Slashdot Mirror
Congress May Overturn FCC's Media Consolidation Plan
Spril writes "A congressional committee voted yesterday to prevent the FCC from allowing even more consolidation of the media industry. The original ruling was covered on Slashdot. The committee attached the pro-consumer proposal to a bill funding the Justice and State departments for 2004. But the Bush administration has threatened to veto the funding because they support ever-larger corporations owning ever-bigger chunks of the spectrum that theoretically belongs to the public. Clear Channel may need to cough up some more money for their lobbyists."
...the United States of America Congress for approx. 1.257631919191918 seconds sided with consumers.
The committee attached the pro-consumer proposal to a bill funding the Justice and State departments for 2004.
Finally, an attachment that might be safe to open!! *Proceeds to double-click in Outlook*
It's quite clear that President Bush (or I should say the White House)threatens to veto ANYTHING that even hints at anti-corporate behavior! It's quite clear that he feels his mandate is to serve the corporations rather than the consumer!! I keep the seeing this time after time after time since he was elected (or should I say appointed) President. Fuck him! I'm NOT voting for him in 2004 this time around!!!
...when we need clearchannel licenses to operate radios. Similar to the UK's radio/tv tax, only done by the one company that rightfully controls the entire radio band and has the right to tax it. In socialism, the government takes away freedoms. In democracy, companies take away freedoms. In a mix (the US), companies take away freedoms with government mandate.
It was becoming one of those situations where you're worried that it's going to wind up like a plot for a bad movie. "Thank you for tuning into KUSA (yeah, I'm a left-coaster), the ONE broadcasting company you need!"
At least there will be some discourse, or so one would hope.
Unfortunately, this challenge only applies to the increase in percentage of TV broadcast ownership. The change allowing cross-media ownership (so that ClearChannel, for example, can now own several radio stations plus TV stations plus newspapers) will not be challenged. Congressmen (mostly Republics, surprise, surprise) threatened to kill the entire bill if any changes in the cross-media section were pushed.
Still, better than nothing I suppose. If this passes, Fox will have to go ahead and divest itself of the excess Television coverage they picked up that put them in violation of the cap.
"Defenders of the recent FCC ruling said that critics were exaggerating its impact and that networks had to get bigger to continue providing free broadcast television"
You know, I had almost forgotten that you could get TV without cable or satellite. Silly luddites and their airwave TV.
It's not stupid. It's advanced.
It asked me to save 'goatse.cx' (Mozilla 1.4 Mozilla/5.0 [Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4] Gecko/20030624)
Back to the drawing board, my son...
Then again, I might just be a cynic at the ripe old age of 25.
Electric Monkey Pants
"the Bush administration has threatened to veto the funding because they support ever-larger corporations owning ever-bigger chunks of the spectrum that theoretically belongs to the public"
Now I remember why I read slashdot, for the non-biased even-handed reporting. Now when are we going to see a mention of Fritz Hollings' membership in the democratic party?
But the Bush administration has threatened to veto the funding because they support ever-larger corporations owning ever-bigger chunks of the spectrum that theoretically belongs to the public
Nice editorializing. Just tell us the story next time, okay?
[SIG] It's like putting a moose in the blender -- a recipe for disaster!
Ralph Nader made some interesting observations about the proposed changes.
No, they will introduce a bill that will fail. But, it will only fail after the big business made large payoffs to their congress or senate scum.
Fight Spammers!
Given up on Media anyway. Even the media organizations that you could once count on being neutral and just reporting the facts are lost to us now.
If you trust anything reported by so called unbiased media sources, you are a fool. Times have changed, the news is all about ratings. Sensationalism, no matter the truth or consequences is the order of the day.
And no, you can't trust the news from the internet either. Honestly, as a society, I am concerned about what we are going to do next. If we continue along this path, Time-Warner, Clear Channel and the rest might as well just start speaking for us.
I'm certainly not against free speech...but I think more effort needs to be invested in keeping media conglomerates in check.
Can we PLEASE get the "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." with just straight reporting and not put editorial/opinion comments DIRECTLY in the lead? That's what the comments are for.
"Media companies continue to grow, and a shrinking number of them shape what we view and read. What does that mean for journalists -- and for the nation?"
Columbia Journalism Review's Web guide to what the major media companies own.
Judging by how tiny the scroll bar becomes when I open the Clear Channel page, I would say they own most of radio while Viacom, NewsCorp and Disney own most of TV.
Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
Who says Linux/Unix own the weirdest version names?
Amen.
Silly me.
This is my sig.
Needless to say, I was a bit, um, amazed. But regardless of what you (or I) think of him, Trent Lott is a seasoned politician. And the only way to become one of those is to listen to constituents.
Maybe he's still atoning for that Strom Thurmond thing...
"Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)
Bitter, anyone?
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
I hope this personal anecdote is telling: I'm a journalist. Or will be. Depends on how you look at it. I just got a full scholarship + hefty fellowship to attend grad school in Journalism at University of Texas at Austin. When I graduate, I plan to leave this country for Canada anyway. There are too few jobs in journalism here - even fewer after all those media consolidation mergers go through. Furthermore, most of the "journalism" nowadays is merely "news-entertainment" in the same way the professional wrestling is "sports-entertainment" Hopefully, I plan to move to another country where the laws are freer, the job market for journalism isn't controlled by a handful of major entertainment conglomerates... Although I might leave earlier if Bush is elected in 2004. There's so many scary things going on with Bush that I can't help but think history is repeating itself. Assuming some national emergency doesn't call off the elections in 2004, if Bush wins, I'm leaving that month. There's just no place in America for me. I mean it. I want to be able to live my life without constant fear of getting "dissapeared" by my government or without fear of getting sued left and right by corporations. To grant some perspective on this: I'm scared as hell for this country. Precicely because I know history, and I follow the news. -- Funksaw
He has no right to bitch? WTF? He has every right to bitch if he voted. No matter who he voted for. On a side, but related note, do you expect a person to agree with every single policy a president supports even after they helped vote him in office?? Quit being so struthious. Geez.
> Only in the minds of regulators can a company
> monopolize an entire market.
What a load of horseshit. Don't they teach economics at your military academy?
MoveOn.org recently ran a campaign on this issue.
I heartily recommend their newsletter.
Join the Libertarian Party. They are more serious about smaller government than the republicans, and they are more serious about protecting our rights than the democrats.
Wrote mine (Oregon) and found he was against this bill. Maybe the ones against, or at least neutral, might make enough noise to help this one go away.
Blogging because I can...
The definition of struthious. It means ostrich-like for those who don't want to click.
if Bush wins, I'm leaving that month.
I wasn't going to vote for him. But now, it is very tempting.
I'll admit I'm not an expert on House Committee rules, but this is a serious obstacle for this bill.
What has really peaked my interest is that this bill not only seeks to undo the most recent FCC decision, but seeks to undo the radio deregulation of 1996, which has been great for ClearChannel but a disaster for the music industry. In my opinion it is directly responsible for the lack of quality most people see in today's music industry (and therfore the primary reason for the music industrys economic slump).
Independent Media Center is amazing in it that anyone can submit a story. This is much more likely to be read on the local versions; there are dozens of locals Centers, spread around the globe. IndyMedia has proved to be an important organizing tool for progressive groups in third world countries.
AlterNet, on the other hand, is more of a news analysis site, where the headlines of the day are tackled from different angles and where you can find information that the mainstream media "forgot" to report.
The importance of sites like these is that they allow you to see a different side of an issue. In a world controlled by the right-wing corporate media machine, this can be seen as a very good thing©.
Electric Monkey Pants
Ummm.... who is it that pays the corporations? The CONSUMERS. There is accountability. If you don't like France, don't buy French products. If you don't like XYZ Corp, then don't buy their products.
If you think your government is not doing enough to protect consumers, take some responsibility and start planning how you're going to change things around next election.
The United States used to be a democracy, but it is less so now. This is only because of the recent apathy in the general population. Governments do whatever they want only when you allow them to.
There's nothing broken here (a right wing government, suppressive anti consumer legislation) that can't be undone once you get the people you want back into office.
I've been witness to this in Canada (both federally and provincially). Political parties that ruled wrecklessly can be made extinct if enough people are willing to make it their priority.
These neocons have their heads shoved so far up Dubya's ass they'll sign off on anything he does. They probably think the Patriot Act was a good idea.
Let's just hope there are enough people who see what's really going on to vote his (their) ass(es) out in 2004.
But the Bush administration has threatened to veto the funding because they support ever-larger corporations owning ever-bigger chunks of the spectrum that theoretically belongs to the public.
I swear that just read that the Bush administration is supporting a bill that detracts from the power of the corporation. I must be drunk again.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
I'm happy you don't feel safer, because you shouldn't. All the US did with this attacka against Iraq is make a new generation of terrorists. This time much more fanatic then the ones before. They don't even have saddam to take care of them anymore. They're disoriented, and don't know what to do in a new society with new rules. (I come from a former communist country and can tell you people there where mostly nuts, trying to abuse the system as much as they could. Some even went as far as riots). Look at all the suicide attacks and the like against the US troops. It's clear they're not wanted there, and it's also clear that people feel lost and hopeless. Best thing the US could do now.. is try to get a gov't up as fast as possible, and get people jobs/money, even if there is a deficit, or they need a loan from the US. In the future though.. I really hope the US doesn't need to see itself as the 'peacekeepers of the world'. And.. if you'll look at history, most major terrorists in the world today where once funded by the US, or had US involvement in some way or another. (Saddam, Gaddafi, Bin Laden..)
Jack Quinn sure was an excellent lawyer though.
Always remember: Jack Quinn is smarter than you.
I always though that would make a fun T-shirt.
I sincerely hope that Congress does in fact overturn the FCC's media consolidation decision. Personally I found the decision to be THE most obnoxious political action of the past several years. The Clinton impeachment trials at the very least had some appearance of a real process behind it. The FCC's recent decision however was blatantly partisan and was simply un-democratic.
The airwaves belong to the public; they are for the "public good." The FCC held an open forum for the public on this decision. Everyone opposed further media consolidation! People from the both the right and left of the political spectrum joined together to rail against it. The only people in favor of further consolidation were the Republican members of the FCC board and the large media companies themselves. What was the result?
The FCC simply ignored the public en masse and gave the big media companies a free ticket to gobble up whatever they could. I tell you, I have never felt so outraged or violated in my life. This is a blatant disregard of the will of the people by politicians who obviously wish to control what we see, hear and read...and ultimately...to control how we vote.
An idea struck me. What if a company like Clear Channel bought up all the media in your town? Would you blow up broadcasting towers? Would you sabotage printing presses? Would you jam the airwaves? Let me make something absolutely clear: I DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE ADVOCATE PHYSICALLY HARMING ANYONE. Theoretically, if I were to do these things, I'd be sure not to do it while anyone was around.
My reasoning for these kinds of actions is that the voice of the people has essentially been taken away from them. The big media companies don't represent local voices! They don't want to and career politicians like it that way. If your voice has been taken away from you, I say speak out the only way you know you'll be heard. Take those big, bossy, trashy, corporate mouths off the air.
Thanks for letting me vent.
KBOM - "Bringing the phrase 'kill your television' to a whole new level."
Everyone knows who he is, don't they?
Besides, you ruined your own point by immediately coming up with said snappy answer.
It can be easily inferred that the reason we went to war with Iraq was mainly to make citizens of the US everywhere safer. Liberation of Iraq was secondary, as well it should be (and they don't really appear to be that damn thankful).
"Do you feel safer" is an honest question based on the reasons Bush gave us for going to war. You say you feel safer, hooray for you. I don't, reference this post, elsewhere in this thread for part of the reason why (so many new pissed-off potential terrorists created because of this action).
And I don't hate Bush because I'm partisan, I hate him because he's a simpleton, a liar and a sop for the oil industry. I wasn't a big fan of his dad's, but he did an excellent job in building a world-wide coalition in GW I (something Dubya failed miserably at) and the reasons he gave for the it 'resignated' (to use a GWB word) with the world community.
Well, if you believe that we are in a war on terrorism, then it ain't hard to recognize Iraq as a threat. Saddam funded Hammas, whose goal was to eliminate Israel and thus was opposed to any peace process. The situation between Israel and the Palistinians is the prime source of fuel for anti-Americanism in the mid-East. Resolve Israel and Palistine, reduce terroism. To resolve that, you have to get rid of Hammas. To get rid of Hammas, you cut funding. Saddam funded Hammas, and we had the political capital to go after him. But ah, considering we had 12 years of diplomacy with barely any progress, safe to say the only other way to resolve it was hope for Saddam to have a heart attack and wish that someone worse didn't take his place. And, ah, I'd be careful about this whole "there are no WMDs" thing, it's still relatively early and you might have to eat your words.
Uh, the first week of war, it WAS called "Operation Iraqi Freedom." I don't know what you were watching.
And yeah, a lot of bad stuff happened during the Cold War, so we should clean up the mess, don't ya think? And the funny thing is, I know Fox brought up the support the US had given to Iraq quite often. So much for the "right-wing" designation, plus they're still branded as being patriotic. Really, if you aren't paying attention to the media, how can you hope to comment on it?
common sense: noun
What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
More info on a clear channel scandal regarding their traffic "reporting" can be found here.
From what I can tell the libertarians promote laissez-faire capitalism, which just means "leave regulation up to the markets (lit. "leave it alone" in french, i think)." Since it seems the markets have free reign right now, isn't this what the libertarians want? With the current administration, the market gets to decide how much of something one particular corporation can own in any particular market.
There is no easy solution to this. Personally, I'd just as well have communication companies be public trusts. Pulitzer was supposedly going to do this with his publishing empire before he died, but one of his heirs caught wind of it and made him change his mind.
The war is about oil.
If it was about Iraqi freedom or even terrorism then the US Administration would be begging the UN or NATO or anyone to help with the peacekeeping duties. The cost is not just financial, it is also being paid with the blood of American soldiers that are being attacked and killed every day in Iraq.
Die for oil sucka!
The FCC doesn't like it, but you can probably expect to be on the air at a couple of watts (1-2 mile range) for a year or more before they come knocking. Just choose your frequency carefully, and listen to neighboring stations for interference (which, BTW, almost never occurs).
We aren't in any more of a war on terrorism than we've ever been in. There is no "post-911" world now, any more than there was for the last 20 years. Just because one of the countinual terrorist plots happened to suceed doesn't change world politics any, it just opens the floodgates for our govt. to declare open season on freedom.
Text for those who don't want to clickI don't understand why there are so many Bush apologists from every camp, but I'd rather face facts that begin to pretend there are no differences between the two major parties regarding this issue.
It's funny that the UK, Australia, and the US decided at the same time to deregulate the media conglomerates that supported their war in Iraq so uncritically.
never mind whether it's consumers or citizens. they did it, and now they're going to pay
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
You are entitled to your opinion, and there's obviously nothing I can do to change it, just as there are people who believe the world is flat, despite the satelite photos.
Why is it only ACs are responding?
common sense: noun
What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
This is not a troll, just my honest feelings. I tuned out of all mass media almost 10 years ago. Every once in a while I accidentally see or hear a bit of it and can't believe that the garbage the megacorps churn out has become even worse than when I tuned out. What, like more consolidation will make it even sh*ttier, and that's why I should care? Hmmm.... That's a thought: Let them consolidate. Maybe consolidation will make them all go under sooner; hopefully there will be enough remnants of our culture left to help people learn to be creative *on their own* again.
Once upon a time, folks finished out their evening singing around a piano or playing parolor games instead of stearing mindlessly into the hypnotizing blue light of the boob tube telling them what to think about and how to think about it.
Take a walk around your neighborhood some night and look at all the houses around 10pm. Seriously, go do it. It's surreal. All you'll see is the eerie blue glow in each and every house. The living rooms without curtains drawn will let you see that every house is now filled with overweight listless expressionless creatures plopped down on overstuffed furniture with their mouths half open. It's like the aliens came down to earth and took over our minds with glowing blue mind control devices. BUT WE DID IT TO OURSELVES!
Yes, but Bush's attitude after being elected is no surprise. It was always fairly obvious he didn't really earn his position. If he didn't earn his way then who did? Big business maybe? Special interests of the monied kind? This guy somehow feels conned, but only because he didn't pay attention to the obvious warning signs("Strategery", "Major League Asshole", lower GPA than befitting a President, etc.). Slick Willy was one, but at least he spent most of his life prepping to become a public servant. However disgraceful his corporate giveaways may have been, at least it was plausible he was going to fight for the interests of all the American people.
On a side, but related note, do you expect a person to agree with every single policy a president supports even after they helped vote him in office??
Nope. It never happens. But, like I said above, it seemed fairly obvious this guy didn't make it as far as he did fighting for the little guy.
Quit being so struthious.
Oh shit, where's the dictionary? It seems to me that people who voted for Bush and are surprised at his favoritism towards big money have been behaving rather struthiously (Did me use fancy word good?).
BTW: I voted, as well and bitch I will. I think W is a sucky Prez. Worse than that, I feel like he doesn't give one tex-mex turd about myself or others in this country that don't have a lot of dough. I don't believe he possesses the passion or wisdom required of a President and therefore don't believe he is actually passionate about 'his' agenda. This can only lead me to believe that he doesn't actually set or stand by his agenda. I also think this was pretty obvious from the get-go, necessitating the "Amen" post above.
xoxoxoxo
L5
Yes.
capitalism and socialism are opposite ends of an axis.
democracy and dictatorship/monarchy are opposite ends of another axis.
A state can be totalitarian and capitalist (fascism):
"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt
A state can be totalitarian and socialist (communism)
A state can be democratic and capitalist.
A state can be socalist and capitalist.
A state can be anywhere inbetween the two axis. The U.S. has both capitalist policies and socialist policies.
Here is a list of some of the socialist ones:
socialized armed forces
socialized water
socialized police
socialized fired department
social(ized) security
medicare
road building/maintanance
public waste and water treatment
public schools
...
A state can be democratic and capitalist
A state can be democratic and socialist
A state can be inbetween the two axis...
Is that both liberals and conservatives do too much whining about the media exclusing THEIR side, and miss the overall point that the media is misrepresenting things to its own ends and views. I hear crying from both sides, both which have euqally bad backing that the media hates them and loves the other side. Truth is, wach outlet has their own set of views and agendas and pushes them to greater or lesser degrees with what they report.
Now, since you seem to be of the liberal persuasion and therefore may be likely to hop on and say that only liberals get the censor treatment and/or the media is highly conservative slanted let me point out one of my favourite examples: Some time ago, over a year, teh exact date escapes me there was a shooting on a university campus. The gunman was later aprehended. This was the extent of most of hte national coverage. They told you it happened, who the shooter was, who was shot, where it happened, and that the guy was caught.
Well all the major outlets omitted a major peice of the story and that was HOW the gunman was apprehended. What happened was teo students went ot their cars, got their guns, and faced off with teh unman and forced him to surrender (without shooting him). These weren't off duty cops, just normal students that had guns in their cars. So why was such an imortant fact left out by most publications? Not only is it relivant and interesting, it is a good human side to teh story and a good hero story, which papers love. I mean, they report when someone is shot by cops after a chase, or kills themselves, why not report this ending? Well the reason is that, by and large, most papers are very anti-gun (I've worked at a few).
The inital story casts guns in a bad light, one was taken on to a school, sacred ground, and used to kill people in cold blood. However the second part casts guns in a good light, they were used to help stop further killing. So that part got left out. Probably not even intentionally, I doubt the editor ordered the reporter to cut it. I am guessing it was simply ignored by the staff without really thinking about it.
So because of both deliberate pushing of views and agendas and unconcious decsions because of views, media outlets present their own slanted view, some more than others. What is important to recognise is that it happens, and happens all different ways. If you start getting teh persecution complex and feeling like your position is the down trodden one, then you get to ignoring teh omissions that they make teh otehr way, which are equally important.
Write, and throw in a $20 campaign contribution check. Even that little amount of money shows them that you really ARE sreious and are willing to actually help them if they make you happy. It makes your voice carry a great deal more weight. Might seem silly, but they get letters all the time, when you send money you prove that you aren't just a whiner, you are someone that really does care and will back up your words with actions.
Both Clinton & Bush, "left" and "right" are a bunch of fucking liars who are in it to make money. None of them care about you, none of them do anything to help you, none of them are any better than anyone else. The only difference is whos lies you'll believe.
No, I'm not a Libertarian or an Anarchist or a Communist either, before you jump on that bandwagon.
...It's dead on. last I heard, the US legislature was supposed to support its *citizens* regardless of how (or if) they spend money.
We are not money-spending machines, and that is not our sole duty to our country - we are humans who live here, and this country is *our* country, as it says in our constitution...
Every time when I read articles such as these I wonder: why oh why do Democrats in the USA have such a hard time selling the truth to the public? I mean: the current Bush administration has piled misleading and disputable decision on decision, and the American public seems to feel it is all right. How come? Why aren't the Democrats using these obvious limitations on the freedoms of the American citizens to rally the public so they'll support the Democrats and elect a better government in place which will overturn such decisions like a concentration of media companies?
You can come to two conclusions:
1) The Democrats are also after the same money from these media companies as the Republicans are, which in fact makes the USA's democracy rather dead: there is no real choice for Joe Sixpack, the two parties which matter are NOT serving the interests of the people
2) The Democrats are incapable of fighting Bush effectively. Which also makes the USA democracy rather dead, because the general public doesn't KNOW there is an alternative to 'Bush'. When Bush gets the concetration of media in place, and the holders of these media on his side (which seems to be the case) he controls EVERYTHING and the republicans can stay in power, well... forever.
If the republican party would exist in The Netherlands, Europe, they would get at most 2 seats in the 150 seat parlement, roughly guessed. Not because we're all 'stinking liberals', but because we tolerate less a government that thinks of big $$$ first and the interest of the public second.
(To the USA citizens: as a European I see you as a group of people who thought that a president who nailed his intern with cigars should be impeached and a president who started a very expensive war under false intelligence in a time where jobs dissapear very quickly should stay in his office and should stay popular. Think about that for a second.)
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
I don't understand angry people. You are an angry person, and so is Governer Bush. Both of you need to go away so the agression can stop.
You will be caught!
Let me start my post by saying that I work for ClearChannel... Proud to admit, since I'm one of the youngest full time DJ's in the country, but bad around here since ClearChannel has apparently turned into microsoft...
The FCC ruling was actually considered *a bad thing* within the company because it reduced ownership caps for the radio side of things. What the ruling did was allow cross-ownership of television stations and newspaper outlets in the same market area. In radio, it just changed the method by which caps were enforced; they are now enforced within an arbitron defined market rather than by signal overlap, and it counts noncommercial stations towards the number of competitors in a market.
States.
Every time when I read articles such as these I wonder: why oh why do Democrats in the USA have such a hard time selling the truth to the public? I mean: the current Bush administration has piled misleading and disputable decision on decision, and the American public seems to feel it is all right. How come? Why aren't the Democrats using these obvious limitations on the freedoms of the American citizens to rally the public so they'll support the Democrats and elect a better government in place which will overturn such decisions like a concentration of media companies?
... these being the same people who relish the opportunity to bash Hilary and slam President Clinton. In other words, Bush seems to be losing a fair chunk of moderate-to-conservative, but non-religious right, republicans).
... and most people never realize it!
Because we don't get the news here.
Seriously.
Or, to be more precise, the main networks and popular media outlets have filtered the foreign and domestic news beyond all recognition.
Why? Not because they harbor some pro-Bush bias (although clearly some, such as Fox news, do), but because they all compete in a market for viewership, and several factors coincide to make the media self censoring and self-slanting, including the desire to cozy up to the administration in order to get and maintain access to the white house (which the Bush administration exploits and enforces shamelessly and aggressively...witness seasoned reporters who have been in the whitehouse for 20 years or more being relegated to back seats behind neophytes for posing difficult questions in White House press conferences and subsequently being ignored by the press secretary/president/etc.) and the desire to maintain popularity with a public they perceive as supporting the president.
The latter is an assumption that is quite possibly mistaken, if the conservatives I work with are any indication (most of whome are saying rather loudly that Bush has gone to far and things are spirallying out of control
Back on topic, the news we get in the United States is NOTHING like the news you get overseas. Our information is so sanitized and slanted that you would probably not recognize the same events if you saw them reported here. This was driven home rather forcefully the other night when I was at my girlfriend's watching the BBC news on PBS at 10:00pm, and for the first time saw footage of injured soldiers and Iraqis, and heard first hand just what an appalling quagmire this administration's precipitious invasion has put us into. Contrasting that with Fox or CNN (modulo the editorializing there is little difference of late) is like night and day.
So, while we aren't forbidden from getting foreign news sources per se (the Internet is available, after all, and the BBC is available once/day at 10:00PM), we are discouraged in that the BBC is shown at a time when it must compete against most of the local news broadcasts, on a station few bother to watch (more's the pity), and that virtually every mainstream press to which people have subscribed for the bulk of their lives is heavilly censored and sanitized
It is incredibly discouraging to be an American at a time like this, when our country appears to be spiralling full steam into a state of plutocratic fascism, the FCC has gutted and destroyed our telecom industry, crippled our internet industry, and is hell bent on consolidating our remaining media into a few easilly-influenced mega-companies, perhaps even into a single monopoly. The freedom I grew up with has dissappeared bit by bit ever since the Reagan era in the 1980s, and while more people are becoming aware of it today, still there are too few of us, and too many who simply toe the party line or bury their head in the sand in a frenzy of misplaced national pride, and things continue to spiral downward and get worse.
Perhaps this years record deficit of 450+ Billion dollars, beneath a Republican President and
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
There is a relatively simple change that could be made to slashcode to help solve the "editorializing in the story" bug:
/. editors would have to stop accepting the flamebait stories and start accepting relatively straightforward stories. As somebody who has submitted a fair number of stories, I've seen several of my submissions rejected, and later the same item with a far more inflammatory spin accepted. I believe that these two items are correlated - in fact I believe there is a causal relationship between an absence of flamebait in the story and rejection.
Allow the story submitter one, and only one, post during the "Mysterious Future" period. When a story is accepted, email the submitter notifying them of that fact.
Thus, a person could post a factual story, knowing that they get first crack at commenting upon it.
This addresses a couple of problems:
1) Editors editorializing in their stories (Jamie and Michael spring to mind) - they could post the story, then have the first comment.
2) Eliminates the "frist psot" crap - somehow "first post after the submitter" doesn't seem to have the same ring to me (but then, I am not a troll).
Of course, like many problems this one has both a technical aspect and a societal aspect - the
www.eFax.com are spammers
The Clear Channel page that is linked to by an earlier article can be summed up neatly as follows:
Please ignore that we are gobbling up every bit of free radio spectrum available upon which to slather our corporate feces. Ignore that the original legislation meant that they were to be used by the public, and in the interest of the public.
Please give us, a media conglomerate with the power to decide what the people (i.e., your constituents) hear and see, the power to spew forth only what is approved by the Powers That Be.
Let us ensure that you govern a docile and easily molded nation.
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
To go Test Equity or RAG - you can get an IFR 1200Super for US$8,995, a IFR COM-120B for US$10,995>, or a Marconi 2945A for US$7,995, any of which will tune up a transmitter quite nicely.
US$30,000 would be more in the line of a IF 1600S or IFR 2975, which would be overkill for a simple broadcast FM transmitter alignment.
I should know - I'm the software lead on both the COM-120B and 2975 projects.
www.eFax.com are spammers
It seems to me that people who voted for Bush and are surprised at his favoritism towards big money have been behaving rather struthiously
0 03Jun27
Nice word. Next time use a dictionary.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42947-2
A report released yesterday by the Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group, found that, contrary to common perceptions, Republicans have a big advantage over Democrats in donations from small donors, while Democrats are king among only the biggest. The study, analyzing donations during the 2002 campaign cycle, found that those little guys giving less than $200 to federal candidates, parties or leadership political action committees contributed 64 percent of their money to Republicans. By contrast, those fat cats giving $1 million or more contributed a lopsided 92 percent to Democrats. The only group favoring Democrats, in fact, were contributors giving more than $100,000.
If you want to know who is for "big money" look at the election stats. There are those that are against over regulating businesses and there are those who are in favor of over regulating business. Over regulation hurts business.
However disgraceful his corporate giveaways may have been, at least it was plausible he was going to fight for the interests of all the American people.
It was only plausible because he is a con artist and you are a sucker. Clinton doesn't care about you and he doesn't care about me. You can find things wrong with any president. I don't agree with everything Bush has done but he is a much better president then Clinton.
and therefore don't believe he is actually passionate about 'his' agenda.
We all Clinton felt very passionately about his agenda to get blowjobs in the oval office. Maybe we should leave that type passion at the door this term.
The bottome line:
You hate Bush and probably all republican leaders. It doesn't matter what Bush does you would hate him anyway. You swallow the Democrat hype 100%. I personally generally like bush but have enough of my own thought processes left to allow myself to disagree with him and the Republican Party for that matter from time to time. (sometimes a little more)
If you dislike something Bush is doing try sending his staff a letter or email. Just remeber that the only person who will hold to your values and beliefs 100% of the time is you.
How can we, as capitalists ever support action by the government to prevent companies who have not broken the law from running their business the way they want.
I believe the last number I heard was that Clear Channel own 1400 stations. If they want to own 3000 stations, and can do it and be profitable, then why should they be stopped?
I guess I don't understand how we can logically prevent companies in a capitalistic economic system from doing anything they want to be successful, provided it doesn't break the law. And I'm not talking about a law limiting the number of media outlets either, I think that is dumb.
-Brent
-- Rep. DAVID OBEY, D-Wis., sponsor of legislation on Capitol Hill to block a new FCC rule allowing media companies to buy more TV stations.
Found that on Yahoo.
--rhad
Slashdot needs to interview Natalie Portman.
Are the American people going to put up with this? You are talking about YOUR f***ing country. There are 250 MILLION of you, compared to how many politicians?
I am not an American, but I see my own country going the same way. How long are we going to get shafted by slimy politicians and sleazy corporations? The government is there for the good of the people and WE put them there. It's time we all stopped bending over and reminded these people who's in fucking charge and that we are pissed off with this shit.
(Posting AC)
I think that, judging by the title post, rational discussion is verboten.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Defenders of the recent FCC ruling said that critics were exaggerating its impact and that networks had to get bigger to continue providing free broadcast television.
You know what would make it easier to provide free broadcast television? Maybe some content entering the public domain. They need to relax their grip before they strangle themselves.
I'm not sure what the point of your link is - are you trying to tell me that Republicans are NOT pro-big money? Fuck election stats, look at BEHAVIOR if you want to see that. And you'll find that pretty much every one in politics is in favor of supporting their pet industries (which industry that is varies, of course), and supports all the regulation or deregulation that industry wants.
I really don't understand why everyone is so anti-Clear Channel. They have such a small market share (yes, I said SMALL) that they are inconsequential compared to the 5 companies that control nearly all of the TV broadcast media, movies and cable.
Everyone is so worried about Clear Channel when the FCC's ruling clearly still promotes competition. There are rules that depend on market size to ensure that no one company gains control of the broadcast and print media in one area.
Clear Channel is nowhere near a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination. For instance, where I live, they own 6 of the 36 or so stations broadcasting here. This is a typical ratio. Since when is a one sixth market share a monopoly? And there would be no reason for them to suddenly own more of the stations. They pretty much hit every genera of radio with the six stations.
All the FCC is doing is purging antiquated rules from a bygone era when one person could control an entire market by owning two radio stations, a TV station and the local newspaper. With the expansion of TV and radio beyond the 1950s FCC's dreams and the advent of the Internet, there is no longer any issue with one company owning 8-15 of the media outlets in most markets.
Actually, I take it back, I do understand. Clear Channel is successful, and other media outlets are jealous and are pushing the anti-Clear Channel movement. They area also pissed that talk radio (most lucrative shows are owned by Premiere Radio Networks, NOT Clear Channel) has so much more market share than any TV news show.
The fact that this kind of slanted, alarmist, pedantic tripe made the front page of Slashdot makes me wonder if anyone here is interested in facts instead of raw emotional response.
ClearChannel is all about the commoditization of music. The goal of ClearChannel is to make money by selling advertising, and the music is largely irrelevant. That's why it is in their best interest to push music which is "inoffensive" to the largest number of listeners, because then they can charge more for advertising. It is to their benefit to play music which is bland.
Many people who are passionate about music resent this greatly. Music is art, not something to be packaged and sold like Instant Oatmeal. For the same reason, foodies don't like McDonalds and many coders don't like Microsoft. REAL innovation can never happen in these environments. You'll never see a radical shift in computing from Microsoft, amazing new flavors from McDonalds (or even places like T.G.I. Fridays), or musical breakthroughs on ClearChannel. They'll wait until things have been largely sorted out so that those pesky rough edges can be smoothed away, and they can sell everyone the equivalent of safety scissors. Revolutionary ideas make people uncomfortable, and that's just not good for sales.
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
No, it is sometimes a terrible thing. We've been down this road before. Massive monopolies are bad. Massive monopolies that control the media and thus the public's perception are very bad. It's even led us to war, at least once.
And once you let companies accumulate massive numbers of TV stations, it's very difficult to go back. You have to undertake draconian measures to force corporations to sell off vast numbers of their stations. This is politically almost impossible to acheive, and very harmful for the corporations and their stockholders.
Some people have bought into the "all government regulations are bad for you" rhetoric, which though it has a kernel of truth is basically the biggest untruth ever foisted upon the American people.
Just out of curiosity isn't this actually something the SEC should be dealing with? They are the ones charged with keeping monopolies in check, or preventing new ones from forming.
The FCC's job is to keep anarchy from breaking out in the RF spectrum not to police companies who happen to own license to use some particular band. For example, if I bought all the 1.9GHz cell licenses for a particular region when the FCC first started auctioning them off it's not the FCC's job to tell me I'm a monopoly or to force me to give up some of the licenses I won at the auction. However the SEC can come in and tell me I'm a monopoly and that the FCC must buy back X% of my licenses for what I originally paid.
I'm still against one company owning all the TV and radio (or even most of it), but if not for decades of precedence I don't really think the FCC has the authority to be policing this one.
OK, you electronics geeks, get to work. I want plans for a device that's cheap to build, has its own power source and can intefere with ClearChannel transmissions.
It's our spectrum. Let's use it.
You're at least as much of a sheep as you're claiming the OP is, because you'd hate Clinton regardless of anything else as
No I dislike Clinton because
1)he made a mockery of the office. I don't hate democrats though I think they are wrong. I strongly dislike Clinton because as the leader of our nation he is held to a higher standard and should be.
2) Lied under oath. It isn't simply the fact that he lied but he who was the leader of our nation circumvented and totally dismissed the laws that should be exemplifying.
I generally dislike the policies of the democrats however I do not dislike democrats in general as people. I do however, dislike Clinton as a person.
I don't give a shit that he got blowjobs in office, why should I? I've had sex in my workplace before. I even lied about it when I got caught.
Well I just hold my president to a higher moral standard then I do you. If you want to cheat on your wife and lie under oath and generally be morally inept that is your choice. You should however be held accountable to your actions. Something most Clintonites don't agree with.
A good leader serves as an example to those he leads.
I for one welcome our new ClearChannel overlords!
Because unlike the leadership of the U.S. They lack the courage to stand up for what they believe in. That is why C stands for Coward.
Would you hate GWB as a person if you knew he lied, then? Do you follow the news? How about his VP and his indiscretions with Enron?
I notice you aren't taking up my request to define exactly HOW gwb is a better president...
There's a lot of rhetoric here about "big corporations" and such. I guess some people have forgotten that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech? You know, the idea was to not repeat King George's regulating publishing? Aside from that, let's talk hard facts. No rhetoric.
.8% of stations nationwide.
The amendment would roll back the proposed 45% cap back to the current 35%. It's not allowing a company to own 35% of televisions in the US, it's ownership of enough stations to reach 35% of the U.S. audience.
There are 1,331 commercial stations in the US. Fox and CBS (Viacom) are already over the cap at about 38% (because the court ruled the 35% cap was "arbitrary".)
Viacom (CBS) has 39 stations. That's 2.9% of stations nationwide.
Fox has 37 stations. That's 2.8% of stations nationwide.
NBC has 29 stations. That's 2.2% of stations nationwide, including Telemundo.
Disney (ABC) has 10 stations. That's
So what we're talking about is allowing CBS and Fox to buy a handful of stations to go from ~3% of the market to 4%.
So the question is, why does this mark the end of democracy? What difference does it make in anyone's life? Do you even know if News Corporation owns your local Fox affiliate? You don't like big corporations, but how would you like the networks to pull out of your market? (There was a big outrage when a New York cable company pulled ABC because of some silly dispute.)
Those are the real questions, if you actually want to talk about what the appropriations amendment does.
How many of the 'monopoly' steel companies from 100 years ago are still around? How many are still powerful? Are any still a monopoly?
The fact is that most companies die, period. Theoretically they could live forever under our system of law - practically though they don't. Microsoft will be no different. I can't personally think of any company past Nokia that is more than 300 years old, and they've only done that through constant self-transformation. Monopoly is inherently self-destructive, and implodes within 50 years. This statement can be disproved by one example of a monopoly that thrived for longer than that (WITHOUT government support please). Can anyone provide a single example?
The problem with GOVERNMENT power is that governments quite often live HUNDREDS UPON HUNDREDS of years, and always seek to increase their power. Which is the real threat, and which is the bogeyman?
That being said, monopolies suck and are bad for the consumer. However, no matter how many times I re-read the constitution I can find NO mention of any duty of the government to make the consumer happy. And I firmly believe that if that's the goal, the easiest way to do that is to remove government meddling in the markets. The only legitimate use I can think of for government in the business world is to insist that the books be straight, and to change the current system so that costs that are currently externalized (like cleaning up waste, etc) and pushed off on the government become internalized so that the company's business model reflects all its impacts on the community. Right now the advanced powers of the world take unfair advantage of the undeveloped nations, and this happens largely through government intervention in markets that support domestic products that shouldn't be protected.
unfortunately it sucks ass.
frequent outages that the company denies (and won't even discuss until you idiotically restart your network).
this is my experience in two different counties.
Don't waste your time. These idiots will never understand. Believe me, I've tried.
So no DOJ or DOS next year right?
Somehow I think Bush will eventually sign it no matter what, or his buddy ashcroft will be out on the street.
ignorant government lapdog....
It's just that Republicans are often the most egregious offenders.
Interestingly enough, it's really the left that controls the airwaves. While pundits may point out the rightist tabloids on MSNBC and FoxNews, far more of televised news is left-leaning. What's especially interesting is that a lower post mentions that Fox has already acquired enough airspace that would put them over the limit if the cap is removed. You would think the right would be more in support of letting one of their few friends get a little more elbowroom.
Of course, as it was noted in a later post, the administration is only fighting against the right to own more TV stations, not to own more radio space. And a quick look over at opensecrets notes that the only direct donations Clear Channel has made to political committees has been to the Republican side...
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
The title is Governor, not Governer. What does Jeb Bush have to do with this?
you will be assimilated....
;)
you will service...us
I am Dan Rather of Borg
I notice you aren't taking up my request to define exactly HOW gwb is a better president...
1) I agree with many of his policies (Subjective)
2) He has shown himself to have more moral character
I take up 50 words talking about what I like about each president but that is subjective. What isn't subjective is how each president acts while in office!
it's not illegal to cheat on your wife
Yes it is. I was in the military when Clinton was in office and if I had cheated on my wife I would be looking at heavy punishment. Agree or disagree with the rules the fact still remains that as my leader he should have acted with more "moral" character and I was insulted that he would commit those acts and then expect me to ignore the fact that I would have been demoted and fined heavily in addition to extra duty if I had done far less.
Would you hate GWB as a person if you knew he lied, then? Do you follow the news?
Yes I follow the news and if I saw GWB lying under oath or doing some other morally repulsive act I would not like him as a person. (I do try to refrain from using the word hate when referring to people)
How about his VP and his indiscretions with Enron?
If Dick Cheney had anything wrong he should be held accountable. I have not personally heard enough to conclude that he has or has not done anything. I even gave Clinton the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps that is why I was so insulted by his actions.
I think that most people honestly don't give a shit because it was a) something that they didn't care about and b) because it was such a clear partisan power play.
I cared about it not because he was just some guy getting a blowjob at work but because he was the president and should be held to a higher standard.
If I were a CEO of a company and got caught having sex at work I would have a few weeks or months of bad press and I might be asked to step down. If I was a janitor who got caught having sex at work I would have been fired no questions asked. That double standard bothers me. We should be holding leaders accountable yet we do not. They should have higher standards yet they tend to have lower standards. I agree that some republicans were using the situation as a "power play" but that doesn't excuse Clintons actions in any way. Some republicans were actually repulsed by his actions in office and desired for him to be held accountable and that is not too much to ask of anyone especially the president.
When you say "Now, the lying under oath is a little more serious, but I think that most people honestly don't give a shit because it was a) something that they didn't care about" are you suggesting that it is ok to lie under oath and in doing so make a mockery of our justice system as long as your lying about a subject you feel people don't really care about? He is in many cases the centerpiece of our government. He should take that responsibility seriously.
I love my country and I have a problem with the leader of my country not taking his responsibilities seriously and not treating the position with respect and dignity.
Using laziness as an excuse for cowardice is really pathetic.
>> Once all the "voices" in society are all filtered through the government and big business...
I don't understand this obsession with equating the "media" with "the voice of the people".
First, there is no "people". We're just 300 million indviduals. Most of the time when someone starts emoting about "the people", he means "the people who agree with me".
Second, a media outlet reflects the views of its owners and the people who create the content. That's the way it has always been and that's the way it will remain. The "media" has never impartially reflected the views of every citizen, because that's impossible.
Third, I don't have much use for ClearChannel, but I wouldn't say business has "hijacked" airwaves owned by the public. Airwaves are uselss without a studio and a transmitter. Someone will always own those, What's the difference between a station owned by a business and a stationed owned by soething or someone else? Nothing, as far as I can see. The salient point is that they're owned.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Bush made a mockery of elections. This was worse, no?
I don't hate democrats though I think they are wrong.
I am really attracted to the Republican idea that government should be smaller and that free markets should sort most things out.
However, it does not seem to work that way when the Republicans get in office. Bush has expanded our government and raised spending while also giving a tax break to those who NEED it the least (notice I didn't say deserve - at least that's debatable).
Even taking my comments aside, the less government argument ignores that we don't live in a Utopia. We rely on the government for all kinds of services and protections. What I think ticks most people off is that these protections and intrusions seem to be infringing on the common folk more than the large corps in order to protect the large corp. interests and money. The Republican argument that this trickles down is laughable, and we are seeing more and more every day how worthwhile it is for these folks to lay off their employees, mislead their investors, and take the extra pay home themselves.
I am becoming more and more convinced that the Republicans really want less government that would give a leg up to all Americans, while more government involvement will appear when large interests want to protect their power.
I strongly dislike Clinton because as the leader of our nation he is held to a higher standard and should be.
And Bush passes this higher standard? No way. Like his opponent in the 2000 election, he is a child of privilege. Unlike his opponent in that election, he was quite mediocre academically and did not have nearly as much experience in public service.
Also, while we're talking about high standards, Slick Willy said he didn't inhale. Bush refused to answer questions about his past drug use directly. He also failed to mention the DUI in Maine. While we can't prosecute him for these misleadings, should we consider them less immoral?
2) Lied under oath.
Forgive me if you see this as stretching a bit, but I think using not yet officially discredited info (that is known to be shaky at best) as an amotional provocation to justify a WAR (in your biggest speech of the year) is at least as horrible as lying under oath about getting a hummer.
Let the debate roll on!
L5
Why, you're 'The Almighty Dave' and 'Crowscape'!
Yes, now we know just who you are! And we can
even access your user pages at Slashdot!
Ok, here's the spoon-feed version so you
Dittoheads will understand: you're not 'brave'
(as opposed to being a Coward) for using your
little Slashdot logins, especially since you
don't even list an email address or homepage.
Besides, what if I did have your email address,
what am I going to do, email stalk you? What
if I had your home address, am I going to come
to your house and kick your ass? What would that
solve, you'd still be a Dittohead!
Please STFU.......
Bush made a mockery of elections. This was worse, no?
Bush didn't make a mockery of elections. If I had the time I would spell out all of the illegal things the democrats did in Florida but that would be pointless. You probably would not believe the facts even if I gave them to you.
Slick Willy said he didn't inhale. Bush refused to answer questions about his past drug use directly
While we can't prosecute him for these misleadings, should we consider them less immoral?
Does anyone believe that Clinton didn't inhale? Also I can't equate Bush not wanting to answer questions about his past and Clinton flat out lying about his.
while also giving a tax break to those who NEED it the least
"Across the board tax cut." Please explain how that includes only the ones that need it the least.
You may be antiwar and that's fine however given Bush's position and beliefs please explain what was wrong with Bush's justification for war.
Personally, I have been disappointed with the Bush administration's inability decrease government size. He has done a better job controlling spending (besides of course the war).
...but thanks for trying to sound smart!
Oh, and I do see your point, but it has nothing
to do with bravery, although yes, I'm aware that
you didn't say that. Your Dittohead friend 'The
Almighty Dave' did.
Safire article
You apparently didn't read my :).
other
post. You're not brave, you're an ass (and a
Dittohead
Hilarious. Yes, the US hasn't seen such a fantastic republican leader since Nixon.
And before you try to cast me in the same boat as all the others you think disagrees with "the agenda" I'll tell you I voted for reagan second time around, and I was all of 22. I've voted for both repubs and dems in the past but after this I will never help put another of the belligerent, bible thumping, "conservative" cocksuckers in office ever again.
You are truly a dittohead. Just how many years has it been since you were able to think for yourself?
From Sarbanes, Md (senator@sarbanes.senate.gov)
Dear Mr. (name removed):
Thank you for contacting me to express your views about media ownership regulations. I share your concerns and appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this important matter.
On June 2, 2003, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted an order modifying media ownership rules. Prior to this decision, national television broadcast networks were restricted from owning and operating local broadcast stations that would cumulatively reach more than 35 percent of U.S. television households. The FCC rule change increases this limit to 45 percent. In addition, the FCC's order lifted a longstanding restriction on newspapers owning a radio or television station in the same city. I have serious concerns about the implications these regulatory changes will have on the quality and diversity of local programming choices for American consumers. Furthermore, it is my view that the FCC did not provide sufficient time to assess public comment on the matter, and I regret that FCC Chairman Michael Powell did not honor the request of several commissioners to delay the FCC's vote on the rule change.
I am pleased to tell you that I am a cosponsor of S. 1046, the Preservation of Localism, Program Diversity, and Competition in Television Broadcast Service Act of 2003. This legislation would keep the national television ownership rule at 35 percent. On June 19, 2003, S. 1046 was favorably reported by the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. Included in the legislation approved by the committee was an amendment that would also reverse the FCC's decision on the cross-ownership of newspapers, television, and radio stations. You may be assured that I will keep your comments in mind should S. 1046 or related legislation come before the full Senate for consideration.
Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me about this or any other matter of concern to you in the future.
Thanks for contacting me, in the future please visit my web site at http://sarbanes.senate.gov rather than clicking reply.
Nice Vocab. All my life how about you?
At least you seem aware you were born a sheep. I suppose that's the beginning of wisdom, 'tho on must wonder how long you've been toddling.
Radio is a local broadcast medium. They may not be the dominant force in your locale, but in many places they are. Radio used to be fairly diverse, so the homogenization hurts more.
Simple, "Left Economics" -requires- Authoritarian gov't control. Otherwise taxes don't get collected.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
Name some monopolies. Did they get to be monopolies through a market process or through a political process?
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
"Congress May Overturn FCC's Media Consolidation Plan"
Yeah right.
Congress will also give out tax cuts that affect everyday citizens, not just the uber-rich Gates of the country.
NOT!
Woo hoo! My $33 dividend check is now tax free!
I'm rich. I'm RICH!