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."
damn
Wait I thought the government was bad? Especially the republicans, Lott, that is.... someone fill me in.
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.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
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.
"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
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.
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.
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...)!
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.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
I think you missed the point. They do dress like the people the represent. They just don't represent the people you think.
Remember kids: If you voice or even think an opinion contrary to your selected President, then the terrorists win.
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!
...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.
Brazil has decided you're cute.
why does this remind me of that episode where kent brockman is reading the news for CNNBCBS (a division of ABC)?
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
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
I have to go shower now.
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
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.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
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/
Here's the Senate Voting Record so you can appropriately attack your local representatives if you disagree with their actions.
/.. We don't talk to our reps, we just bitch about them.
But this is
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
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.