FCC Plan Will Result in Freedom Of or From the Press?

macduffman writes "Kevin Martin, Chairman of the FCC, has fired a volley in the war against media moguls ... or is it in the war against freedom of the press? An article in the Editor and Publisher describes the plan to ban cross-ownership in the same market (i.e., owning a newspaper and a broadcast station in the same city). Several waivers exist for some current ownerships, but would not be passed on to new owners. The plan calls for public comment beginning in mid-November, and the FCC would vote on it a month later." This follows an unpopular 2003 decision by the FCC that was eventually invalidated by the courts. At issue is the speed at which this complex decision is being carried out: "Media consolidation opponents said Wednesday that the chairman may be moving too fast. Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., said that one month for the public to consider the rule is not enough time. 'If that's his intention, it's going to subvert the public interest,' he said. 'The FCC needs to learn a lesson here from what happened previously.'" Update: 10/19 17:58 GMT by Z :Rewritten for clarity.

Comments

Re:how?

[R2.0]

Allow me to answer your questions from the standpoint of the far left"

"How does one address the lack of ownership by minorities and women?"
Decree it.

"It seems to me that it would not be possible to "force" minorities and women to buy media outlets, nor would it be possible to force people to sell to them..."
Why not? Just pass a law requiring the sale and transfer of new or existing licenses to women and minorities. Done."

"well, ok, maybe you could force people to sell to them, but how are you going to compensate them for the price difference that they would have gotten from someone else?"
Compensate? Fair Value? those terms only have meaning in a capitalist exploitative framework. This is about social justice - the current owners, being white males, are owed nothing. Indeed, they owe everyone else for past actions of their ancestors. As a matter of fact, all white males should not only be compelled under the law to forfeit their properties without compensation, they should also pay reparations to the new owners for depriving them of the potential profits for the past years. Great idea - Thanks!

"And wouldn't a forced sale implicate the takings clause?"
That's not the correct interpretation of that clause - protection from "takings" is a group right, for the benefit of society. There really is no right to keep your property on an individual basis, regardless of the language in the constitution.

Please reverse for opinions from the far right.