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)."

Comments

What worries me most

[T1girl]

is the part that says, "Even if passed by the House, the White House has promised a veto."

Re:What worries me most

[fjordboy]

There was a quote in the article that mentioned that even if the bill does go through, it basically just rolls back the legislation to June 2, which isn't a bad deal for most involved. This doesn't repeal everything that the FCC wants, it is just giving them an option to "try again." I wouldn't worry too much about Bush vetoing it, even if he does, with this much of congress against the FCC in this case, I think they'll revise the bill of their own accord.

Re:What worries me most

[rekkanoryo]

There's always the chance of having it presented again to get that 2/3 majority to make it override the veto.

Re:What worries me most

[Otter]

My impression was that the veto was threatened more than "promised" (although haven't seen an original quote either way).

Anyway, I don't believe it. Bush hasn't used his veto much (has he vetoed anything?) and I very much doubt this is the time and issue where he's going to start, especially with major Republicans prominently supporting the measure.

Re:What worries me most

[the_mad_poster]

And that surprises you? This is Bush we're talking about. He's hardly been a shining example of fairness, intelligence, and respectability so far.

A white house veto isn't necessarily the death of it though.. it can still go back for a vote and get passed if it gets a 2/3 vote in each Chamber. That bastardized version of a president we currently have isn't all powerful just yet...

Re:What worries me most

[LostCluster]

Typically, a bill that doesn't get the 2/3 majority the first time around won't have it the second time if needed to override a veto. It'd take having the political environment shift during the time in between to make several Senators who voted "no" the first time to vote "yes" the second time.

Re:What worries me most

[Petronius]

Of course he'll veto it. He needs to control the media to win the next election. He needs to make sure that we have glowing pictures of Iraq on the tube every night.

Also, it never hurts to also control the voting machines.

Sickening.

Re:What worries me most

[Elfan]

I do not belive Bush has vetoed anything yet.

Reference "Instead we are getting the first full presidential term to go without a veto since John Quincy Adams."
National Review

Re:What worries me most

[stomv]

Note that 55 voted Yea, and 5 weren't present... including 4 Dems, who overwhelmingly voted Yea.

That's almost certainly 59 Yeas -- 67 would need to Yea to override the veto. It isn't likely for the Dems to find 8 Pubs to override a Republican POTUS veto, but it is possible, especially if the grassroots efforts by folks like Move On continue to be effective.

Of course, a veto that isn't overriden is just one more thorn in the side of Bush come election time, although it's unlikely to be an issue that will swing many voters.

Re:What worries me most

[Trolling for Profit]

Bush's cronies in Texas are already trying to redistrict the state to increase republican state representatives. In the process, republican electoral votes for the President in national elections. So even if the popular vote favors a democratic candidate, the republican candidate has a better chance of winning. Considering Texas is one of the largest states in terms of electoral votes that's not just disgusting. That's scary.

Re:What worries me most

[h00pla]

Interesting. John Quincy Adams was also the son of a former president. He only served one term as well.

Re:What worries me most

[fjordboy]

Individuals are paying for Bush's re-election campaign. Just like they did in 2000. opensecrets.org gives the full amounts that each candidate got and who they got it from. Bush raised more money from Gore, and Bush also didn't rely on matching funds from the federal government during the primaries(Gore did use matching funds). The VAST majority of Bush's money came from individual donors...with a LOAD of it being donations under 200 bucks. When you look at the "business" that donated, it was mostly real estate, investors and law firms...not oil companies or car companies or media moguls.

While Bush does seem to represent big business more than Gore would (after all, bush *is* republican), that seems to have little to do with how his campaign was funded. Opensecrets.org has TONS of info on this sort of thing (meticulously detailed...in a geeky fashion). Here's a short background on his fundraising from the same page.

I'm not saying that Bush is a saint, or that he doesn't represent big business...but at least condemn him legitimately.

Re:What worries me most

[Sylver Dragon]

I realize that its popular to pick on the Republicans at the moment, but this sort of redisticting happens every few years (I forget how many at the moment, and am to lazy to look it up for a /. post) Which ever set of aristocrats are in power at the time use this redistricting to help themselves (gee, suprise). This is a normal function of our federal govenment. Is it right, and/or benificial to us pesants? Probaly not, but please don't pretend its new, or one sided.
Move along nothing to see here...

Re:What worries me most

[Xday Bob]

If Clear Channel is happy with the FCC rulings then Bush is happy with it and will veto any changes.

I have doubts that Clear Channel would enjoy having "...tightened radio ownership rules".

Old school Dubbya friends -> http://www.takebackthemedia.com/radiogaga.html

Re:What worries me most

[Anonymous Coward]

From somewhere else:

The FCC is required to review media ownership rules every two years, but the revamping follows federal appeals court criticism that the agency had not justified the need for them.

So, the FCC needed to justify the old rules. They (FCC & White House) decided it was only possible to justify new rules, so they blame the change on the court, which isn't really true.

Re:What worries me most

[4of12]

Direct hard money contributions to the campaigns haven't been nearly as much of a factor as the soft money, which amounted to half a billion dollars in the 1999-2000 election cycle.

I agree with a recent editorial in The Atlanta Journal Constitution that hopes the SCOTUS upholds the McCain-Feingold closing of soft money loopholes.

Re:What worries me most

[Galvatron]

"this much of congress against the FCC"

How is 55-40, with 5 abstaining, a huge majority? It sounds to me like if Bush vetos it, it will die, as it is well short of the 2/3rds needed to override a veto. As far as I'm concerned, that's a good thing; these rules are stupid in an age where barriers to becoming a content distributor are virtually nil (maybe $10/month in web hosting costs).

Re:What worries me most

[UdoKeir]

That's right. I generally happens every 10 years (in Texas at least).
The last time it happened, the situation had to be settled by a district court judge. That was in 2001.
Now the Texas Republicans want to redistrict again. They didn't like the last result so they're changing parliamentary rules in order to get their plan shoved through. This is all at the behest of the Bush Whitehouse.
It is not normal to redistrict every 2 years. This is what you do when you want to guarantee getting elected, because you've fscked the economy up so much that you can't get enough of the popular vote to carry you into office.
It's a bit like getting your brother to block minorities from voting in the state that he's running.
State Police headlight checks in minority neighbourhoods near the polling station on election day? Perfectly normal.
Scrubbing thousands of citizens from the voting rolls because their name sounds like that of a convicted felon in another state? Nothing to see here.
Stupid fsck.

Re:What worries me most

[stomv]

I agree with the other poster about gerrymandering and also agree that the Dems have been doing it in Tejas (just as both parties do it wherever possible).

The difference is this: redistricting has been done every 10 years, following a census. This isn't law, but it was a reasonable choice. A new census should require redistricting -- it's the most recent, most accurate measure of where people live. The decision to not change things in between was for a number of reasons, including: efficiency, time constraints, and that if not done every two years or five, it wouldn't divide the 10 year cycle at identical intervals in the election cycle -- and doing it every 5 years would mean recarving up the districts months before an election... not a good idea either.

So, historically, its been every 10 years. Both parties have adhered to this tradition because it just makes good sense in the big picture. For the pubs to do it now, after two years, arbitrarilly, and without proper justification*, is downright arrogant.

* The justification "the state voted Republican for president/has more registered Republicans and yet there are more Democrats elected to the US House" is not a valid complaint. People vote, not parties -- and the people are not beholden to vote for parties. Both Pubs and Dems have spent this whole saga arguing about seats for the Dems and the Pubs... nobody has talked about what best serves the will of the people. Plenty of sleaze to go around.

Re:What worries me most

[Qzukk]

these rules are stupid in an age where barriers to becoming a content distributor are virtually nil (maybe $10/month in web hosting costs).

Riiight. And its so easy to get on the air too, you can set up your licensed radio transmitter on... wait, sorry, it looks like clearchannel just bought all the radio frequencies in your city.

Oh, and that web site? AOL and road runner have both decided to redirect their users to Time's own sites. You can have all the speech you want, but nobody will ever listen to you.

Re:What worries me most

[jfern]

> Interesting. John Quincy Adams was also the son of a former president. He only served one term as well.

Wait, it gets even better. He lost the popular vote to a Democrat from Tennesee. Also, he had the same first and last names as his father, but different middle names.

there goes my media monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

damn

wait

[TedCheshireAcad]

Wait I thought the government was bad? Especially the republicans, Lott, that is.... someone fill me in.

Re:wait

[Elwood P Dowd]

No, their primary concern (the most discussed issue on the senate floor) was the effect this would have on local political coverage.

Right now, your local NBC affiliate can decide that they're not going to run some reality-TV show tonight, instead they're going to run local political debates. If NBC owned every local station, the local decision making would be removed, and you'd decrease the amount of airtime that each congressperson received for campaigning.

Congress has always been unnerved about the implications of this latest FCC change, but not for the same reasons you and I were. If the FCC comes back with a way for consolidation to occur while preserving the current type/amount of political coverage, I'm sure it would go through without any fight at all.

The public backlash just lets those two pricks try to look like heros.

Mixed feelings.

[Sheetrock]

On the one hand, I appreciate diversity in television, and would hate to see it disappear. So the idea that they're taking strides towards that is encouraging.

On the other hand, I believe such diversity will only be strengthened by allowing the people with the most resources free rein to develop channels/media as they see fit. You get duplication of effort now (CNN, FOX, MSNBC), where later we could perhaps have two or three media giants offering a broader spectrum (CNN Politics, CNN Music, CNN Sports).

So in a way I wonder if we should be upset about this.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[mystik]

The problem is --- if one organization owns all channels tv, radio or otherwise, they are tempted to weave their biases into every program they produce.

By requiring a duplication of effort, it assures the public that there will be differing viewpoints presented to them, so they can hopefully do their own thinking. It is true that it makes the market less efficent, but I believe that this is a neccesary sacrifice.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[Petronius]

> CNN Politics, CNN Music, CNN Sports

one URL for you: MSN.com

Re:Mixed feelings.

[LostCluster]

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.

Re:Mixed feelings.

[kfg]

You aren't old enough to remember when we had three big TV networks who controled everything, are you?

I live three blocks from the very first commercial TV studio in history ( WRGB, GE Broadcasting Company, now used as a science lab by the Schenectady County Community College ), my father worked for them in sales and managment. I got to see a bit of how things worked from the inside.

We do not want to return to that. Trust me on this one.

This afternoon I've been watching shows about Velociraptors in China, Easter Island, Anime, The Hauorani ( with nudity, as per National Geographic Magazine) and several different and distinct points of view on the same news story, from different nations.

In the old days I would have had my choice between three essentially identical "day time dramas" and three essentially identical American news shows broadcasting at noon and six only.

You can take that and shove it. I like my diversity and "duplication of effort," thank you very much.

KFG

Why does the FCC have so much power?

[Malor]

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.

Re:Why does the FCC have so much power?

[gmhowell]

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*.


Which is as it should be. The FCC is an agent of the President. It is the executive branch in this particular domain. The congress wants to override the executive branch. The president doesn't want this. Therefor, it takes a supermajority to override the president. Pretty much like every other situation where the congress wants to override the executive.

Pretty much since 1783, the executive and legislative branches have been co-equal. Huh, imagine that.

Re:Why does the FCC have so much power?

[Otter]

In essence, the FCC, part of the executive branch, is being given equal status to Congress.

That's the whole point of the separation of powers! That the FCC is directly answerable to the president, and can't be trivially overridden by Congress, just because Congress is "more important" than some federal regulatoru commission.

Re:Why does the FCC have so much power?

[pizzaman100]

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?

That's not entirely true. Courts frequently make their own laws as well. And just like the FCC, the judges are appointed, not elected. For a recent example you only have to look to yesterday's 9th circuit ruling on the California recall.

Re:Why does the FCC have so much power?

[mph]

Which is as it should be. The FCC is an agent of the President. It is the executive branch in this particular domain.

You miss the point. Despite being a part of the Executive Branch, the FCC is essentially serving a legislative function (deciding what the media companies may or may not do, rather than simply enforcing laws passed by Congress). Thus, you're weakening separation of powers, by transfering certain legislative authority to the executive.

Re:Why does the FCC have so much power?

[MisanthropicProggram]

Congress created the agencies to handle the nitty-gritty of writing regulations that they wouldn't have the time to do, nor the qualifications to do. The FCC rule-making would take up all of Congress' time alone. Also, I wouldn't want some clueless Congresscritter making rules about the airwaves, airspace, drugs, etc...

Re:Why does the FCC have so much power?

[Glassbear]

The FCC has lawmaking power because Congress gave it to them. Legislative delegations of rulemaking authority to federal administrative agencies happen all the time; it's the same reason why the FTC is empowered create a do-not-call list and require telemarketers to pay a fine if they don't abide by it. In each case, the agency is exercising authority delegated to it by the legislature. Nothing new there.

The more interesting issue, IMHO, is why it's so hard for Congress to overturn an agency rule with which it disagrees. It used to be that you didn't have to pass a law to overturn an agency regulation; you could just have one house of Congress issue a so-called "legislative veto." If that was still the law, then today's Senate vote would have been enough to overturn the FCC. However, the Supreme Court has said you can't have a one-house legislative veto. So if the FCC makes a rule with which Congress disagrees, Congress has to pass a new law overturning the rule. Cumbersome, but that's how the Court has said you have to do it.

Re:Why does the FCC have so much power?

[Knife_Edge]

Congress is allowed to make laws that create regulatory bodies that enforce other laws. Like the FBI, IRS, or the FCC, for instance. This is not an abuse of power, merely a delegation of their regulatory authority. However, there have been conflicts in the past concerning whether agencies of the Federal government were encroaching upon the rights of states to regulate things that happen exclusively within the borders of a single state. This conflict is not new, but I doubt it applies here as broadcasting often takes place across state lines, is operated by companies existing in several states, etc.

Trust me, the FCC is still quite subservient to Congress, which is why Congress held hearings questioning what they were doing, and the Senate, if not Congress as a whole, has decided to overrule them if possible. Congress can do other things that are more subtle to punish an agency like the FCC if they are so inclined, since Congress holds the purse strings for government spending. That the President has a veto is just part of the system of checks and balances.

One thing Congress cannot delegate is their law-making power. I wish I could remember the Supreme Court decision, but I only recall that this was decided during the 1930s after a conflict with one of FDR's agencies created to regulate industry (which was creating regulations in addition to enforcing them). Perhaps that was your point here. This may in fact be the source of the current concern the Senate has with the FCC. The FCC may be enforcing the laws in a way that the Senate feels is distorting their intentions, in which case Congress as a meta-regulatory body has to step in and correct the FCC, by changing laws. True enough, only Congress can make laws.

Re:Why does the FCC have so much power?

[mamba-mamba]

That's the whole point of the separation of powers! That the FCC is directly answerable to the president, and can't be trivially overridden by Congress, just because Congress is "more important" than some federal regulatoru commission.

No. The FCC is not part of the executive branch, it is part of the legislative branch and was created by the congress.

Check here if you don't believe me:
http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html

A choice quote:

Summary

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.

FCC rules have the full force of law because congress has delegated its power to the FCC. But the congress could disband the FCC tomorrow if they so chose.

MM
--

Re:Why does the FCC have so much power?

[sirbone]

Actually, this is contrary to seperation of powers. The executive's primary purpose, to which the president belongs, is to enforce law, not create law. The legislative's primary purpose, to which Congress belongs, is to create law. So when a body like the FCC creates new laws and it answers to the executive branch then you have moved law making from the law makers and given it to the law enforcers, thus decreasing power seperation by turning the law makers into "law vetoers". The chief executive can override Congress' veto with his own veto, thus saying "You are not allowed to stop me and my branch from CREATING a new law even though the Constitution says only the legislature should create law."

A more appropriate approach to preserving seperation of powers would be for the FCC to propose regulations, going through the nitty-gritty details of analysis and so forth like they do now, and then put it before Congress for approval. If Congress did its duty then it'd defer to the FCC except in the most aggregious abuses, recognizing the FCC's generally greater expertise on the complex matter. And if Congress didn't do its duty, it would at least stop unaccountable and unelected officials (the FCC) from usurping Constitutional powers. You can unelect bad members of Congress. You can not unelect the FCC members.

And just think...

[Anonymous Coward]

If all the people who signed that petition had voted in the first place, there wouldn't *be* anything to overturn today!

Remember folks: **AA = all kinds of American Apathy...

Re:And just think...

[realdpk]

You're right! I remember when those FCC rules were on the ballot a few years back and I was thinking to myself, "man, I really should pick yes or no here, but .. I don't know. I'll leave it blank." Damn!

Trent Lott (R-MS)!!!

[Grimlock88]

"Trent Lott (R-MS)." I dont know if this means that he is a member of Republicans for MicroSoft or if you mean that he is currently being posessed by Richard Stallman

So what power does this leave the FCC with?

[Osrin]

Doesn't this mean that they're effectively impotent from this point forward, or am I misreading it? I'm English... if parliament vetoed something like this it would spell the end of the agency.

Re:So what power does this leave the FCC with?

[Knife_Edge]

The FCC and many other Federal government regulatory agencies are created by laws passed by Congress. These agencies enforce other laws passed by Congress. Congress makes all the laws, and cannot delegate that authority. Congress also has the power to question the actions of agencies it creates, and they frequently do, by holding hearings.

If an agency is behaving in a way Congress does not like, it is probably because the laws they are allowed to enforce are permitting them to do so. But since Congress holds all the lawmaking power, they can rapidly bring a government agency into line by changing the laws that are allowing the behavior they want to stop.

Basically, the FCC is not finished, nothing nearly so drastic - for that to happen Congress would have to cut off their money, which is possible but very unlikely, as there is a need for some sort of agency to regulate the airwaves. But if the measure to reverse their decision passes both houses of Congress and is signed by the president, then it becomes law and the FCC is bound by it.

No, the American system is not quite like the British Parliamentary system, where the government is permitted to completely collapse at any moment. Foof!

The system works?

[SirSlud]

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.

Re:The system works?

[fred ugly]

sorry, how about if i format my posts...

>>Take THAT, clear channel!

From the article...

"Finally, the new rules tighten radio ownership rules, essentially capping national radio consolidation. This rule would be overturned by Dorgan's resolution as well, allowing radio conglomerates to grow bigger."

So Congress, having overturned the new rules, gave more strength to ClearChannel. Sorry...

Choice

[mopslik]

The new FCC rules were championed by FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell, who argued that consolidation was less a threat now than when the rules were enacted because consumers have many more choices for their news and entertainment.

Sure, there's ClearChannel-Affiliate-1, ClearChannel-Affiliate-2, ClearChannel-Affiliate-3... Really, is there that much more choice out there? Internet broadcasting, maybe, but the folks who run their own stations are still being harassed by the tax-hungry powers-that-be.

Woot!

[thentil]

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...)!

Re:Woot!

[untaken_name]

Score 1 for democracy (for the moment, at least...)!

Score one for oligarchy, you mean. A small minority is offended by what's on tv, and by the fact that a point of view they don't share dominates popular culture at the moment, and by the fact that people like pop music and don't really care (en masse) if radio stations play the same crap (because they're still tuning into it, and sponsors are still having success with ad campaigns). Since said small minority knows that they can't win without help, they call on their pocket pols to back them up, and since many pols on both sides of the imaginary fence have been taking a lot of flak in the media lately, they push this crap through. Government by the few has a different name than democracy.

Re:That photo... (OT)

[Otter]

I know this is entirely off-topic, but I've always thought it would be great if our elected representatives and leaders would lose the businessman-suit-and-tie combo and dress like the people they represent.

Having seen the people Trent Lott represents, I'd prefer he continue to dress the way he does.

Re:Good news

[ucsckevin]

So diversity of opinion is okay, just as long as it's to your liking? Liberalization of media regulations, IMHO, is what allows for things like talk radio, Fox News, donahue, etc.

Don't Worry (Be Happy)

[MBCook]

Well, I don't think Bush will veto it. If he has said he would veto this measure (I think I've heard that too, but anyways) I think it's more of a "I'll probably do it because of some little reason, but my mind isn't made up that's just how I'm leaning" kind of thing. Even if it's not, a presidential veto can be overturned. If enough people complained to get the house and senate to go and try to reverse it, they can get a veto over turned. That said, since so many people don't like this legislation, it wouldn't be smart to try to go against it (by vetoing) from a purely political standpoint, especially with an election comming up (although thankfully Bush doesn't just do whatever the polls say, he thinks for himself).

I don't really think we have alot to be worried about. This will get overturned and all semi-right with the world (in regards to FCC policy) will be returned.

PS: For the record, I support Bush. Full disclosure or whatever.

Re:Don't Worry (Be Happy)

[Lester67]

Full Disclosure: Me too.

However, Clear Channel CEO Lowry Mayes and Bush Senior are personal friends. (Which probably puts a lot of campaign money from Lowry heading towards Bush Jr.)

I really hope he doesn't veto. I'd abstain before I'd vote for Dean.

Re:Don't Worry (Be Happy)

[gangien]

Someone says:

PS: For the record, I support Bush. Full disclosure or whatever.

and it gets modded to +5 insightful!!! My god /. you ahve restored my faith in you that you are fairly unbiased and intelligent! Thank you! I'm on the verge of tears.

Re:That photo... (OT)

[nearl]

I think you missed the point. They do dress like the people the represent. They just don't represent the people you think.

Yes, he is.

[burgburgburg]

Now step away from the computer and stand over there in the corner. The Patriot Act relocation experts will be by any minute now to take you to Guantanamo Bay, you enemy combatant you.

Remember kids: If you voice or even think an opinion contrary to your selected President, then the terrorists win.

Re:Yes, he is.

[micromoog]

Remember kids: If you voice or even think an opinion contrary to your selected President, then the terrorists win.

The really sad part is, that's almost a direct quote from Rummy.

Re:Yes, he is.

[lexbaby]

Wait. We SELECTED him?

This is bad folks.

[Last Warrior]

and you wonder why there is no good new music coming out these days. because executives in board rooms decide what you will like. and it will be based on what they own and promote.

so now everything you watch on tv, listen to on the radio, see in a movie theatre, or hear on the street will be based on what one set of executives decides you need to know.

all it takes now is for someone to buy favor with these executives and we have something we are already starting to see. its called media manipulation.

news brought to you by the highest bidder.
LW-

Re:This is bad folks.

[kfg]

Oh, don't worry, it's not like one powerful media mogul could manipulate the populace and government into a war or anything.

I'm sure those nasty Cubans really blew up our battleship. I read it in the paper.

KFG

This decision does promote diversity...

[M-2]

...the original decision would have allowed the equivalent of a Clear Channel situation nationwide for television and newspapers, as well as outright crosspollination between the two. Which could mean you'd get the Fox News Washington Post and the CNNew York Times, and lead to an even greater polarization in news reporting between the moderates and the right. (There's no real 'liberal press' anymore.)

There's no real impetus to create that broad spectrum of events - the general intent seems to be to create a single nationally-acceptable product and show it everywhere, in order to sell more ad time and make money.

The only place we're really getting any 'diversity' is in the pay channels, which aren't dependent on commercials and therefore can take chances. So if they want to make something different like 'Queer as Folk', or 'The Sopranos', or 'Dead Like Me', they can, and if people watch it, it was a good experiment.

The more diversity in channels, the better it is. If you have three news channels like CNN, Fox and MSNBC, you have three different points of view, and therefore possibly a better chance of getting an idea about what's REALLY going on.

ob simpsons

[justforaday]

why does this remind me of that episode where kent brockman is reading the news for CNNBCBS (a division of ABC)?

The major Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

One problem is, if the media is owned by very few, then the political perspective becomes very limited, and if the media giants are slanted towards a particular bias, or just go through the good old "if you don't mention it, it doesn't exist" routine at the behest of the corporations/government, what you get is a very uninformed populace. Case in point: 70% of Americans believe Saddam Hussein or Iraq was responsible for 9/11. There is absolutely NO evidence for this, yet 70% believe it. I'm not getting into that. Luckily, we still have the internet.

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

An unexpected shock

[RareHeintz]

Egads... I agree with Trent Lott on something.

I have to go shower now.

Online Petitions vs. Reality

[RobertB-DC]

The Internet has really made petitions more accessable. Look at that picture!

Like everything else in politics, the picture is not all it seems.

Those boxes of printout are a prop. They're no more meaningful than the football-sized American flag flying over the local car dealership, or George W. landing on an aircraft carrier to announce the "end of major hostilities".

From everything I've heard, faxes are effective, as are phone calls. Both are most effective when they 1) happen to match the results of the latest polls and 2) are sent by large campaign donors. Online petitions are pretty much worth no more than the paper they're not printed on.

Don't forget -- the honorable representatives of the people are ready, willing and able to ignore those boxes of "340,000 Signatures (And Growing)" if the opinion they represent will not get them re-elected.

For the good of all that is holy....

[flinxmeister]

...let's hope this passes and the president doesn't veto it!

We are at a critical juncture. If it doesn't pass, Radio will lose all diversity, Newspapers will only print boring wire stories, and television news will only be about ratings!

Universally Opposed

[JayBlalock]

Don't forget, when the FCC opened this up for comment, they got thousands of e-mails against and less than a dozen for. And this is the issue that got the ACLU and the NRA to link arms in saying "this is a bad idea." The feelings of the public AND all the interest groups, regardless of overall political affiliation, is that this would be a spectacularly bone-headed move. I mean, this wasn't just politics making for strange bedfellows, this was an all-out bipartisan orgy. NO ONE besides the media owners is in favor of it.

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?

Re:Good news

[untaken_name]

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.

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 ...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.
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.

Senate Voting Record

[tashanna]

Here's the Senate Voting Record so you can appropriately attack your local representatives if you disagree with their actions.

But this is /.. We don't talk to our reps, we just bitch about them.

What does that even mean?

[flimflam]

What are you even talking about? What the hell does "equal" mean in this context? And how exactly does media consolidation lead to "diversity"? And Trent Lott is a liberal?

I'd be happy to see a coherent argument against this, but what you said doesn't even make any sense!

Or, if you happen to European,

[niom]

they will glue an "Anti-American" label to your forehead.

Re:Clear channel

[Edmund Blackadder]

Good troll. Clear channel subsidizing smooth jazz ... nice.

I was going to write an angry post accusing you for being a clearchannel PR person, but lets face it pr ppl cant be that funny.

Lack of science on cable TV . Just infomercials

[zymano]

Has anyone noticed that basic cable tv is just infomercials and reality/fake and dating shows. Where is the diversity ? Where is the intelligence ? I crave a show that could actually help me like a consumer buying guide to help me save money or magazine science type show to that shows cutting edge science in all fields.

You'll never see it unless you have internet access or buy a magazine.

TV has ZERO diversity. Sad. It's unwatchable.

Re:Clear channel

[August_zero]

Your missing the entire point of this.

Consolidated media is a step towards tyranny. Imagine the picture of the world you would have if FOX news owned every single other news network. How much could you trust the content of Slashdot if Microsoft owned it? The media is out to make money like everybody else, and when there are no longer enough of them to keep tabs on each other you are left with a single view point. If SONY music owns every radio station, what hope does an artist that isn't signed with Sony have?

Monopolies are not capitalistic; they are an unfortunate side effect of the times and letting the media fall into such a small number of hands is a terrible possibility.

Ahhhh... the irony!

[bs_02_06_02]

One of the sponsors of this bill is Sen. Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota. Have you ever been to North Dakota? They have NO choice in TV, radio, or newspaper. How would they notice any difference? This guy is a puppet, and someone who hates Clearchannel is behind it.

I don't much care for ClearChannel, but whoever's got Dorgan's ear probably isn't any better.

I don't like too much regulation. How many of you think that we elect the WISEST and most INTELLIGENT people to office in this country?
I'd like to point out Sen Tom Daschle, who allows big business out of billions in cleanup costs for mining in S. Dakota, but then complains about the Bush's clean air record.
I'll also point out Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Houston), with her recent effort to rename Freedom Fries back to French Fries, and her recent push to have more black names for hurricanes.

Re:Ahhhh... the irony!

[AmigaAvenger]

north dakota has very little to choose from because of lack of population, and when clear channel moved in, it became completely useles. In my listening area, there are two top 40/pop stations, one local, one 75 miles away. Both are clear channel now, and identical as far as playlists. At least when they were independent there was some variety.

Re:Ahhhh... the irony!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Have you ever been to North Dakota?"

Why yes, yes I have. Lovely place. As a matter of fact, I live there.

"They have NO choice in TV, radio, or newspaper. How would they notice any difference?"

I could tell when all the stations on my tractor radio were playing the same thing.

"This guy is a puppet, and someone who hates Clearchannel is behind it."

I hate Clearchannel... and of course, *I* made him do it. Dance Byron! Dance! ... No more gangsta rap in my John Deere.

Re:Ahhhh... the irony!

[frostgiant]

Borgan has the right to be anti-Clear Channel.

There was a tornado in a town. Seven of the radio stations were run by CC. There were 0 live people on staff. Think the warning got out?
CC says it won't happen again... Hmm...

Dammit

[mchappee]

You post a factual story with absolutley no indication of what I'm supposed to think. Is it good? Is it bad? Do you know how frustrating this is? Now I have to read the linkage and attempt to form my own opinion. I don't have time for this! What am I paying you guys for?

Thank God that I read the story late enough that 30+ people have posted within my threshold. Whew.

MC

It Ain't Over

[Percy_Blakeney]

Even if this bill gets though the House, the Senate, and even the President, it won't matter. Read that again, folks, because it is true: this bill doesn't matter.

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.

FCC and Washington Politics

[Detritus]

Before everybody goes nuts bashing the FCC, oops, too late, you should recognize that they have been put in a difficult position by Congress (Democrats and Republicans) and the courts.

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.

It Isn't All Good

[Percy_Blakeney]

Part of the FCC's new rules banned the creation of new joint-sales agreements. For those not in the know, this is a tactic used by some very large media companies (read: ClearChannel) to get around the radio market caps.

Unfortunately, the Senate has thrown the baby out with the bathwater and struck down the JSA ban along with everything else. At least the House had the sense to just strike down the higher market caps and leave the rest in place...

Re:Republicans have just as much to lose

[Abcd1234]

Riiight... that explains why Clinton was ripped apart for a freakin' blowjob while Bush was the media darling even though he still hasn't presented convincing evidence for his decision to move in on Iraq; a decision which has resulted in the deaths of thousands of Iraqis, the complete destabilization of an entire nation, and all to the tune of hundreds billions of American taxpayer's dollars. And all this while the economy was crumbling and Bush was racking up the largest federal budgetary deficit in US history...

Oh yeah... the media sure favours the Democrats...

Re:A real loss for freedom of speech

[saddino]

What the "fairness doctrine" actually means is that if anyone disagrees with anything said on the radio, they can call in and demand to be put on the air to refute what they disagree with. The station manager will have to put them on and give them time to speak their mind.

This is an exagerration. What the "fairness doctrine" actually means is that opposing points of view (in response to an editorial comment broadcast on air) shall receive an "equal opportunity" to rebuttal, i.e. an equal amount of time to refute the editorial.

Just imagine if someone said on the air, "SCO owns UNIX" and everyone on slashdot called up and demanded to be put on the air to refute the point. It would take days.

No, the callers could be aired for as much time as it takes to say "SCO owns UNIX."

The "fairness doctrine" may or may not be "fair" but let's not pretend it will kill controversial speech. Imagine if Rush Limbaugh had to open the phones (or invite guest) to rebut him -- wouldn't that make it much more interesting than (as you put it) "vanilla talk"?

Flag

[go3]

The flag image is wrong. The US flag has thirteen horizontal stripes, beginning and ending with red.

We agree on something

[sjbe]

PS: For the record, I support Bush.

Me too! Oh... wait, you mean the president don't you? Never mind...

Here's how they voted

[bezuwork's friend]

roll call for S. J. Res. 17.

So does it do more bad than good to write and express displeasure at how they voted after the fact?

BLAME LAWYERS.... yep.

[Rahga]

I was surprised to see this up on FCC's website so quickly..... It's really nice to see Congress trying to prevent a train wreck that had more to do with the courts than anything started in the legistlative or executive branches.... And we all know which political party has few friends in and around the benches.

Re:Man, I knew Microsoft was buying Politicians .

[Tailhook]

"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.

Wha wha wha!

[Eric Savage]

You mean these "senators", who I hear are sometimes "elected" by the "people", did something in the "interest" of these "people"? What about the sacred rulings of the FCC? I mean come on, the guy who runs that is the son of a general! Plus he had the support of at least two other members of this agency, and all for naught.

This is the last straw, I'm moving to Canada.

Your correct

[Rational Nerd]

Not only does Gerrymandering happen continually but in the Texas case it has been one sided for twenty years.

The Democrats have controlled the Texas legislature for that long and every few years they have continued to skew the district lines to firm up their control. The Republican actions of late are simply skewing in a different direction.

(Soapbox) Gerrymandering is one of the sleaziest activities done by both parties. Nothing says, "I don't care what you think." more than redistricting so that certain groups are underreprensated. Again this done by both sides through out the country and is one of the main reasons I dislike politicans. (/Soapbox)

NOT TRUE

[RAEJlN_HARDONNE]

It happens every 10 years, specifically when there is new census data (the only time it really makes sense to redistrict). It is always contentious and usually resolved by the courts. This redistricting is not normal, is contrary to convention, and is simply a power grab by Tom DeLay.

Read this salon article for more information.

Re:What's up with moveon.org?

[InfoVore]

Ok, I'll take a swing....

1) What's with all the paper in that petition picture?

It was for populist 'spin'. In this case, the spin is 'we represent the people's interests, not some unaccountable corporate-loving bureaucrats' [the irony of this coming from Trent Lott (R-Disney) should be lost on no one at /.]. I have seen pictures like this one several times come out of Washington from Congress, the White House, AND federal agencies numerous times in the last 30 years. Think of it as standard component of U.S. political "vocabulary".

Besides, its not THAT much paper. Heck I've worked in offices where 5 people would generate that much or more documents in a day (hint: phased-array radar & telemetry data dumps).

2)...I actually see mention about the "every 10 years Texas redistricting", but no mention about how it actually hurts democracy more when it favors Democrats more than Republicans this time around...

Redistricting every 10 years doesn't hurt democracy. In fact, fair representation depends on fair districting. One of the reasons the U.S. Constitution mandates a national census every 10 years is to provide accurate data for use in congressional districting. Unfortunately, political parties have used gerrymandering to gain a vote advantage over their opponent parties since the beginning of the U.S. (and probably before).

I don't know what you read on moveon.org, but the current issue of Democratic state legislators from Texas fleeing to other states to prevent redistricting is an interesting political situation. The Texas legislature did its constitutional duty and redistricted the state in its 2001 session. However Republican leaders at the national level, particularly House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) wanted to again redistrict the state in order to apportion more U.S. House of Representatives seats to the Republicans. This would provide a clearer Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives and provide a buffer against anticipated 2004 electoral 'backlash' against the Republicans. It would also provide a clearer Republican legislative majority in the House(hard to push your agenda when you have to rely on 'enemy' swing votes).

At Delay's and Gov. Rick Perry's prompting, the Republican leadership in the Texas State Legislature in its 2003 session changed the administrative rules governing redistricting. This allowed them attempt to vote to redistrict the state again, but this time according to Republican majority guidelines and oversight. It was thwarted when several Democratic legislators bolted across the border to Ardmore, Oklahoma to prevent a legislative quorum and "run out the clock" on the legislative session. Gov. Perry sent several Texas State Troopers across the border (illegally) to retrieve the legislators. They failed and the legislative session ended. This effectively blocked the redistricting attempt.

Undaunted, the Republicans tried again. Gov. Rick Perry called a special legislative session specifically for redistricting. A different group of Democratic legislators took off, this time to Albuquerque, New Mexico. It worked until one of the Democrats got tired of the mess and came back to Texas. The remaining Democratic legislators have since returned to Texas, and are currently going through a court case concerning their failure to report for legislative duty.

They did block the second redistricting attempt this time, but Gov. Perry has vowed he will keep calling Special Sessions until they successfully get to redistrict the state, no matter the cost.

I'm an Independant because I don't like anyone's party politics, particularly the Democrats and Republicans. However after the 2000 Presidential fiasco and the obvious autocratic stunts like the recent Texas redistricting attempts, I REALLY dislike the Republicans.

This "keep counting the votes/changing the rules until we get the result we wa

Has there been ANYTHING done by Bush

[mikeg22]

whose intent was not to screw the little guy in favor of corporate interests?

W has got to be the worst president in the history of our nation. I'm not kidding.

Re:turning away from fascism

[the_mad_poster]

I smell burning Karma...

Shut up troll. If you actually have something to add that has any value what-so-ever show your face and back up your statements. Since none of your "points" have any basis in reality what-so-ever, I can only conclude that you're either just wasting my time or you're a complete idiot. Not to be a pot calling the kettle black, I'll respond once and only once to these idiotic statements:

• Look up facsim, moron.
• Noone but you mentioned caring about anti-war protestor, moron.
• Iraq never attacked US, moron.
• Discredited reports are not truth, moron.
• PATRIOT, moron.
• I don't know, it's 10 o' clock at night, moron.

Get a fucking life. There's a difference between taking sides on political issues on party lines (like stupid people like you do) and actually thinking about issues and deciding on them independant of party lines (like I do).

And, for the record, I think overall Clinton was at best mediocre. He was a two-faced lying fuck and he should've been removed for lying straight-faced to the American public - just like what should happen to Bush for the same reason.

Idiot.