Slashdot Mirror
House Overturns FCC Media Consolidation Plan
son_of_a_general writes "Looks like the House of Representatives just overturned the FCC's media consolidation rules, previously covered on Slashdot here(1), here(2), and here(3). The article over at CNet shows that the House passed a bill that overturned the rules, by a 400 to 21 vote. All is not clear yet, however, as the bill still must pass through Senate and face being signed by a President who has already indicated that he may veto."
The article says that they only rejected funding for FCC programs that allow consolidation of this type... a slight difference
__________
Love conquers all... except CANCER
Will one of the marines in the presidential guard be a true patriot and shoot the fucking bastard?
It doesn't matter if the bastard vetos because congress can say screw you in a 2/3 majority, which they no doubt have. the senate is the real decision maker at this point as the house seems to already have its mind made up.
Please, can the government make one good decision this year, please??? I mean sure, it's just a correction of a previous bad move, but it's something. Gotta set the expectation bar low to achieve satisfaction.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
NPR sez he's promised to.... how can he justify that with such an overwhelming nay vote in the house?
Feh.
What I haven't quite figured out is -why- congress is so pissed. They were out for a piece of Powell during that hearing where he defended the decision.
Lets face it- almost everything our politicians do now is either in the interests of business, stripping our rights, or pork-grabbing for votes come next election(some all of the above). This is, if I ever saw it, some seriously anti-corporate stuff. Is this a case of public opinion being strong enough that they thought they couldn't get away with going with the corporations? Has our house and senate been replaced by aliens? :-)
[discuss]...
Please help metamoderate.
Even if this bill only rejects funding of the recent FCC decision, having such a lopsided vote will have to sway some lawmakers. Even if the Senate is a more deliberative body than the house, with this much opposition in the House, I'm fairly certain that the Senate would pass this with at least 67 affirmative votes, overriding the threat of a presidential veto.
The only way I could see this getting messed up is if the language gets neutered in a compromise bill, though, so we're still going to have to speak out to our local Representatives and Senators to let them know what we think. And with any luck, they might even listen.
Due to cable and satellite, 87% of the nation wasn't covered by the rules as they stood. Prohibition for the sake of prohibition is not only fruitless, it's anti-consumer.
Please, feel free to flame, but it's the truth. The rules only hindered business and were not 'protecting' anyone.
From CNet: Powell and his allies at the FCC have offered two major justifications for relaxing ownership restrictions.
At the time of last month's vote, Powell said the United States needs "modern rules that take into account the explosion of new media outlets" and are not tied to a "bygone black-and-white era." Technology offers a wealth of media alternatives--such as the Internet, 802.11 wireless networks, XM and Sirius satellite radio, DirecTV, hundreds of cable channels, low-power FM radio--that were not available a generation ago, the argument goes.
While it's true that these options may (or may not) have existed a generation ago, it is my considered opinion that most of them are on the fringe, expensive to break into and maintain, and have yet to prove themselves viable. Why should big-biz media interests be allowed to further control the media that is already established and has a wide audience, while the independent interests would be force to assume take all the risk to develop new channels? Especially when those new channels would probably get swept up (by another FCC gazelle-style roll over) by the big-biz outlets once they were established as viable?
Go House. I'm surprizingly proud.
GMFTatsujin
400-21? That is 95% of the House voting for this bill, way over the 2/3rds needed to overturn a veto. We just gotta get the Senate to pass this with over a 2/3 vote (67 out of 100 votes should do it I think if my math is right) then the President has a PR problem on his hand (like he needs another one). If he veto's it, then it will get passed anyways most likely and if he votes for it then he changed his mind which will piss off his ClearChannel donors.
I recommend Eric Alterman's What Liberal Media as a resource (from a left-wing perspective) on media bias: it's not the whole truth, but it's probably the best thing written on the subject.
"Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home" - Cicero
This is the guy who is saying that it's perfectly OK for a small number of companies to gobble up even more media outlets.
I don't think Mr Powell has learned very much about antitrust.
. . . I nearly believed it. By an amazing coincidence the Australian Senate will soon vote on cross-media ownership laws. This will be the death of independent media over here. Rupert Murdoch is poised to take over the Fairfax papers, which are the only media outlet critical of the current government.
Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
When all media is controlled by large corporations, it really precludes any involvement of the general populace.
This is left as an exercise for the reader.
Here is a different perspective. Here
Take a look at the bill and its amendments if you are truly worried about your freedom.
If you live in a state that is even considering legalizing the medical use of marijuana, your state's federal funding may be axed.
An amendment that would prohibit unlawful search and seizure of personal data between government agencies pertaining to records of suspected terrorists was struck down.
And finally Sheila Jackson Lee's amendments were unanimously voted down (hooray).
This FCC crap is the least of your worries.
or is anyone else wondering if the real reason many lawmakers voted for this bill was to prevent a single corporation from being able to control the politicians' access to tv ad space? The result is the same, so I guess i'm not really complaining. But it would be great to see if lawmakers were taking media conglomeration into more serious consideration than their own ad space.
Why would the president veto this? It's in the best interest of the citizenry. I propose a new law:
Any politician that takes more than a certain amount of campaign contributions (say, both an absolute threshhold of $10K and a certain percentage of their total fundraising) from a corporation (including individiuals that work for that corporation) or organization has to wear a sticker, clearly visible both from the front and the back, with the logo of the company or organization on it whenever they are in public in an official capacity. Think of those stickers pasted all over racing cars.
I wonder how many stickers Bush would have.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Did anyone else notice the irony of this being in the "entertainment" section?!
That way, a small news organization could, for example, use the Fox News feed of the State of the Union but then provide an independent commentary.
Fuck off and quit spamming your stupid, pointless bullshit.
So, was it overturned, or was it passed?
-bZj
.sig
The FCC has already decided that it will allow companies to own much more than they can now. The FCC director stated that this oh so important decision does not need any debate. He tried to shut down the debate by refusing to fund town meetings around the country debating this and informing the general public. He has definitely been bought by the likes of Clear Channel. This will further erode democracy in this country, and if you now hate DMCA and its ilk, wait until the next pass. Laws like DMCA and PATRIOT 2 get passed because there is a lack of healthy debate. It has been shown time and time again that Clear Channel refuses to report on such items. If you don't believe me, when was this particular debate even mentioned on any of Clear Channel's stations? The only time that I saw this reported was on a PBS program called "NOW with Bill Moyers". This was an excellent program that tried to look at the issue from all sides. You can find an in-depth discussion here Little by little our rights are being taken away from us. Just look at all of the recent laws implemented, DMCA, copyrights, PATRIOT act etc.
We need to act now, before the decision has been rendered. Once it has, there is very little chance of getting it changed. What's at stake is the very nature of democracy in this country. There is no way to rectify this if a bad decision is made. How do we rectify this in 10 years from now, once Clear Channel has bought up the few remaining independent stations? Do we really expect that at that point, a healthy debate about breaking up Clear Channel will be allowed by Clear Channel?
Clear Channel says it needs to be allowed to buy the remaining independent stations in order to become profitable. If they haven't become profitable at this size, what makes us believe that will become profitable when they have taken over the rest? Lets face it folks, these guys are lying to us saying that they are not profitable. They are quite profitable now, and what's really driving this is pure greed at the expense of this country's core values. They are destroying this country at the expense of a few bucks. Enough is enough.
Here's what I'd like to know: It overturns the 45% rule, but does it still prohibit cross-ownership of TV and newspapers? That would be the major problem... as much as I have a problem with the Gannett chain, they're still a newspaper company, run by newsmen who primarily report the news... while TV is increasingly run by entertainment companies run by entertainment moguls who turn the news into 'infotainment.' -- Funksaw
Go ahead Bush...
Bring it...
This bill gets vetoed, it's over for Bush. Easy as that.
What? They overturned a decision like that, shit. Well keep going, nothing to see here.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
If we allow the media to go the way we allowed civilian airliner manufacturing to go, we'll have one manufacturere in about ten years in the US. Competition is essential for a free market to work. When you see price gouging and the like it isn't it's a lot like a system crash due to bad sysadmin work. The system is only as good as the maintainer.
Good work congress. now do the same yeoman's job on ip laws and turn the clock back to say 1780.
-- $G
so if the senate votes for it with similar margins, the president would be a fool o veto it as it will diminish his political power on the hill.
no, he will sign it.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
With this sort of a margin, the House at least has a supermajority that could oveturn a veto. Hopefully the Senate can muster 67 votes too.
I'm on a road shaped like a figure eight; I'm going nowhere but I'm guaranteed to be late.
If the voting was so incredibly biased, as 400-21 shows, and if the Senate has similarly significant differences with their vote, it would be foolish to veto this. The population is against the media consolidation, and our representatives seem to actually get it, so I hope that the President isn't going to be dumb and try to stop it. He's already unpopular enough...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Why is allowing one company to own both a TV station and a newspaper in one location bad. There is almost certainly going to be another TV station and another newspaper available in the area that you can switch to. I think that changing the rules to basicly say "no one company may own more than one of a particular media type (TV, radio, newspaper) in a particular area" would be the ideal way to go. It would stop any one company from owning all the media in one area and would also force companies that already own more than one of a given media type in a given area to sell off some of their extra assets (e.g. clearchannel)
It does not mean that "the population is against" the media consolidation.
It means that House members are tired of arguing over the bill in question and are ready to call it a day and vote for whatever the bill has in it.
Appropriations bills regularly pass by very large margins.
This place is the weird place politically, we are openly and obviously Republican, yet the majory of our 3 reps are Democrats (prob. cause ag and ss). There are so many Christian laws here too, like most businesses cant open before 12 on Sun.
:P ).
Yet, every once and a while, there is a suprise, like Dorgan (i think it was) spearheading this effort (read his debate with the head of Fox). And the public shooting down the effort to allow banks for sell personal info (Big Corps advertised like every commercial break in support of the bill).
Anyway, I reelecting Dorgan (well what theres no green party here
forget it.
Deserves a 5, IMHO.
but Michael Powell represents a lot of things I find wrong with politics and I believe he is an example of a non-elected official who quietly erodes my rights....
therefore, I would like him to be head about the head, neck and breast area several times.
I can't wait for him to retire and wait for his daddy to arrange for his next job. Who knows...we may find him on the Supreme Court soon.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
You want to beat off Michael Powell?
Well, there's another point in favor of Mozilla. No stupid hacks needed to support the industry-standard BLINK tag.
If the prez vetoes, he will be such an asshole. He already is, to an extant. I still think that we're better off with him than we would ever have been with Gore, but I digress. It's not like we had much of a choice anyways.
I already feel some amount of shame for voting for him, but I will completely shamed if he vetoes. I really would like this bill to pass. I really hope that the pres listens to the majority of the population in this one, considering he has to put his job on the line in a year and a half or so.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
foo
Dumbass.
Regardless of what your politics are, do you really think vetoing this would be a "political catastrophe"? You actually think there are people who are going to go into the voting booth in Nov 04 and say to themselves, "Gee I was going to vote for Bush, but after vetoing that media ownership bill over a year ago I'm just going to have to vote for Sharpton"
Try to keep tinkgs in perspective.
The American Soc. Of Newspaper editors did a survey of 1037 reporters. 61% identified themselves as liberal 15% as conservative, that's 4:1.
In 1995 Kenneth Walsh, a reporter for U.S. News & World Report surveyed his fellow white house correspondants on who they voted for. 50 voted D 7 voted R. 7:1.
Got statistics to back up your claims?
to /dev/null
If I'm getting this right, they voted by to reverse the decision to not disallow consolidation. Or did they vote to overturn the reversal of the decision to not disallow consolidation? The president might veto, which would overturn the vote to reverse the decision to not disallow consolidation. Or (if I have it backwards), it would reverse the overturning of the reversal of the decision to not disallow consolidation. The vote passed by a large margin which, of course, leads to the question of a veto override, which would reverse...
I think there needs to be a rule in politics against obfuscation by double negatives.
... "Give me a woman who loves beer and I will conquer the w
Nope, I'm one of those pathetic people who actually studied history and learned how bad it was before unions formed.
Are unions perfect? Absolutely not. They can, and must, be improved. However a bad union is infinitely superior to no union.
Go read up on what life was like pre-union. It sucked damn hard. The Rockerfellers of the world were able to pretty much do what they wanted to and no one could stop them. Unions are the only thing that has a proven track record of putting a check on corporate power. Come up with a better idea and I'll back it, but unless you can I'll keep trying to improve unions, not destroy them.
I will definately agree that *some*, not all, unions have been failing in their primary duty to serve their members. This can be corrected fairly simply through regulation and oversight, it is not necessary to dismantle unions in general.
My main argument in favor of unions is simple: Where I live (Texas) unions don't have much clout, and wages here are around 20%-30% lower than they are in the average union state. It doesn't get much simpler than that.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
They can stip us of our rights and throw us in prison for downloading some files, but when our cable bill is in danger of going up, by God our Congress acts!
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Can be found here.
This is an article about the US media fawning over private Lynch despite the fact that she was injured by US military incompetence, not Iraqis, that she was captured without a fight, not firing her weapon valiantly to the end, that the US met no resistence in the hospital during her rescue and actually fired on a doctor trying to bring her out and hand her over.
Luckily for the rest of the world the actual facts have not been totally obscured because non-US media outlets have managed to get hold of the story... but the fewer outlets there are, the less would actually be known about this. As it is it sounds like half of America is still swallowing the 'enhanced' story whole... must be the same half that thinks Iraq used chemical weapons in the war and that the September 11 attacks were linked to Iraq.
In fact, when you look at it the media is already basically concentrated by virtue of the fact that it is ideologically concentrated. Once an 'accepted' version of a story is selected by someone, it becomes gospel and is repeated throughout the land.
Read Pynchon.
House agreed to Benie Sanders' amendment, that would limit the patriot act from being able to look at library and book sale records
On agreeing to the Sanders amendment Agreed to by voice vote.
11:34 P.M. -
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Sanders amendment under the five-minute rule.
Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders.
An amendment to prohibit use of funds to support an order requiring the production of library circulation records, library patron lists, library Internet records, bookseller sales records, or bookseller customer lists.
"Since the FCC's vote June 2, criticism of the commission's decision had grown from the left and right of the conventional political spectrum. Both ends seemed to feel that media consolidation favored their political opponents. The American Civil Liberties Union denounced the FCC's move as a step toward "monopolization," while the National Rifle Association told its members that "only big media's voice will be heard.""
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
Never forget the guy's a freakin' moron. Americans need to offer a gift to all mankind in 2004 by kicking this pathetic braindead out of office.
/. than be a living flamebait myself like Bush is.
And yes, you can consider this flamebait if you please ; I'd rather get modded down on
United States of America, good ol' backers of world peace.
I know what you did last night!
Repeal the DMCA!
A vote that actually reflects public opinion? Hard to believe. What's it got, a 25% Congressional payhike rider?
But hey, who am I to be insulted by someone with a lack of little grey cells?
[smile]
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I'm getting conflicting messages. From reading the linked article, I understand that the House voted to, in essence, keep the current rules in effect--that is, to nullify a plan by the FCC to relax rules on media outlet ownership. On the other hand, by reading the posts on /. (and taking into account the general attitude on /. in general), I get the impression that the House actually voted to allow the FCC to go ahead with its plan.
I'm going to go with what I read in the article--in which case, I hope this bill dies as soon as possible, and the FCC is allowed to go ahead with its plan. There is no valid reason to restrict how much one person or other private entity may own, period.
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
This guy is an expert in messing up stuff.
Yes, it's quite obvious that Bush and his Republican neo-conservative goons are on top of this one, being as they have majority and all. *cough*
(In case you couldn't tell, I'm making fun of those that see a political party's ideal as being completely one-sided.)
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
"Where I live (Texas) unions don't have much clout, and wages here are around 20%-30% lower than they are in the average union state.It doesn't get much simpler than that.
"
You are soo fucking stupid it is scary.
I will leave it at that.
Yes, I partially agree with the other reply to this post, saying no one will put off voting for Bush for vetoing this bill, but on the other hand, that's not quite the point. If he does veto a bill, particularly one that has had such a heavy majority, the political backlash will be huge. By the time all the politicians have jumped on him for that, and the press have had their say on a President vetoing a bill, again with this kind of majority, it would have far more effect on the party than you may assume.
Also, "A veto override is a political catastrophe for a President"... Yes, when has something being a political catastrophe had any sway in changing Bush's mind?
I swear, that man scares me more than Reagan!
This bill only overturns the television ownership cap -- drops it down 10% to its original level. Once again, ill mention that the media consolidation ruling actually *lowered* the radio ownership cap. -david
The Republicans plan to pull this wording out of the bill during the committee process when bills are reconciled with the Senate wording.
In the report on CNN they mention that Republicans are going around seeking member's signatures on a pledge to vote to sustain a veto. Since it requires a super majority(2/3rds) to override a veto, they only need 145 votes to defeat this measure.
This was a political game and it's largely symbolic, Republicans vote to support this so when they go back to their constituents they can't be attacked. Then the ones who are in solid seats with no reasonable opposition can vote against it to override the veto.
If you want to make sure that doesn't happen, write your congress critter and let them know how you feel and make it clear you'll be mad enough to start a grassroots campaign against them if they vote against this.
in Soviet Russia, FCC plans YOU !
Why these guys are frowning :)
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
This 2002 ruling criticized the FCC for the "arbitrary and capricious" 35% national ownership cap and told the FCC to reconsider it. Though he probably enjoyed doing it, Powell thus had very little choice in the matter of changing the cap, despite what everyone likes to believe. In fact, he has referred to this fact over and over again.
It may be possible to justify the 35% cap somehow. The judge did not destroy the cap, he basically just vacated it. On the other hand, he did wipe out the cable-broadcast cross-ownership rule completely because he didn't think that it could be justified. The same logic is easily applied to the other major part of the June 2003 rule changes: newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership. There is no point in arguing that point of the rules, as the Judicial Branch would throw it out the window immediately.
So, if you are all looking for someone to verbally crucify, look towards the judicial bench that prompted this rather than the FCC.
Yeah,you leave it at that.Him siting an example,and you acting like a little bitch (with nothing).
We have labor laws today that govern working conditions, minimum wage, safety, etc. These laws are the result of early unions. Today, unions serve no other purpose except to line the pockets of their leaders and control politicians.
My main argument in favor of unions is simple: Where I live (Texas) unions don't have much clout, and wages here are around 20%-30% lower than they are in the average union state. It doesn't get much simpler than that.
It does get simpler. You said nothing about cost of living in the respective states. I bet it's a helluva lot cheaper to live in Texas than closed-shop states.
***
Radio Shack. You've got questions...we've got blank stares(TM).
With those numbers, I'd say Bush will fold. Not that I see what the fuss is all around. Guess people these days are convinced that the Earth would stop turning on its axis if there weren't enough Federal regulations. Suckers.
Congress passed the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which removed many of the restrictions on ownership of multiple media outlets, and requires the FCC to review and justify its regulations on media ownership every two years. Combine that with a series of court decisions that have slapped down the FCC when the courts felt that the FCC had not adequately provided supporting evidence to justify new regulations. The FCC operates within the parameters set by Congress and the courts.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Also, "A veto override is a political catastrophe for a President"... Yes, when has something being a political catastrophe had any sway in changing Bush's mind?
Hey, that's not insanity, it's rewarding his sponsors, er POLITICAL LEADERSHIP, yeah, yeah he's leading the country for its own good, that's the ticket!
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
You have to have a mimimum of 51 votes for it to pass
Not really. A bill in the U.S. Senate needs at least 60 votes (three-fifths) to invoke "cloture", which ends debate and forces a bill to a vote. A bill with the support of 51 to 59 senators will often die in filibuster.
Will I retire or break 10K?
It's to prevent the tyranny of the mob.
What's the difference between the broadcast networks and organized crime? The broadcast networks (all of which except NBC are owned by Hollywood movie studios) elect officials because I'd estimate that at least 90 percent of the registered voters just do what the networks say.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I wonder if Powell is going to give Clear Channel their money back.
One major problem with relying on labor laws is that they can be changed at the whim of a corporate donor behind a couple of politicians. For example, see the recent change in federal labor laws that make it easier to screw over exempt employees (i.e. non-union) on overtime. Sure, union leadership can and has been bought too, but if that happens too blatantly somebody ends up wearing cement boots. Congressdroid gets too blatant and they just get a cushy corporate golfing, er lawyer, job after being voted out of office.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
i'm sick of it.
mod me down if you want.
but i strongly believe that this 'president' is only in it for himself. prove me wrong.
no child left behind? HAH!
ignores protesters, misrepresents 'intelligence' to go to war to 'liberate' Iraq? HAH!
and now, wants to create jobs and stimulate the economy? how?
by allowing big media to further consolidate? allow Clearchannel, or Entercom, or GE (NBC), CBS, and who ever else, eat themselves alive so that the same exact programming can be broadcast on hundreds of radio and TV stations across the nation? did it ever occur to him that often times IT'S NOT HUMANS WHO RUN THE CONTROLS. many TV and Radio jobs have been easily replaced with automation systems. allowing further consolidation allows further automation, eliminating jobs.
sorry, I forgot about the tax break that he gave all his rich buddies over at Halliburton. that OUGHT to give a few accountants jobs, at least maybe 2 or 3.
I think Bush is doing a really good job, and I hope he is reselected in 2004 for a second term.
I have no problem with unions, at least in theory. (In practice I have a lot of problems with them, but as you say, that's all fixable.) But they are definitely comparable to megacorps in terms of political clout; they just appeal more to one party than the other, which is why you never hear anyone on /. bitching about congresscritters owned by a particular union.
Where I live (Texas) unions don't have much clout, and wages here are around 20%-30% lower than they are in the average union state.
I'd predict that states with higher union membership are older states with older corporations, such as northeastern states. These states happen to have higher population densities. Have you considered that salaries are higher in "union" states because cost of living is higher there?
I agree that unions are a good thing, but Texas is a cheap place to live. It would probably be more convincing if you compared union worker salaries to non-union worker salaries within the same industry.
my blog
Okay not to be rude here: but are you just randomly spouting out intelligent sounding stuff to get karma?
Like the line that's bothering me is
(paraphrasing here)LIBERTIARIANS SUPPORT MORE GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS AND LAWS AND BEAURCAURCY ON PRIVATE COPRORATIONS BECAUSE IT ADVOCATES SMALL GOVERNMENT AND LESS GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN PRIVATE Enterprises
?!?!?!
Why I admit that almost all the media is surly not Libertarian, Libertarian's are generally known as those great "party/people of principal"(which is probly why we have none in high offices(oh RON PAUL! I WON"T FORGET ABOUT YOU, but that's one and he had to hide under the republicans).
Anyway the principle part would prevent them from advocating government interference; just because it would help them get their message across, advocating these rules are against their ideologies
Oh and just so I can utterly destroy your point(no offense here, I just find a bit disbelief at the lack of understanding of the libertarian position) Let's look at some leading Libertarian thinkers on this
The Cato Institute(leading Libertarian think think) http://www.cato.org/dispatch/07-23-03d.html#3: The FCC's media ownership restrictions are relics of a bygone era, according to Cato Institute communications policy experts Adam Thierer and Clyde Wayne Crews Jr. In a recent commentary, "The Big Media Boogyman," they argue that "these rules have become historic anachronisms that ignore new market conditions and the intense competition for our eyes and ears. Indeed, far from living in a world of 'information scarcity' that some fear, we now live in a world of information overload. The number of information and entertainment options at our disposal has almost become overwhelming and most of us struggle to figure out ways to filter and manage all the information we can choose from in an average day."
Then notice the fact that Ron Paul(presidential candidate for the libertarian party in 88, now a congressman) Voted against this. Okay That's all Just had to clarify the Libertarian position here.
seen what sen Alston and tried to do when they published critical, sorry *biased*, coverage of the Iraq conflict?
Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
The Council for Excellence in Government just did a large study on media coverage of government, sweeping many ranges of topics.
Among their findings were that Democratic presidents (Clinton, as the study reaches back only to Reagan-era) and congressmen were subject to a much lower ratio of criticism-to-praise in network news.
The study also revealed less than desirable trends in media on coverage of both sides. Coverage of federal government is on the decline, and the majority of coverage is negative in both cases (just to a greater degree for the Republicans). "Opinions" have also become more dominant in news stories, slanting the "opinions to facts" ratio noticably.
Much of this is froufrou. While I take some sort of glee in the fact that the *partial* rollback measure was attached as a "rider" to a spending bill - just like how Congress screwed LPFM back in 2000 - similar legislation must still be passed by the Senate, and then survive a conference committee, a veto, AND an override, in order to actually happen.
Symbolically, this is a very good thing (as well as being somewhat historic in a political sense), but in the real world it will likely get axed in the dead of night by the real string-pullers in Congress, and what the FCC did will stay in place.
That is why just ignoring the FCC to begin with makes for more fun. (viva microradio!)
Seriously tho, if you want the scoop on the politics you can get near-daily updates from media reform lobbyists working the Hill. I don't know if they keep archives of their reports, but I do remember seeing that more than this rider was in play at one time. One other proposed amendment (sunk before getting to the floor, I believe) would've rolled back most if not all of the FCC's changes, but the one that made the cut was the weakest of the bunch.
Take those 500 channels that are spread across satelite, DirectTV, cable, and broadcast (I think only claiming that there are 500 is being very nice). Let's be generous again and say that each media conglomeration owns 10 channels (I'm being very very nice on this figure). That still leaves 50 companies running the channels. The 1973 family could tune into less than 10 independant stations. That still means the number of media producers has grown by at least a factor of 5. With the Internet and large pipes into homes and more desire from people, I only see this number getting bigger.
If you carry this same analysis over to print media it will only show a larger growth, not just becaus there are more print media companies within a community, but now people can read magazines and newspapers from the other side of the world at their library and in their homes.
Then you launch into some random babbling about demand not being high enough in the 1970s to create this competition effect. Well, I don't know if you thought that argument out because it only proves what the Cato report was trying to show: now that we have compeition and the technology is no longer in its infancy (and there has been a shift in society towards craving this information overload), we no longer need these regulations. In the past they may have been necessary, but now they are just relics of a black and white era.
-m
that states with higher union membership (and stronger unions) have higher unemployment too.
-m
I predict that Bush won't veto the bill. Congress has been getting enormous pressure from its constituents to overturn the recent FCC decision. I'm pretty sure the bill will also be passed by the Senate. If Bush then vetoes the bill he'll be putting members of his own party in a difficult position and risk giving his opposition another issue on which he can be attacked in the next election.
Rather than do that he'll probably back off on his threat to veto the bill, sacrifice the current FCC Chairman Michael Powell, have the next Chairman sabotage the enforcement mechanisms via administrative fiat and creative legislative re-interpretation. And then he'll vow to Big Media to make a full-court press to reinstate the changes...after his re-election.
The FCC story is also on CNN.com, but includes the following paragraph:
On Tuesday, the House by 309-118 included another amendment blocking the government from performing "sneak and peek" searches under the USA Patriot Act. That law, enacted after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, allowed such searches without the property owner's or resident's knowledge with warrants that are delivered afterward.
There is hope yet. Congress is waking up.
The amendment that passed as part of the appropriations bill 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. (It's not market by market)
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. .8% 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. (posted in a previous thread, but too late for anyone to notice)
Unless I've misinterpreted your numbers (entirely possible), you're saying that the number of media producers has grown by at least a factor of 5, but the number of channels has grown by a factor of 50. Does that not seem lopsided?
The other problem is cross-media consolidation, which is the real trouble here. It's easy enough to avoid all Fox-owned TV stations, but what if they start to buy up radio and newspapers in your area too? Sure, someone like me can easily seek out different sources online, but what about Joe Citizen? You don't think that's going to have an effect?
The Pacifica network, home of the very good DC jazz station WPFW (much better than Morgan State's jazz radio) is in danger of being bought up by larger entities (including NPR, who while they have some good programming, is against diversity in radio and waged a campaign of mistruths to kill low-power FM).
See http://www.pacifica.org
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
The day of the necessity of unions is over. Today, unions exist solely to give the union bosses a job
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
I'm a DBA at a university with a bad union.
I cannot disagree with you more -- there is nothing worse for an employer or employees than a bad fucking union.
I'm only writing this because at times people get the idea that an IT union would be a good thing -- and nothing could be further than the truth.
You make good points about where unions would be useful, but in IT it just leads to sloth, inefficiency and a bunch of lazy a-holes (like the guys in the next cube spending all morning connecting a dreamcast to their workstation).
The real problem is the bastards they won't fire. I've been at this job for about 10 years and they've fired a total of 2 people in that time -- and morale just continues on a downward spiral.
Argh.
So you know your history of unions. Just don't forget there is a time and place for everything, and once you get a union into your shop, it's like herpes -- it will NEVER go away.
This means that either the Administration is ignorant, arrogant, or capable of miscalculating remedial details. All of these things are bad...
Not only are all of these things bad, but they have already been proven, so what makes you think that they wouldn't provide further evidence of them?
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
jeez guys, let the free market work, haven't you ever heard the phrase "Tariffs breed trusts". Onerous government regulation breeds trusts.
If you think that people want to listen to the crap you listen to the put up a station, other wise shut up.
Consolidation is not a bad thing. Shit, all radio sounded the same to me before 1996 anyway. Face it, the market is a bad arbiter of quality media. "art movies" , "alternative Radio", they just don't make enough money.
I swear, that man scares me more than Reagan!
That's because Regan rarely got away from his keepers. (The "Evil Empire" speech was funny because we knew that he'd be swiftly corralled.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
A bad union isn't always preferable to no union. Exceptions are easy to find. But, depending on your definition of bad, it often is.
... I want to say psychopaths, but the variation is considered normal, so ... control freaks. People who are more interested in the power than in doing the job that the power was allocated to do.
And sometimes a union isn't even needed. Which doesn't mean that it shouldn't be allowed.
It's an organizational problem. Unions are an attempt to create a balence of power between the workers and the others. Management trys to prevent unions from forming, and to create jobs that are defined to not be union jobs. Because unions weaken their right to do what they feel appropriate.
Internally, though, a union itself is a structure, and that structure can have places where the power is centralized. And any centralization of power is a weakness that invites seizure by
It's a dicey problem, and I don't see a general solution. People seem to accept tyrants, as long as they are seen as helping them in the short run. But in the long run it's almost always disasterous.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
There is nothing in this law that prevents you, legally, from owning a broadcast outlet.
Other than the fact that the FM radio band is cramped and thus has no room for another broadcast outlet?
Will I retire or break 10K?
The President veto-ing againts a 400 to 21 vote??
Wow! That is indeed the best democracy money can buy!
Robert
Sounds like you haven't met that very common person in the tech industry - engineer and manager of one, himself. Companies play games like that just so as to exploit loopholes like that. Besides, the terms of the bill are a lot more complicated than either post makes them out to be, but you can bet your bippy in this big-business dominated government, that the net effect is good for business, bad for the individual.
Now... where is the money that business saving going to go to? Probably to hire someone else or maybe at the worst to pay a dividend to the people who invested in you in the hope that you could bring them profits (or even yourself if you're a shareholder). I don't see that as a particularly bad thing.
I've managed a restaurant for the last 9 years. I can tell you that every time the minimum wage goes up, it hurts the business (do more with less or raise prices and lose business/cause inflation)... and we do everything we can to avoid people working overtime since the profit margins are so low. Businesses need to stay healthy if the individual wants their job to be there so they can stay healthy. If you have a problem with not getting overtime, refuse the management position and see what that does for the individual. Accept that the tech industry is the way it is and enjoy the high wages compared to other industries or get out.
that said, I personally don't like the fact that some people make too much to qualify for overtime but again, it was their choice to take on that job. I think if you asked the average union guy if they thought office workers with flex time, the ability to work from home, who gets to go on the occassional junket and makes more than $60k a year was in desperate need of a union to come and make their job more safe/fair would laugh at you (the union bosses wouldn't... they'll take their cut).
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
Media consolidation could well turn out to be a new "third rail" of american politics for Bush. No way congress would be rolling back the FCC ruling which allows multinational conglomerates to buy more TV stations, unless there was major pressure from voters. This gets the most interesting diverse groups riled up. Folks from neandertal neocons to women's libbers are against GE Disney Rupert Redstone et al from gobbling up more TV stations. They have good reason to be against it. Just scan the FM dial, for a preview.
It's not just the "right wing" that believes this. It's the American public in general...unless you believe that a majority of America is "right wing"...which would tend to indicate that those who label what is "left" or "right" (that is, the media) are in fact left of the center. Most Americans (54 to 29) think media is slacking in its job as a watchdog. Most Americans (53 to 29) think there is bias in media. Most Americans that think so (51 to 26) think that bias is left-leaning rather than right-leaning. Most Americans (46 to 25) think the American media is anti-American than pro-American. This isn't just "some right wing conspiracy" it's what's really happening. Even self-described liberals like Bernard Goldberg are speaking out about it...there's some more left-wing perspective for you. You want empirical evidence? OK.
Constitutionally Correct