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."
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.
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.
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)
Oh come on. This is the second post I've seen that bitches about that line, but it's not editorializing! It's the honest-to-God TRUTH! I noticed that neither of you tried to deny the veracity of the statement, just the way it which is was said. BTW, I don't see this as a Republican versus Democrat issue; both parties are corporate stooges. It's just that Republicans are often the most egregious offenders.
I reckon you're just used to the way the media likes to frame the wholesale corporate hijacking of our airwaves, which are, (or "were") in theory, public-owned. The media, to say the least, likes to phrase it delicately, but why should that be surprising? This is all about media control, is it not? And you don't think Tom Brokaw is going to raise his fist in the air on TV and yell, "Power to the people!" and still have a job tomorrow, do you? The hierarchical structure and constricting cultural climate of corporate life negates this possibility without the need for enforcement. It's a clear danger to democracy, and it's spreading.
Orwell was damn close, but he forgot about big business. The real danger is the unholy alliance between business and government. Once all the "voices" in society are all filtered through the government and big business, what room is there for the individual? Group-Think. Corporate-Speak. These are not just the fodder for a million Dilbert comics; it is the stupefying sound of the banality of evil.
Electric Monkey Pants
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.
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."
Everybody's a critic but no one is a problem solver. When you can construct a thesis on how to fix the "problems," then you can bitch and whine about the people in office right now. And don't give me any of that "I don't know what's the right thing to do, but I know it when I see it" bullcrap, either. I hope you do leave very soon. Because this country needs less complainers and more workers. You try working for the federal government for a few weeks and then you'll understand much better the nature of the beast. If you really think all the problems center around one man, you're just as naive as every other typical journalist. I'm not trying to flame you, buddy. Just saying that you can run north or south for all I care because I judge a man's character not by his critiques but by his spirit. I don't remember Franklin, Washington, or Davis running to Canada when the British government was irritating them. And on that note, I propose that you don't know history one bit. Never in our nation's history have heroes run away and abandoned their homeland. Only the cowards.
More info on a clear channel scandal regarding their traffic "reporting" can be found here.
Yesterday afternoon as I was driving home from the office, I heard Trent Lott talking about the proposed FCC rule on Public Radio Mississippi. Basically, he said he opposed the new rules because it would reduce the diversity of opinion in the media. It sounded almost exactly like a PIRC form letter.
Needless to say, I was a bit amazed (omg wtf lol!). 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...
Except the Republicans (excluding King Bush is seems) were in support of this ruling anyway.
"Conservative columnist William Safire wrote in today's New York Times:
"Here is what made this happen: Take the force of right-wingers
upholding community standards who are determined to defend local
control of the public airwaves; combine that with the force of lefties
eager to maintain diversity of opinion in local media; add in the
independent voters' mistrust of media manipulation; then let all these
people have access to their representatives by e-mail and fax, and
voilà! Congress awakens to slap down the power grab."
From the moveon.org mailing list
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).
I'm so tired of hearing of how Clearchannel is the "Evil Empire" of the media realm. CC owns roughly 1,200 US radio stations, 40 TV stations, and a good chunk of outdoor advertising. I make no apologies for that. But the question I pose is this: Why does Viacom/CBS/Infinity not come under the same srutiny? By your own link, Viacom's media behemoth may only own a fraction of the radio stations CC does, but control the same number of airwave TV stations, plus MTV, VH1, CMT, BET, Comedy Central, Showtime, Nickelodeon, and a couple more cable stations. Furhter, they produce movies(Paramount Pictures), rent movies(Blockbuster), print books (Simon & Schuster), and they're responsible for KingWorld productions, bringing you hours upon hours of syndicated goodness every day. You tell me who influences the average American's thinking more.
NOTE: Yes, I do work for Clearchannel.
Sigs are for squares. Like pants!
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.
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
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.
Good, advertising has become the most fucked up unholy beast and has alot to do with whats wrong with this country. We should start actually enforcing truth in advertising laws, and then extend them so that you can't say or even imply anything that is not provably, objectively true about your product. Then maybe we could have a healthy market again.