FCC Orders Anti-Monopoly Report Destroyed

jagger writes "According to an article on MSNBC a report, written by two economists in the FCC's Media Bureau, showed local ownership of television stations adds almost five and one-half minutes of total news to broadcasts and more than three minutes of 'on-location' news. The conclusion is at odds with FCC arguments made when it voted in 2003 to increase the number of television stations a company could own in a single market. Senior managers at the agency ordered that 'every last piece' of the report be destroyed."

Comments

Re:Memory hole

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a slip. Eric Blair used "George Orwell" as his pen name, and "1984" was written in 1948.

Report and response are online

[lostboy2]

Fascinating.

The draft report and FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's response to Senator Boxer are linked on the
FCC's website.

Re:Report and response are online

[rabel]

Couldn't they print the document directly to .PDF? If not, could they at least clean their scanner and toner drum and maybe even align the pages on the scanner so they come out somewhat straight?

Is it government policy to author a document using a computer, print it out, then scan it, then convert the scanned image to PDF? I can marginally justify something obstuse like this if we need to capture the signature, but these documents are not signed. Hey, I think I'm the first person to point out a wasteful government policy! Go me!

Re:What a surprise

[maynard]

That's a misrepresentation. First of all, Michael Powell is a Republican. He may have been appointed to a position in the FCC by Clinton in '97, however president Bush appointed him chairman of the FCC immediately after his first inauguration in 2001. As a member of the FCC board during the Clinton administration, Powell would not have had the power to set FCC policy. However, as the Chair under Bush - he certainly did. What we're seeing here is most definitely not Clinton FCC policy.

Re:What a surprise

[BrynM]

Perhaps you didn't realize that the FCC Chairman at that time (Michael Powell) was appointed by President Bill Clinton. Somebody rate the parent comment as flamebait.

Damn there's a lot of "facts" being thrown around in this thread. From the Wikipedia article on Michael Powell:

President George W. Bush designated him chairman of the commission on 22 January 2001. (then at the end of the article) Powell resigned as Chairman of the FCC on January 21, 2005.

He was followed by Kevin Martin. According to his WP entry:

Martin worked several years for Wiley, Rein & Fielding, "Rated Top Telecommunications Lobbyists" according to an article on their website. The firm represents the Bells as well as Viacom/CBS, Gannett, Belo, Emmis, Gray Television, and Motorola.

. Thus, the current and most recent former Chairmen of the FCC have been both Bush appointees, Republicans and the current one is a former media company lobbyist.

Re:What a surprise

[maynard]

The problem I see is everybody tries to pin *everything* on Bush, you trip on a crack and it's his fault, etc.

Two points:

1) Fritz Hollings (D-South Carolina): Proposed the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act, an onerous and horrific bill had it been passed. IOW: There are many Democrats on the side of media monopolies too.

2) President Bush is responsible for setting policy, and that includes FCC policy. However, that does not mean that President Bush had anything to do with the decision to destroy this document. In all likelihood, he didn't even know it existed. However, the President is still responsible for what happens under his watch as the policymaker. Boards of directors still hold CEOs accountable for serious mismanagement or criminal conduct by their staff, even if the CEO may not have been directly involved.

Re:they're so cute when they get worked up

[Bassman59]

Listen, hon, the horse left that barn behind a long time ago. Congress has made itself pretty much irrelevant.

Recall that the Republican-controlled Senate and House made itself irrelevant under a Republican president--so blame the Republicans. Contrast that to how the Republican Senate and House acted during the Clinton adminstration.

Here's the report

[metallel]

http://www.hearusnow.org/fileadmin/sitecontent/mis sing_localism_report.pdf

Spread it around :-)

Re:So?

[NoMaster]

Your .sig says "I want a Social Security safety net. You are free to become a stain on life's floor if you don't.". Social Security was created by President Roosevelt, a Democrat, after his Republican predecessors presided over the creation and beginning of the Great Depression that made its necessity obvious.

You missed the bit where the poster said he wasn't an American. SS is not an American invention.

Government-sponsored disability / unemployment schemes predate Roosevelt by ... well, lots! In the UK, social security arguably dates back to the reform of the Poor Laws in 1834. The first state-sponsored scheme dates back to Germany in 1883, under Otto von Bismark. France introduced one in 1906. The Brits introduced a national contributatory scheme in 1911.

As you say, Roosevelt introduced SS to the USA in the 1930s as part of his "new Deal" programs - which, initially, only protected unionised industrial workers. When social security really took off was after WWII - mostly as a sop to placate unemployed returned servicemen; you don't really want a few million trained, experienced, and armed militia getting upset with you...