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."
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!
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!
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.
Silly me.
This is my sig.
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
I used to think NPR was the cleanest news source and I've even donated money to them. However, every news source must serve its master. NPR receives huge donations from biotech companies like Archer Daniels Midland ("The nature of what's to come" and "Supermarket to the world"). How can I trust NPR to give "fair and balanced" reporting about subjects like genetically engineered foods when they are ADM's bitch?
And then there was the whole fiasco about US Army psy-ops (i.e. propagandists) working as "interns" in NPR and CNN's news rooms.
Ironically, I still listen to NPR because, even though they are influenced (like every other news source), I find their subjects and spin the most appealing. I guess you have to pick your poison. Though I have been reading the BBC and Guardian UK news lately..
cpeterso
Companies don't take away freedoms, they persuade you to buy their product.
Yes. But they also lobby congressmen to approve laws that take away your freedom to their advantage. And THAT's what he was taliking about.
lol... I hope you aren't claiming that Noam Chomsky is balanced. I'm a raving liberal but Chomsky makes me look like Ann Coulter.
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
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.
If you want to know all about how the New York Times went from being an unbiast paper, the "paper of record", to a liberal cheerleader...
A liberal cheerleader? huh? I agree that they've gone from being stodgy and sometimes acceptable to sometimes sensationalist and completely bogus, but the only issues they are even remotely liberal on is when it comes to some minorities' civil rights. There is more liberal reporting in the Wall Street Journal and the Economist when it comes to anything else.
If I had to peg the NYT ideology I'd say it's conservative upper middle class. That's not the same as right wing christian ideology but it's still conservative.
Not that I care much about their ideology, the reporting has been so rotten over the last decade that it doesn't matter much. Except that it's still widely read since there is little else. (The Wash Post & the LA Times have been improving though, and the BBC website is marginaly acceptable for world news headlines.)
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!
You're so off-base it's not even funny. Comparing socialism and democracy is not legitimate, because socailism is an ECONOMIC system, and democracy is a POLITICAL system.
The opposites of socialism maybe capitalism, or anarchy.
Democracy on the other hand, can be contrasted with totalitarianism, or police state.
For example, it's widely recognized that many European countries are socialist democracies.
The US is somewhere between capitalism and socialism.. since we do regulate trade, and break up monopolies (sometimes), but don't have state-run companies (like in France, Germany, or China).
Companies don't take away freedoms, they persuade you to buy their product. If you don't like the deal they offer, you turn around and walk out. Only in the minds of regulators can a company monopolize an entire market.
Hmm... what would you call your local power company? Or how about Microsoft? They are monopolies, one is a regulated, natural monopoly, the other is not, and is coercive. (figuring out which one is which is left as an exercise to the reader). Both do exist thanx to the government, and are not going away anytime soon.
Welcome to the not-so-free-as-you-think market.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
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
...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...