Slashdot Mirror
FCC Commissioner Stumps For Media Diversity
maynard writes, "Speaking at a New York City town hall meeting on corporate media consolidation and its deleterious impact on the expression of minority viewpoints, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps stumped against greater media concentration and instead argued for greater diversity of media outlets and voices. In 2003 the FCC, under Chairman Michael Powell, changed media ownership rules to favor greater corporate media consolidation at the expense of local owners. In an attempt to reverse totally the prior FCC policy, Mr. Copps argued strongly in favor of independent media owners. Read on for what he had to say.
Michael Copps: "The FCC is in the midst of a hugely important proceeding right now to decide what the future of our media, our TV, our radio, our newspapers, our cable, even our internet, are going to look like for a long, long time to come.
A little history, just to set the stage for our discussion. Three years ago, under then FCC Chairman Michael Powell and over the objections of my good friend Commissioner Adelstein and myself, the FCC severely cut back — really "eviscerated" is a better word — the rules that were meant to check big media's seemingly endless appetite for more consolidation. It passed new rules, which have allowed a single media giant to own in a single market up to three television stations, eight radio stations, the cable system, the cable channels, even the internet portal, and the local newspaper, which in most cities in the United States of America is already a monopoly. And the agency did all of that behind closed doors and without seeking meaningful input from the American people. Can you imagine that? Authorizing a sea change in how news and entertainment are produced and presented over the people's airwaves, without even involving the people who own those airwaves and who depend so heavily upon them. It was a near disaster for America.
Thankfully, citizens rose up across the land. They sent nearly 3 million protests to the Federal Communications Commission. Congress rose up, too, and then a federal court sent those rules back to the FCC saying they were badly flawed and they needed to be reworked. That was good, and anybody that doesn't believe that citizen action can have an effect should just revisit what happened there. We checked those rules. You checked those rules from going into effect. It was concerned citizens at work, and it was a citizen consumer victory.
But, here's a reality check now. We're right back at square one, and it's all up for grabs again. And if we're going to have a better result this time around, doing something positive for media democracy, it's going to be because of more citizen action and more input from folks like you. So, this time we need to make it an open public process, instead of hiding in our office in Washington like the majority did in 2003. This time, let all the commissioners come to New York City — I wish they were all here tonight — and let all the commissioners get out across America and find out what's happening in the real world, beyond that Beltway that they bemoan so much but seem to love staying behind so much.
So, as we begin our discussion, then begin with that simple reminder: it's all of us who own the airwaves. There is not a broadcaster, a business, a special interest, and any industry that owns one airwave in the United States of America. They belong to you, and they belong to me. And, my friends, now is the time to assert our ownership rights."
A little history, just to set the stage for our discussion. Three years ago, under then FCC Chairman Michael Powell and over the objections of my good friend Commissioner Adelstein and myself, the FCC severely cut back — really "eviscerated" is a better word — the rules that were meant to check big media's seemingly endless appetite for more consolidation. It passed new rules, which have allowed a single media giant to own in a single market up to three television stations, eight radio stations, the cable system, the cable channels, even the internet portal, and the local newspaper, which in most cities in the United States of America is already a monopoly. And the agency did all of that behind closed doors and without seeking meaningful input from the American people. Can you imagine that? Authorizing a sea change in how news and entertainment are produced and presented over the people's airwaves, without even involving the people who own those airwaves and who depend so heavily upon them. It was a near disaster for America.
Thankfully, citizens rose up across the land. They sent nearly 3 million protests to the Federal Communications Commission. Congress rose up, too, and then a federal court sent those rules back to the FCC saying they were badly flawed and they needed to be reworked. That was good, and anybody that doesn't believe that citizen action can have an effect should just revisit what happened there. We checked those rules. You checked those rules from going into effect. It was concerned citizens at work, and it was a citizen consumer victory.
But, here's a reality check now. We're right back at square one, and it's all up for grabs again. And if we're going to have a better result this time around, doing something positive for media democracy, it's going to be because of more citizen action and more input from folks like you. So, this time we need to make it an open public process, instead of hiding in our office in Washington like the majority did in 2003. This time, let all the commissioners come to New York City — I wish they were all here tonight — and let all the commissioners get out across America and find out what's happening in the real world, beyond that Beltway that they bemoan so much but seem to love staying behind so much.
So, as we begin our discussion, then begin with that simple reminder: it's all of us who own the airwaves. There is not a broadcaster, a business, a special interest, and any industry that owns one airwave in the United States of America. They belong to you, and they belong to me. And, my friends, now is the time to assert our ownership rights."
From TFS:
A quaint sentiment, indeed, that the private citizen is still sovereign; I'm afraid, however, that the Bolshevization of North America is well underway, and that more violent notions will be required to reverse it.
The Bolshevization of North America consists above all in:
Eminent domain, if anything, should prove how highly our gubernatores esteem “ownership.*”
_____________
* Quod autem vide: DRM and fair use.
If they'd rise up more often, they could call it exercise.
Well, if they belong to me, I'd like my airwave now. I'll use it to broadcast Janet Jackson's nipple 24/7. Just as we've been desensitized to violence through the massive amounts of it on TV, it is my dream that, via continuous exposure to Janet Jackson's nipple, we'll soon become desensitized to breasts and let them bounce freely across our screens all day long (not just late at night on Cinemax).
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
I'm opposed to laws limiting ownership (I don't want anyone silenced, even if they are portrayed as having "bad" views that deserve censorship, such as the Sinclair Group).
However, I definitely want more of a diversity of voices. Low power FM radio station licenses should be made much easier to get for community radio.
Where were you when the voynix came?
That was...*sniff*...so beautiful. Preach on, brother, preach on!
That's great, the very next FCC chairman acts to reverse the very thing that Powell fought so hard for... I only hope that it's in time to boot Clear Channel out of a couple of markets. It's insane, where I live you hear the same 12 songs on every channel all day. Of course, I suppose maybe Powell knew that and held stock in Sirius satellite radio! I'm gone there forever, but maybe for my future kids it's not too late.
stuff |
Michael Copps is not the Chairman of the FCC. He is "minority" Democrat member.
BTW, I honestly don't see the democrats as being much better on the same subject.
I'm not sure where the description of Michael Copps as the Federal Communications Commission Chair came from, but it's, well, inaccurate.
Kevin Martin is the chairman at the FCC.
The remainder of the commission consists of:
Michael J. Copps
Commissioner
Jonathan S. Adelstein
Commissioner
Deborah Taylor Tate
Commissioner
Robert M. McDowell
Commissioner
I submitted this article. I made a mistake and confused Michael Copps, FCC commissioner, for the Chairman Kevin Martin. Thus, the entire premise of the submission that the FCC is shifting policy away from what had been set in place by former Chairman Michael Powell is WRONG.
I should have fact checked it better before submission, and for that I apologize.
If the members of the FCC board cared about diversity they would quit allowing mergers!
It really is that simple.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Read the transcript. Read it. Gonzalez himself is the biggest offender. He literally blames whitey for the phenomenon of media consolidation, undoubtedly finding a use for his own Latino ancestry as a carte blanche license through which he may criticize The Man for all of The Man's failings. If you're easily frightened by the cliched Orwellian future that people like Gonzalez try to paint, then here's some fearmongering for you right now:
"That's right! Our world is run by rich white men!!" It's an understanding of the problem that goes no deeper than what you'd find at a freshmen political science class.
The entire interview is a clumsy mashup of two unrelated ideas: White ownership (framed as the confusingly converse concept of "minority representation") and corporate consolidation. The former is a symptom of the way in which America was settled, and has no place in a rational discussion about the latter (which Gonzalez gladly forgoes in favor of white-baiting).
Corporate consolidation of media outlets, on the other hand, is also a tragedy. But what it means is that the media industry is no different from any other. You can wax philosophical about how the airwaves are free, man--they belong to you and me, man, but in the end there is still a situation where companies who have money buy out those who have less. Don't blame whitey, blame capitalism. To complain bitterly about how the people doing the buying out are white misses the point. It badly and embarrassingly misses the point.
I know this is Slashdot, so by all means, please feel free to copy and paste select portions of what I've written and take them out of context, because I'm sure that works better than actually discussing the issues.
"Wow! You mean instead of three interchangeable TV news sources, we now have six? Why, their opinions must collectively be twice as diverse!"
The three are not interchangable.
"Only, not, because they're all owned by titanic media conglomerates run by incredibly wealthy folks who, quite understandably, tend toward a conservative bent. (Fox is merely the most obvious about it.)"
Actually, some are owned by titanic media conglomerates with wealthy folks who have a liberal bent. Quite understandably.
"No, because there's a couple more sources for TV news, there's no consolidation to worry about!"
Exactly. Because there were just a couple in the beginning.
"Nevermind that there's lots of other kinds of news media -- radio stations and newspapers, for example -- which have undergone drastic consolidation in the past few decades"
It's more like deconsolidation. But 'nevermind', as you do not know much about this one either.
Where were you when the voynix came?