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..
"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!
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.)
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?
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.
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
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.
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!
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...
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
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...
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
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.
Oceania is now allied with Eastasia. Oceania has ALWAYS been allied with Eastasia.
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
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???
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
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?
Dan Gillmor wrote a column in advance of this decision, worth a read at http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/598 9915.htm
Welcome to life under the Republicans.
Do you even know what you're talking about? The current FCC Chairman was appointed by Bill Clinton. The fact that Bush made him chairman doesn't change the fact that Clinton was the one who brought him on board in the first place.
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
Except that the FCC is required to review the diversity of media every two years and decide whether or not ownership limitations need to be opposed or lifted (this was result of the 2 year anniversary from the last review). So if the media really did become a monoculture and the FCC actually did serve the public interest ... then we'd be okay.
:)
Oh yeah, you know where I learned that? NPR
Not even all the people at the top agree with this. In particular, Ted Turner (founder of Turner Broadcasting) and Barry Diller (the former head of Paramount and Universal) have stated publicly that media consolidation is unwise.
An interesting article on Ted Turner and media consolidation can be found here: "The media is too concentrated... Too few people control too much."
Well, there were the married people making between $10,500 and $26,000 who thought they'd be seeing the increase in the child tax credit... but aren't. Sucks to be them, huh? Hah-hah!
Ooh, ooh, or those single parents filing as head-of-the-household who won't see a drop in their tax rate. Serves them right for not living like normal God-fearing people!
I say, hand me another Benjamin, Jeeves: I need to light my cigar.
AHHHHHHH! I'm burning with goodness again!
- Reakk, Sluggy Freelance
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.
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're not cattle, but well suscepteable to mass marketing, which is what media outlets are being used for.
it's not a lack of free will, but it's well funded persuasion. and it works terribly well.
in short: any deregulation of any market, leads to monopolies, and a deregulation of the media market leads to control of a majority of people.
f64 : quite in despair over the state of the world
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
I'm not necessarily talking about the FCC chairman. The vote today was along party lines. It is controlled by the republicans, 3-2.
I don't care who brought the chairman on board. It was still the republicans who voted for this.
Globe199
In a recent interview, Lowry Mays, CEO of Clear Channel, made the following remark: "We're not in the business of providing news and information. We're not in the business of providing well-researched music. We're simply in the business of selling our customers products."
Therefore, whatever you think Clear Channel is today is whatever the consumers wanted.
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."
IIRC, the big complaint on the tax cuts is that people that do not pay income taxes are not getting any money out of the deal. I am quite puzzled that this arguement can escape from a Liberal Arts department or a Workers World Party meeting (yes, that was redundant).
The whole argument (against income tax cuts) is that it is "giving something to someone", which is obviously false. An absence of taking is not giving.
Perhaps we should give every person that does not pay income taxes $1,000,000.00 using the same logic,i.e., if it is not taken it is a gift, and all will be well?
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
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.
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.
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
This has nothing to do with liberalism.
Market consolidation is just a pretty way of saying COMMUNISM.
The whole point of capitalism (for those of not Robber Barons) is the beneficial side effects of competition that arise out of multiple players existing in the marketplace. Eliminate choice and diversity from the marketplace and you are left with the unacceptable choice of either putting up with the crap or stop participating in the market.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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
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?
How easy is it to collude amongst 100 people/corporations vs. how easy is it to collude amongst 5?
Think of a standard bell curve -- how reliably does a sample count of 5 map to a curve vs. a sample count of 20? Of 100?
How is the public served by having diminishing points of view? How is the FCC doing is job to protect PUBLIC interests when public opinion is massively against these actions?
AHHHHHHH! I'm burning with goodness again!
- Reakk, Sluggy Freelance
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.
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.
Actually, it's conservative economists that seem to be screaming the loudest about George II's tax plan.
The stated purpose of this plan is to jumpstart the economy. The ultra-wealthy don't do most of the spending, working stiffs do. It makes much more sense to give an immediate moral boost to the nation at large by allowing many more people to go on a spending spree.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
No DirecTV? Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman! Yeah, it's illegal for them to sell it, but since there's no DMCA up there, it's still perfectly legal for you to recieve and decode it, arrr matey?
Wow, I didn't realize the FCC just banned anyone from owning a radio station except those five evil corporations. What is the timetable in the FCC regulation for the police and military to storm the independent radio stations, nationalize them and then give them to the "big five?"
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
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.
That's fine for Fox to refuse certain ads, in the current environment anyway. Now imagine a future where Newscorp or clearchannel or disney owns 98% of a market - they will control all info. You won't even know what the issues are because you will never hear about them.
The internet is inadequate for solving this problem. Start looking for the "friendly cooperation" links - like the WashPost/Newsweek/MSNBC cluster. Nice, eh? The truth is that Big Media controls a lot of the internet too. Popular exceptions are rare - Drudge Report, for instance - but often lack "credibility" in the minds of many.
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?
...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.
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.
All well and good, but no doubt they will be just as open for public comment as they were on the ruling itself. Let's see, most human beings were against the rule change while monsters like Big Corporations were all that mattered.
The FCC will have a massive blindspot for the tremendous deficiencies in the media as long as Bush and buds are in power. They are NOT interested in furthering dissenting voices' (anything other than conservative Republican cheerleaders) access to the airwaves. They are NOT interested in ANYTHING that doesn't further pad the pockets of rich corporate heads in the media. They are NOT interested in anything that might produce news media that isn't 100% behind the current regime.
Unless there is a new Administration in 2 years, the rules will be a priori assumed good regardless of public comment or real evidence to the contrary.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
the FCC is not required to review the diversity of media. a commissioner said as much today. they're required to review the "competition" -- so long as there is no technical monopoly, they've done their job. doesn't matter of there's an oligarchy of corporate/state entities with the same interests that behave similarly.
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.
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 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.
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
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.
How can the Drudge lack credibility. He simply finds stories, and posts links to them? If you follow the references and do your own research, like you should anyway, then the Drudge is very simply a tool, like it should only be.
The "news" used to be a public watchdog of sorts. Now, it's a ratings grabbing corporate run marketing scam. And to think of all the people gaining their world views from them and ONLY them scares the living hell out of me. If you only watch MSNBC (yes, that's MICROSFOT NBC) or Fox News to form your world view, then believe me when I say, you "live" in an extremely distorted world. A corporate view, a sponsored view, etc...
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
The current FCC Chairman was appointed by Bill Clinton.
That means nothing. No FCC commission may have more than three members from any one party. On top of that, Powell was appointed in 1997 when the Senate (which must approve appointees) was controlled by Republicans. So not only was Clinton required to appoint a Republican, but any choice not approved by the rest of the Republican party would have been shot down.
You and all the people who modded you up Insightful are just repeating the same tired, meaningless defense of Powell's ultra-conservative deregulation binge.
Never approach a vast undertaking with a half-vast plan.
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.
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.
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.
I don't think so. Ownership by the *State* is the central tenet of Communism. Everything owned by the government. What you're talking about is corporate monopoly, not a form of government.
How does this kind of Just Plain Bad Information get modded up so high?
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
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? 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, yet you continue to put the political spin on it. Why are you so afraid of a little competition from someone who obviously understand economics?
"It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
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
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
This surprised me not at all.
A few years back, when Murdoch was a Canadian citizen, he tried to get British Peerage, which is illegal for Canadians and so was blocked by the Prime Minister. This did not please Murdoch and so the issue became front-page news on the National Post, the Canadian national newspaper he'd founded not long before. That's right--he used his newspaper chain as a venue for a temper tantrum. (IIRC, Murdoch eventually gave up Canadian citizenship so he could get his lordship. Good riddance, I say.)
More seriously, he also ordered all of his papers to run editorials opposing a particular major land-claim settlement with various First Nations groups.
And then, there was the town that got so pissed off at him that they started their own local newspaper.
Anyway, y'all had best start investing in printing presses and broadcast licenses. The only way you'll get decent media now is if you make it yourselves.
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.
Republicans get just a bit more than the Democrats.
Both sums are really sick though.
The entire POINT of a free press is NOT to act as a cheerleader or supporter of the government. It is supposed to be a semi-4th tier to government, independent of of the government, watching the government and providing information, not propaganda from the government.
The big media moguls are, to a man, conservative. They only accept conservative slanted news, conservative opinion pieces, and pro-business pieces. They only care about profit, not telling the truth, not providing a bullshit detector for the people against the government - unless the government isn't inclined to give bags of tax giveaways, special business deals (cronyism ala Haliburton), and other special dispensation to big business. Then they can be counted on to support...wait, that simply means once again that they support only a conservative agenda. They have no interest in objectivity nor in getting a balanced view to the people, like it used to be.
Big Corporations are automagically in bed with conservative politics and political figures. Anything they support is automatically against the interest of the many (the People) and in favor of the bank book of a few CEOs and other members of the board. Big business is automatically against freedom, alternative views, even objective views (because it is objectively bad to pollute, no matter what, for instance, so an objective view of that fact is anathema to Big Business because it impacts the bottom line).
Name a single Big Corporation that supports free expression, the improvement of those with less instead of furthering those who already have everything, are pro-environment, anti-pollution, etc, etc. They do not exist. Hell, the stockholders of Exxon, an evil company if ever there was one, voted for $$$ instead of the most logical and sensible and GOOD thing...healthy environment and the inevitable future: developing more "green" energy. Big Business is anathema to life in general.
Repeat after me: Money \= happiness. Lots of money is not better than clean air, water, and open space. There are more important things in life than $$$.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
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
Sorry, as a 25 year veteran if the industry - I must say diversity is not a factor here - never was. That's just all media BS to hype people in believing a certain agenda. This didn't just happen today.. this began during the CLINTON administration with the first wave of deregulation of radio broadcasting. At first, everyone was happy to buy up a competitor and have stations compliment each other. But, all the buyers over extended themselves and had to cut people to make their loan payments. The result is today - fewer people listening to the radio and watching broadcast TV. People in braodcasting are scratching their heads wondering "what happened?" They cut creativity, cut talented people only to replace them with automated stations and people in powerful positions who wouldn't have gotten a job sweeping floors 15 years ago. This was more about de-regulating TV. For the moron who posted that this actually RE-REGULATED radi- YOU re-read the story - this actually relaxed the rules further than they already were. Oh, yeah and Clear Channel "bashing" they deserve every insult thrown at them. They aren't the only slayers of modern radio, only the worst....
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?
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!
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.
~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.
OK, Let me know when was the last time your Cable bill, or DSL bill dropped for the unmetered services (basic charges)?
"the difference between myself and a madman is that I am not mad" -Salvadore Dali
I never said I valued profit over truth. I said that nobody would start a news agency that had no ability to make a profit.
The concept you don't seem to understand is that with competition, each news network will check the rest, thus preventing any incredible failures in communicating truth. If you're an exec at MSNBC and FNC makes a grave error and reports that Osama Bin Laden has been killed, and you can prove they're wrong, don't you think you would? You'd gain an edge over the competition, bringing in more viewers, and more potential customers... eventually equaling more profit. Don't you think that's the point of starting a national news channel?
"It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
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
If the big media is "leftist" then:
- Why are the REPUBICANS blocking restoring the "Fairness Doctrine?"
- Why are the REPUBLICAN members of the FCC voting FOR the big companies and the Democrats against?
- When was the last time you saw a representative of the union movement on TV?
- Why is every single AM radio station right-wing?
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.
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
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?
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
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.
To supply the "if you're wondering" part that seems to have gotten lost. Global warming and ozone depletion have nothing to do with each other, all it takes is some homework and/or a basic knowledge of chemestry to know this.
In very simplified brief terms, and devoid of complexities that would require a physics lesson:
Ozone depletion:
Cause: Breakdown of the Ozone (O3) molecule caused, in large part, by man-made chemicals that have made their way to the upper atmosphere.
Effect: Ozone 'blocks' (I'm skipping the physics lesson) Ultra Violet radiation, less Ozone = more UV. High levels of UV radiation are harmful to essentially all life on earth because UV radiation can cause celular damage.
Greenhouse effect:
Cause: Increase in atmospheric gases which act as an insulational layer for the earth. To grossly simplify, (fractional)absorption and re-emission of Infra Red radiation that would normally escape into space, so that it instead is re-emmited back toward earth. Heavy industry has caused larger levels of "greenhouse gases" to be released into the atmosphere then normally occur in nature.
Effect: Global temperature increases by a small amount, amount may be large enough to effect systems in unstable equilibrium, or those which are near boundry conditions.
Granted, it would be highly unlikely for conditions to accur that would result in the total melting of the polar ice caps. But that's not what's important.
What's important is that with the following words "a whole 300 feet. No big loss." You completely destroy any creditability you ever had.
Stop and think for a minute how many major world cities are at LESS then 300 feet of elevation?
I suppose "No big loss" is a subjective value call, but I think the majority of people would consider the loss of the majority of major cities in the world, as a big loss.
Building a better backup.
Zettabyte Storage