FCC Ignores Public, Relaxes Media Ownership

anthrax writes "Ignoring Congressional and public comments, the FCC voted to relax ownership rules that have prevented broadcasters from owning newspapers in the nation's 20 largest media markets. After holding several public hearings that overwhelmingly opposed the relaxation of the rules, and Congressional hearing where Democrats and Republicans (even Ted 'Tubes' Stevens) voiced opposition to the move, the FCC voted 3 to 2 to relax ownership. On the same day the FCC voted 3 to 2 (by a different split) to cap the size of any cable company at 30% of the nationwide market, a limit Comcast is up against."

Comments

isn't democracy great?

[j0nb0y]

Unelected FCC commissioners making decisions that will have a huge impact on the future of communications in this country... I'm sure this is exactly what the founding fathers had in mind when they drafted the Constitution.

Re:isn't democracy great?

[boguslinks]

Unelected FCC commissioners making decisions that will have a huge impact on the future of communications in this country... I'm sure this is exactly what the founding fathers had in mind when they drafted the Constitution.

Considering that the newspaper as we know it is circling the drain, I don't think that any government decision related to newspapers will have "a huge impact on the future of communications in this country."

Re:isn't democracy great?

[aeschenkarnos]

You say "unelected" as if "elected" were a good thing. I for one prefer my civil servants unelected, constrained by law and custom from privately benefiting in any way from their position, and well paid but not highly so. (Frankly, the people who want to run governments as if they were businesses really should fuck off to run businesses instead.) "Elected" to me means, "loudest-hooting monkey in the crowd of hooting monkeys". He who tells the most lies, promises the most outrageously stupid things, and greases the most palms gets elected. To be in a position of power and *unelected*, one must show at least some competence for some length of time. Unless of course appointed by an elected person, in which case, the same problems as with election apply.

The last four decades have shown up the 'bug' in democracy, and it is this: there is nothing constraining a politician to tell the truth, the whole truth, while in office or campaigning for office. Given that bug, the whole system is compromised.

Re:isn't democracy great?

[Anonymous Coward]

Older folks still read newspapers and vote in greater numbers than younger folks.

Re:isn't democracy great?

[garett_spencley]

So ... if you write up a resume, throw it around to various companies; phone them to follow up and make sure they got it; have some former co-workers or bosses ready to tell someone a bunch of good things about you and then go to an interview to brag about your skills and end up finally getting the job because a group of individuals sat down and decided that your campaign for the position was the most impressive (or at least the most convincing and impressive series of exaggerations, false promises and downright lies) how is exactly is that different then campaigning to get elected for a government position ?

The way I see it campaigning for any "regular" job and campaigning for an "elected" government position is pretty much the same thing. The only difference is the number of people voting for you and the number of people you will be working for if you get the position.

Re:isn't democracy great?

[Original Replica]

Considering that the newspaper as we know it is circling the drain

But the companies will still have undue influence of the press. Having a free press isn't just about not having government interference, but also about having a diverse enough job market for journalists that they are not simply serfs in a corporate fiefdom. At least with the 30% ownership law, we will still have three media outlets left in ten years. Of course there is nothing preventing them from having many of the same people on all three Board of Directors.http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/corporate_community.html Face it, whoever controls the "tone" of the media can pick the winner of major elections. That's what all these giant elections funds are about, advertising. Now if big media become even more highly concentrated, then big election funds become secondary to being blessed by those who tell mainstream America what to think.

Re:isn't democracy great?

[homey of my owney]

So tell me... Exactly what DID the framers of the constitution have in mind with regard to 20th century media?

Censorship? Sure! Regulate Ownership? Fuck NO!

[corsec67]

Why does the FCC not do what it is supposed to do, regulating who can use what bands of airwaves, but is quite happy to throw a bunch of unconstitutional fines around for exposing a "forbidden" section of epidermis or saying a "forbidden" word if they don't like the show?

Re:People needed

[kcornia]

I have karma to burn so feel free to send this to offtopic land, but can we just get a sitewide ban on these lame spam links please? 3 or 4 in this thread alone!

Re:You know the mind of the founders?

[Original Replica]

Why would the founders be appalled by the office of FCC commissioner?

Because the founders also wrote in, a free press. Having three giant corporations controlling all of mass media isn't free. That's why there were ever restrictions on how many newspapers or radio stations or television channel any one company could own. Whatever size chuck of the media one group controls, it is that same size chunk of the electorate that they can spin towards the candidate of their choosing. Imagine if we only had Fox News, or only had Air America. You can see how that might give one company undue influence. Just look at what happened to the quality of pop music since ClearChannel has be allowed to take over radio stations all over the country. Now apply that to the quality (and pay for play) of all of the news that mainstream America gets.

Set back...

[yroJJory]

When Bush was "selected" back in November 2000, all of my friends were very depressed, moping around saying "Our country's progress has just been turned back 25 years."

I guess it's at least 32 years now.

Re:You know the mind of the founders?

[Bartab]

Because the founders also wrote in, a free press. Having three giant corporations controlling all of mass media isn't free.

Yeah, they would be appalled. Appalled that people turned to gov't instead of opening their own printing press.

Re:Demi-Kratos Kinda Rules?

[Shakrai]

I think the whole point of TFA is that the news has a great impact for just about any part of our life. (how's that for vague!)

Hey I'm all about the news. My childhood heroes weren't astronauts or generals. They were journalists. The free press is our first line of defense against everything from abusive Government officials/policies to corporations poisoning our natural resources. I can think of few things more important then ensuring an independent media, beholden to nobody (Government OR Corporate) with a mandate to inform the public.

That said, I've grown extremely weary of the 24 hour news cycle. Anchors that talk to each other so they can make the story they've already run ten times sound fresh. "Experts" with agendas. Shows like Crossfire that boil the most complex of issues down into two extremist points of view and call it "debate".... over here on my left I have "aging hippie liberal douche" while over here on the right I have "pissed off white trash redneck conservative".

All of the above annoys me. But I get downright pissed off when I think of the priorities of the 24 hour news cycle. Like endless coverage of the court battles related to Anna Nicole Smith. Or the fucking aerial coverage of Paris Hilton reporting to jail. They have twenty four hours to fill and waste it on this garbage instead of covering the war? What the fuck is that?

To quote America (The Book):

A free and independent press is essential to the health of a functioning democracy. It serves to inform the voting public on matters relevant to its well-being. Why they've stopped doing that is a mystery. I mean, 300 camera crews outside a courthouse to see what Kobe Bryant is wearing when the judge sets his hearing date, while false information used to send our country to war goes unchecked? What the fuck happened? These spineless cowards in the press have finally gone too far. They have violated a trust. "Was the president successful in convincing the country?" Who gives a shit? Why not tell us if what he said was true?

Internet News?

[mosb1000]

You posted that comment on an internet news site. Just thought I'd point that out.

Re:Demi-Kratos Kinda Rules?

[Shakrai]

I agree with most everything you said. Except that part where your liberal bias was showing! Cover that up now and then

If 'liberal bias' == 'wants a free and independent press' then guilty as charged. Try as I might, I couldn't locate any examples of prominent conservative media personalities that support the principle of the free press.

don't give away everything on the first date

Don't you wish you could find out ;)