen. Hollings (Disney) speaking against this ruling on C-Span. Given that his one of his primary campaign donors is one of the big four broadcast companies (ABC). This caused me to wonder what interests he would have in opposing this ruling. So, who besides the public loses with the 35% to 45% change? Advertisers, with a reduced level of competition between advertising mediums prices for advertising can only go up. So who advertises? Pretty much friggin everybody who contribues to campaingns. Oh, and politicians when running for reelection. I don't thik this ruling by the FCC will survive to be implemented.
"There is nothing to do it. But to do it." -Floyd Pepper
Do you really think it is a good idea to stop the owner of a radio station from doing what they want to do with their business? Is a radio license a property, which you should be able to improve or sell like a piece of land? The government should stop interference with licensed stations, or else people who disagree with the opinions or music of a station will jam or broadcast their alternative on that frequency. But the government has been using politics to restrict business and even forcing ownership transfers to political groups.
The First Amendment gives you the right to publish or say whatever you want, but it does not mean that you will have given to you a printing press or radio station. The First Amendment does imply that the government should not interfere with what you do with your printing press or radio station, including to whom you sell your publishing/newspaper/radio business.
true, when they are jobs.
when economy is shrinking, short term effect is not as clear (understatement).
remember we needed the new deal and WWII to clean up the economy after the market ruled in the 30s.
Given the 2002 selections (whether your favorite won or not, it was that close) there's a solution we can win with, and you all know it. Remember the old open spectrum stuff posted here several times?
Seems to me, the first candidate to oppose our own axis of evil stands to make it over the top if they have the sense to get their opposition plastered all over the p2p networks, most especially if they can make a quick and good case for the idea that the issues of p2p and open spectrum are one and the same. (I'd use the term "connectivity", since it seems to be the language of the open spectrum folk. Open spectrum is to current tv/radio what p2p sharing is to riaa's website, in more ways than one.) And of course, even if they lose, any dent in the numbers means no future candidate can afford to lose the advantage of a p2p presence, media contributions be ... lost.
"Was there ANYONE that thought that massive tax cuts for the rich were a good idea besides the peeps at the top who stand to get more money?"
Under the Bush tax cut, the rich are only a tiny minority of those who get a fair and proportional cut in their taxes. And, yes, it is a great idea to cut taxes across the board for all taxpayers.
"Interestingly enough, if Fox News was owned by the US Government rather than Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorporation, they couldn't very well have refused to air any advertisements critical of the FCC vote, could they? (Rupert did.)"
Good for Rupert. Free speech is his business. Why would he want to air groups from nuts who want to censor the media?
"The First Amendment would protect us from a Government-owned media source, but it is powerless against Government party line coming out of the private sector"
As it should be! The First Amendment applies to all, even if they happen to say something that supposedly agrees with the government.
"Let me guess, you've never heard of Noam Chomsky, have you?"
Of course. Who hasn't? He's a clown, basically a reknowned linguist with delusions who writes alternate-reality fiction that some think are factual.
It is pretty easy to go through even one paragraph of his writing and find several facts he got wrong: a combination of sloppiness and a fertile imagination.
He's way out of his league; like a rocket scientist who thinks he can do brain surgery.
"Oops, I should have said the summit was in France but they had to hold the riot in Switzerland since everyone is always on strike in France."
What if the rioters went on strike to demand more rights and benefits for rioters?
What would happen to activists who dared to cross the picket line to protest?
Myself included. It may interest you to know that one of the few national newspapers that actually covered this, warned its readers about this, and encouraged them to right to the FCC was the conservative weekly newspaper the American Free Press. They've been covering this for weeks now.
What is with the bias against large companies? It always amazes me that almost everyone on Slashdot is against any large company simply BECAUSE it's a large company. What's so bad with a large company controlling more of what you see and hear? Think about it logically... which might be tough for some of you government-school-educated youngsters... A company is concerned with profit. Profit comes from customers. Customers come from people that are pleased with what you provide. If you don't please people with what you provide, you don't get customers, and you don't make a profit. If you don't make a profit, you go out of business, and someone else takes your place. The Big Corporations aren't the enemy... the public is the enemy. If the public is diversified enough to demand more variety in their television and radio, then the Big Corporations will create more programming to suit those needs. If those needs aren't being filled, a new company will be formed to fill them (and at worst, the Big Corporation will buy the small company when it becomes a menace to their profits, but the Big Corporation will keep the programming that made them successful, thus increasing their profit). I don't see how politics has anything to do with the FCC's decision, but as long as you bring it up, nobody said anything when ABC, CBS, and NBC were the only stations in the market, so why worry now that Fox (and Rupert Murdoch) are becoming successful? Again, the law of supply and demand kicks in. Step 1: Demand conservative-biased news reporting. Step 2: Supply conservative-biased news reporting. Step 3: Profit! >Why is this so difficult to understand? I don't think it's the understanding that's the problem. The problem is that "understanding" isn't enough to make a person except any information from one source. "This is how business works"? Give me a break. When a business doesn't listen to it's customers and the customers get fed up, they will leave. Considering the FCC is a business, I don't expect many people to favor them in the right in years to come. >With all the coverage it's getting, you can >hardly say that the "current regime" is "NOT >interested in anything that might produce news >media that isn't 100% behind" them. It's the >simplest of economic rules and it's been >working since the dawn of time So because people have been racist to each other from the beginning of time, we should have just ignored Martin Luther King and Malcolm X out of simplistic laziness? >Why are you so afraid of a little competition >from someone who obviously understand economics? It's not the fear my friend. It's the mere fact that there is no competition, and it's not just done by the consumers in terms of their choice. It's in the way they advertise, and in the way they bully out local businesses. I don't honestly think you know what your talking about, and one other person I know at work has told me this dumbshit. But then he lives in the suburbs. :)
The point is, I should be able to get my news from other sources. Not one. Regardless of how the world does things, it's still wrong.
-matt
insteading of spewing what sounds like second-hand drivel.
You pretty much hit the nail on the head with that one. I have never understood why I get moderated the way I do on slashdot, really. My best posts usually get a 3 or less, while my ranting and drivel is either a one or five. The moderation was much better when it was a smaller site.
The only person I was truly trying to get through with this particular post was the parent (abcxyz). I went about it in the wrong manner, as you pointed out. I should have pointed them to newssites like Guerrilla News and articles relating to why this is bad other than spewing what I gleamed from them.
Again, I don't understand why some posts are moderated the way they are. I definitely agree with you on one thing, if I make a point and want to be taken seriously, I must bring out facts, and have them lined up to back up my hypothesis.
Now if this post gets moderated past 5 hell is truly freezing over.
What's the matter? Have you run out of arguments? Why don't you go to rushlimbaugh.com and copy some more.
You know he's fully qualified to feed us his opinions, what with him going all the way through 12th grade, and all.
- Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
Okay, that was not as funny as this, but it is still funny.
Thanks for calling me Stalin too, but I will decline the invitation to join your camp.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
No its not wrong. It came time for the regulation to change...being either stopped or continued in the same or different fashion. If you were employed under a contract....it would be RE-newed....like RE-REGULATED, because it would be coming time to change like the regulation. A marriage doesnt fit unless you wanted to look at it as re-marriage if marriage had a finite time that it is reconsidered. This is very elementary stuff.
Thanks for calling me Stalin too, but I will decline the invitation to join your camp.
No problem. Thanks for acting like Stalin and proving to the world how dangerous you psychos truly are (as if we needed any more proof).
Man , this is getting ugly. I feel like I'm winning a boxing match in the Special Olympics. Or like the US military blasting the shit out of an Iraqi marketplace. It's sad to go up against an unarmed opponent. I'll leave you alone now since you've obviously run out of anything to say that even approaches a point. Go lick your wounds.
- Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
No, jobs come when people create them. Increased unemployment creates future business growth, since some people who can't find jobs create their own businesses.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Oh fucking please. Name me an untainted source of information?
Until we have "data from star trek" reporting the news please lets not act like you, the high and mighty, the intellectual elite, gets the news from "real" sources. You think you can think for other people, and people like you will pull a "New York Times" and make up shit, if need be, to protect the retarded sheeple in society.
All these fuckers are prismatic and bend the light of truth to serve their own purposes.
I can tell you are guilty of it too.
The funny thing about Fox is at least you know the underlying bias, not these other retards faking being impartial.
Typical case of bourgeoisphobia.