Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Congress May Overturn FCC's Media Consolidation Plan

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the giving-things-a-second-look dept.

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."

7 of 439 comments (clear)

  1. In the public interest by Alien+Being · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ralph Nader made some interesting observations about the proposed changes.

    1. Re:In the public interest by Homology · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is also foreign concerns about the US ownership concentrations. The highly respectable newspaper Le Monde diplomatique, has the following article United States: an unfree press describing the results of US ownership structure.

  2. Who Owns What by heli0 · · Score: 4, Informative

    "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...
  3. Quote from pro-FCC House member by Lelon · · Score: 5, Informative
    I read about this in the basement of the university radio station I DJ at. We're all watching very closely. Here is a quote from Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, who supports the changed media rules.
    "We have no intentions of taking up that bill," Tauzin spokesman Ken Johnson said. "This has become a political soap opera, and given the chance Chairman Tauzin intends to cancel its run."
    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).
    Another amendment involving radio passed 12-11 and would expand the FCC's new, stricter radio ownership rules so they apply to stations a company already owns. If enacted, the change could force companies like Clear Channel, the country's largest radio chain with 1,200 stations, to sell stations in markets where they exceed ownership limits.

    "This is an attempt to single out one company for being successful and punish them for playing by the rules," said Andy Levin, a Clear Channel vice president. He predicted the measure will be defeated later.


  4. Try to mix and match by Paladin144 · · Score: 4, Informative
    I try to counteract the omnipresent corporate media (by not watching TV for one thing) by balancing out their spin with that of non-corporate media. I'm not sure if you are aware of Independent Media Center and AlterNet, but if not, you should definitely spend some time surfing their respective sites. Yes, they're on that internet thingy, but I'm pretty sure that paper does not have any special deception-repelling powers.

    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
  5. Re:I've pretty much ... by Nic-o-demus · · Score: 5, Informative
    William Safire, a columnist for the NYT, wrote an insightful editorial concerning congress' actions.
    Some quotes:
    But to everyone's amazement, the networks' power play was foiled. Representative Frank Wolf of Virginia urged his G.O.P. colleagues to vote their consciences, and an amendment to hold the cap on a huge conglomerate's ownership to 35 percent of the national TV audience was passed by a vote of 40 to 25.
    ...
    According to this week's Pew Research poll about the F.C.C. plan (to break the ownership barrier and permit media crossover), "By roughly 10 to one (70%-6%), those who have heard a lot about the rules change say its impact will be negative." Nearly half of those polled had heard about this issue, despite conflicted media coverage.

    This growing grass-roots grumbling against giantism is getting through to legislators ordinarily cowed by network-owned station managers or wowed by big-media campaign contributions. Unfortunately, the any-merger-goes F.C.C. chairman, Michael Powell, has derided objections to his diktat as "garbage," and the White House strategist Karl Rove dismisses the depth of voter resentment that Democrats will be able to exploit next year.
    In conclusion, Safire seems to think (and he's usually keen on such things from what I can tell) that this might turn into an election issue. Let's make sure it does.
    Eco-cons as well as libertarians may snicker, but Republican Representative Richard Burr of North Carolina observed that 26 independent NBC affiliates had recently exercised their right to refuse to telecast "Maxim's Hot 100." If independents are gobbled up with the F.C.C.'s blessing, more decisions affecting local mores will be made in Rockefeller Center. Is that what George Bush stands for?

    ...public opinion is on the march. Some in-house pollster should awaken President Bush to a bipartisan sleeper issue that could blindside him next year.
  6. Isn't that the wrong choice...? by macshune · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.