Slashdot Mirror
Senate Approves Measure to Undo FCC Rules
fortheloveofjava writes "The Washington Post says here that the Senate voted 55 to 40 today to wipe out all of the Federal Communication Commission's controversial new media rules, employing a little used legislative tool for overturning agency regulations. If you signed the MOVEON.org petition, an image of part of it is visible here with sponsoring senators Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Trent Lott (R-MS)."
is the part that says, "Even if passed by the House, the White House has promised a veto."
I'm confused about why it takes such a major act of governmental will to override the FCC. They aren't elected, and should be subservient to Congress. Congress is the only body that can make law; why is the FCC being granted that power so strongly?
In essence, the FCC, part of the executive branch, is being given equal status to Congress. To override the FCC, Congress has to pass a new law (which the President has threatened to veto). Congress would then have to override that veto.... requiring a supermajority to regain *their own lawmaking power*.
Something is REALLY messed up here.
Nice job, and congrats americans! Looks like the peeps have got a say in matters like this. Take THAT, clear channel! This musician dances with happiness, and its not even my country.
"Old man yells at systemd"
It's great to see an actual online petition have *some part* in changing things - with all the online petitions that are passed around, congrats to moveon.org for actually making it effective! Score 1 for democracy (for the moment, at least...)!
> CNN Politics, CNN Music, CNN Sports
one URL for you: MSN.com
there's no place like ~
There's nothing that stops CNN from creating spinoff flavors. They already have in the forms of CNN Headline News, CNNfn, and CNN en Espanol. There also used to be a CNNsi, but that network was pulled back as a failure.
What these regulations deal with is how many stations the big network owners are allowed to own in broadcasting, which used to be tightly limited to encurage local interests to own local TV stations. It used to be, the local supermarket barron could own 1 TV station in his home area, and have that be a viable business. But now, the economics of the TV industry have allowed the networks to own stations in nearly every major market, and in the markets where they don't on the station the station owners are heavily dependant on the network.
Local programming other than newscasts has virtually evaporated during the 1990s, and now there are network affiliate stations in mid-sized cites that are closing up their news operations as well. We're losing distinct media voices in this process, and that's the concern.
Really, the worst problem with media consolidation is the total loss of a sense of a local community, especially on the radio. I feel the major problem isn't TV, it is radio being taken over by ClearChannel, where people have to play their political games to get on the radio.
Just my .02
So Bush vowing to veto basically means he's disdainfully ignoring the will of the population he was supposedly elected to represent.
And we ARE still in a *representative* Republic? Right? ... right? Bueller?
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
This is great news. I was dreading Fox News spewing their bile everywhere. If Rupert Murdoch is legally allowed to take over all the media, he WILL. It would have been an Orwellian disaster (it's close to it already) if this wasn't voted down.
...wait for it... people tune into them. Now, I don't like pop drivel like Britney Aguilera or the crappy 'reality' shows, but (and I know this concept will be completely ignored here, but I've to try) my opinions should not be made into law, and neither should yours. If people didn't want to watch Fox, it wouldn't exist right now. Rupert has so much money because he gives people what they want....and just because you or I don't like it, more heavily regulating the media isn't good for anyone. Just because you don't like something does not mean it should be illegal, or no one would be legally allowed to eat cranberries, because I'm allergic to them. Think of how you'd feel if some pop-infected teeny bopper got a law passed that made all non-pop music subject to stringent regulation. That wouldn't be very fun for you, would it? Of course not. What these senators are doing is wrong, what the FCC does in regulating communication is wrong, it's all unconstitutional anyways. Free speech was intended to be just that, excepting cases of national interest or public safety. I think it's quite a stretch to equate 'equal time' (shea, right) with national interest or public safety. Let the clearchannels of the world push pop pap onto the masses until they can't take it anymore, and then their dominance will be ended and soon forgotten. Adding (or re-adding) regulation doesn't further our cause of liberty, it flies in its face.
You people are funny. Pols are tired of getting slammed in the media, so they work to more heavily regulate the media. Wow, what a victory for free speech. You idiots. The companies that prosper in the media do so because they can sell ad time (or monthly charges for no-commercial cable channels like HBO and Showtime) and because
Now, I know a bunch of you out there are literally afraid that one company will come to own every single tv and radio station as well as every single newspaper. However, there are enough rich liberals out there, if they wanted to, they'd be free to start their own network. If their network wasn't financially viable, it would fold. That's how things are supposed to work in this country. Sometimes people like things you don't like. Sometimes people say things you don't agree with. The beauty of this country is supposed to be that we're all free to like what we want and say what we want without worrying how others feel about it. Oh well, this nation was at one time a shining example of what to do. Now it's more a comedy of errors, and it won't be long before we slip into tragedy.
http://xkcd.com/386/
For two reasons, the new rules were better:
1. Most existing media/news sources would be taken over, thus forcing a change in management and direction. Good to shake up the old dinosaur media types.
2. As consolidation takes hold, many smaller stations/news sources would be able grow. This means more competition.
Most of the opponents of consolidation falsely warn us that diversity of opinion would be lost. This simply is not true since the available sources of news/media have grown exponentially in the last 30 years.
Here is a timeline:
1. my grandparents - read a newspaper listened to the radio
2. my parents - read newspaper, watched tv, listened to the radio
3. me - read newspaper, watched tv, listened to the radio, watched cable, read news on the internet, listened to internet radio, subscribed to many news email services -> even dropped the dead tree newspaper.
I haven't even tried satelite radio.
this would be Bush's first veto.
"You worthless post!"
-Shakespeare, 2 Gentlemen of Verona, 1. 1. 147
The rules have already been stayed by a judge, so there isn't a possibility of sudden waves of consolidation yet. Whatever ruling is set down in the current case in Philidelphia will be appealed to the Supreme Court. This thing is going to be dragged through the courts all the way to the top. That is where the buck will stop.
So what you've got to ask yourself is, "Do I feel lucky?" Do you think the Supreme Court will rule for or against the media consolidation rules? Before you answer, please review the history of media deregulation. In particular, read up on the cable-broadcast cross-ownership ruling that came out of the D.C. court which prompted this whole fiasco (Fox v. FCC, if I remember correctly.)
I'll tell you this: there is a significant probability that these new ownership rules will be upheld, not rejected, especially given the conservative leanings of the high court.
Just some food for thought.
Congress has told them to periodically review and rewrite FCC regulations to make sure that they are still necessary and relevant. That doesn't stop them from bashing the FCC when they don't like the result.
The courts have been striking down FCC decisions when the courts have decided that the FCC did not backup their decision with objective research and data.
Whenever a large corporation does not like the result of a FCC decision, they sue, hoping that the court will overturn the FCC's new rule.
This has turned the FCC into a punching bag for a wide variety of competing interests.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
So does it do more bad than good to write and express displeasure at how they voted after the fact?
"But now they are..."
Son, this is nothing new. Senator Henry Jackson of Washington State was once called "The Senator from Boeing," during a controversy over the TFX program (to become the F-111 fighter/bomber) in the 60s. McNamara handed the contract to McDonald Douglas and old "Scoop Jackson" blew a (figurative, but not by much) gasket, leading to investigations and other nonsense.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Wait. We SELECTED him?
lexbaby
"Be Brave, Be Loyal, Be True." -- Hawkeye Pierce