Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Ignores Public, Relaxes Media Ownership

Posted by kdawson on from the big-is-not-bad-honest-except-for-cable dept.

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."

41 of 244 comments (clear)

  1. This is an outrage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The brazen disregard show by those 3 commissioners is absolutely shameful. How dare they defy the will of Comcast?

  2. isn't democracy great? by j0nb0y · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
    1. Re:isn't democracy great? by boguslinks · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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."

    2. Re:isn't democracy great? by aeschenkarnos · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

    3. Re:isn't democracy great? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    4. Re:isn't democracy great? by garett_spencley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:isn't democracy great? by Original+Replica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      We are all just people.
    6. Re:isn't democracy great? by Smidge204 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure the "damage potential" is related to the job, and independent of the means to getting that job.

      County judges are elected. Last I checked, a county judge couldn't do a fraction of the damage an appointed supreme court judge could. Fire department chiefs are elected, Michael Brown was appointed head of FEMA just before Hurricane Katrina, etc.
      =Smidge=

    7. Re:isn't democracy great? by kartan · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't think that any government decision related to newspapers will have "a huge impact on the future of communications in this country."

      Older folks still read newspapers and vote in greater numbers than younger folks. Umm...today's older folks won't be around in the future. That's what makes them older.
    8. Re:isn't democracy great? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Umm...today's older folks won't be around in the future. That's what makes them older. None of us will be around in the future, given a long enough timeline.
    9. Re:isn't democracy great? by homey+of+my+owney · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    10. Re:isn't democracy great? by eh2o · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The newspaper industry has historically had one of the highest profit margins of any market, and while some forces have shifted, they are not really in serious danger provided they are willing to adapt. Newspapers have readily taken up internet mediums, and continue to sell dead tree format.

      Interestingly, a 2007 study analyzed over a decade of financial data and concluded that newspaper profits are more closely linked to story quality than circulation. This decision allows big media to rely on circulation and de-facto market saturation to maintain their profits instead of competition in the area of high quality investigative journalism. The fact that investigative journalism also tends to uncover all sorts of corruption and other "uncomfortable" topics is a nice benefit that sweetens the deal all around.

      It's no secret that FCC commissioners get hired for obscene salaries by media conglomerates as soon as they step down. Make no mistake, Kevin Martin will be rewarded handsomely for delivering this decision to the tune of millions. This is nothing short of criminal bribery.

      Watching the public commentary sessions was interesting, too. Not only was all this information laid out in plain view, but people were just tearing into commissioner Martin -- and people coming from all parts of the political spectrum.

    11. Re:isn't democracy great? by mjpaci · · Score: 2, Informative

      I like reading the Editorials in the Wall Street Journal. Too bad they don't have funnies. :(

      The Boston Globe Editorial page sucks, but they have a nice collection of funnies: Dilbert and Fox Trot come to mind.

      http://sentenceofdave.blogspot.com/

  3. Censorship? Sure! Regulate Ownership? Fuck NO! by corsec67 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    --
    If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
  4. Thank God by Malevolent+Tester · · Score: 5, Funny

    As an Englishman, the one flaw in my inborn sense of cultural superiority has been the lack of Rupert Murdoch owned tabloids in America. Thank you, FCC.

    --
    If you haven't made a developer cry, you've wasted a day.
    1. Re:Thank God by FudRucker · · Score: 5, Interesting

      the US Government has become more evil than the government we once fought to gain independence from in the first place, is it too late to surrender to the British? sorry about that mess back in 1776...

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    2. Re:Thank God by GaryPatterson · · Score: 4, Funny

      As an Australian, I apologise to you for Rupert Murdoch.

      We're very, very sorry.

    3. Re:Thank God by Blue+Stone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's a noble sentiment you speak, but the government here in Britain, is as corporate, as corrupt, as oligarchical and as authoritarian as the government in the USA at the moment - if not more so. Seems to be the way of democracies of late. How we can turn things round, fuck knows, but here's hoping we start addressing why things become so autoritatrian and design copper-bottomed protections against such things once we do chuck out the latest bunch of tin-pot dictators and their acolytes.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    4. Re:Thank God by moosesocks · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As an American recently moved to the UK, I can easily say that, although the British media is generally much, much better that that of the US, most British newspapers are absolute shite.

      Newspapers in Britain on par with the likes of the New York Post (eg. The Sun and The Daily Mail) are held in high regard, whereas Americans generally accept tabloids as inexpensive entertainment that can be easily purchased via subway station or grocery checkout (which is a completely fair, and accurate assessment).

      On the other hand, The New York Times, Washington Post, and the like, are actually decently respectable media outlets that, though respected, are generally ignored by the general public in favor of whatever is mentioned in church, or on the telly.

      It's a bit of a paradox. (You could also consider the fact that the Brits aren't exactly held in very strong regard in the international community, unless being compared to America...)

      And yes. I will 100% blame the media for the fact that George Bush somehow still has a 25% approval rating. How the hell does a quarter of the population believe that this man is doing an acceptably good job? No matter which political ideology you subscribe to, he's been a miserable failure on all accounts. Also that a quarter of the US population doesn't believe in Global Warming (not that it's necessarily caused by human activity, but that it's happening at all!!)

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    5. Re:Thank God by Weedlekin · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Newspapers in Britain on par with the likes of the New York Post (eg. The Sun and The Daily Mail) are held in high regard"

      Neither of those "newspapers" or their readers are held in high regard. "Sun reader" has been used as a synonym for "unthinking mouth-breathing idiot" since the 1970s, and it's main contribution to British culture was introducing "Page Three Girl" as a generic term for a witless bimbo (The Sun used to have a different topless model every day on it's third page, together with a small, patronising piece of text that described people with one CSE in anything as having both brains and beauty. This, together with various competitions that were heavily advertised on TV was, and may still be, its major selling point).

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
  5. Re:People needed by kcornia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

  6. Bill Moyers piece by chumpboy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Bill Moyers just did a piece on this Monday evening:

    http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/12142007/watch2.html

    While fascinating, it was also one of the most horrific examples I have recently seen of a runaway Executive Branch. Once again we, as US citizens, need to rely upon our elected officials in Congress. Who knows how well that will turn out......

    --
    I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
    1. Re:Bill Moyers piece by nebaz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As much as I have issues with the current Executive Branch, it is an act of Congress that created the FCC, and Congress that ultimately has the responsibility to regulate things. Any laws they create take precident over the FCC. They are more to blame than the executive branch, who is at least consistent in it's views about most things (pro-big-business). Delegating the responsibility of regulating the airwaves to 5 people seems the ultimate in shirking responsibilities, in my opinion. I realize that it is not this congress that created the FCC, but maybe if we had fewer 3 letter agencies, and actually had Congress directly make policy, they would be busy enough to actually have to do work, instead of grandstand about trivial issues. It's a lot harder to bribe 250 people than 3. Nowhere in the constitution does it say anything about any government entity having the ability to delegate its authority to a smaller body.

      --
      Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
  7. Other less-nightmarish results... by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Well, it may (probably will) end up being a more propagandized operation, but there are outcomes that most media owners may not have anticipated:

    * the newspaper dies, in favor of locally-owned websites that provide the same info, networked across other regional/local sites to become a loosely-knit news org in its own right (and unlike FreeBSD, the megacorp-owned newspaper really is losing relevance and readership to the web site... now if only these sites could start talking to each other).

    * the independant papers, stations, and etc. pick up credibility among the more clued-in folks out there (and in many areas, already has. Most big towns/cities have one or more free weekly papers that do very well by giving the paper away for free and charging for ads).

    * CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc. start losing eyeballs to more regionally-oriented channels (e.g. NWCN in the Portland-Seattle corridor, where you get news that's local enough to matter directly, but regional and global enough to keep you apprised of stuff you might want or need to know. Yes it's run by Comcast, but it does open more than a couple of doors to competing local interests who want to do similar things).

    * Local indie stations get a larger audience as propaganda-weary listeners decide that they really don't like their news in 'Clear-Channel-beige' anymore. If my little corner of the planet is any indication, it's already begun to happen.

    While these may or may not ever occur, the possibilities are there, and as naive as it may sound, I tend to put at least a little faith in the ability of a contrary and loud-mouthed population such as that found in the US to devise their own alternate solutions to media-megacorp-induced propaganda.

    IMHO, Yellow Journalism has never really went away - it merely diversified. We merely get glimpses and bits of occasional integrity swimming in an ocean of propagandistic crap, with alternating currents of barely-masked opinion clashing against each other on a constant basis.

    In either case, I get more news off the Internet now, and from non-established sources (e.g. not CNN, not Fox, not the NYT)... I suspect that more of my fellow humans do as well - more than any media corp would ever be willing to admit, even to themselves.

    /P

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    1. Re:Other less-nightmarish results... by PhxBlue · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In either case, I get more news off the Internet now, and from non-established sources (e.g. not CNN, not Fox, not the NYT)... I suspect that more of my fellow humans do as well - more than any media corp would ever be willing to admit, even to themselves.

      Maybe so. But the rest of the masses will be reading print versions of the drek that appears on Fox News -- or alternately, the drek that is Wolf Blitzer and Lou Dobbs on CNN. People who want real news will have to seek out the print version of "The Daily Show."

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    2. Re:Other less-nightmarish results... by anthrax · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What happens when the FCC allows bandwidth providers like Verizon to start filtering the content that crosses their networks? Where will we turn when the Internet in the US is censored by corporate interests (like Murdoch) instead of allowing the free exchange of ideas? Then where the public go for news and information? The further consolidation of how and where information is gather, disseminated and filtered will have a massive negative impact for all Americans. There is but one law that stands the test of time, the law of unintended consequences. It could have been worse, some on the FCC panel wanted to go much further, but this is still a bad move.

    3. Re:Other less-nightmarish results... by Penguinisto · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why hasn't this already happened then? How will a injection of new network funds and resources, including the benefit of cross-media promotion, hasten the already non-existant rush from core dailies to free-at-the-Starbucks independents? Wishful thinking.

      Not sure which one you're referring to, but I'll take a stab and assume that you're talking ab't regional news channels...

      Ironically, when it comes to anything broadcast, the FCC is the biggest obstacle (followed closely by capital funding). Cable channels are OTOH a bit different, at least insofar as it doesn't require the massive amounts of dough for an FCC license, a bit of the spectrum, a metric assload of equipment, etc etc.

      NWCN manages it because it's jointly funded by Comcast. That said, I don't see why a small start-up couldn't get just enough funding for a channel, a decent studio, and a small but reliable set of crews and resources. It would cost roughly as much as setting up a new car franchise, say... which puts it well within reach of local funding sources. Team up with the local colleges and use their journalism (and tech) near-grads as cheap but reliable anchors, staff, and talking heads. Get local (but cool) opinionators to come on from time to time, and get people like a local Mayor or city councilcritter to give interviews. Get in good with the cops and firefighters. Having a unique local flavor to it all will get you a better leg-up w/ the local movers and shakers, than some blow-dried putz from halfway across the continent could manage. Team up with the city weeklies. Cripes - the ideas and tips could go on for quite awhile.

      Do some dumb stories. Do some funny stories. Look for things which have national as well as regional news-worthiness, so you can pass it along to a similar station somewheres else under Creative Commons or somesuch (that way the big news outlets are forced to credit you properly... which will either chafe them to no end, or they pass up on the content - either way you win if it's entertaining or at least far better than what they can deliver).

      The hard part is to get the ball rolling. To get the dough. Hell, start a weekly show on the local cable access channel (but with decent equipment) and take out an ad in the weeklies for it... if it's any good, odds are it will grow. If it sucks, well, it can't be any worse than "Godess Galactica" (no, that's not a typo), and her show's been on public access for eons now.

      Sounds like fun, actually... not quite in a creepy "I'll never be Ted Turner but damn it'd be cool to get local chicks who look way better than Fonda ever did" kind of way, but more like in the "hey - I actually attempted something that made a diff for once" kinda way.

      /P

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  8. How the hell? by palegray.net · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Quoth the article header: " 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."

    How the hell does that work, anyhow? Does the ISP start turning down new subscribers ("Sorry folks, we're all full up on business here, please try our competition")?

    I've got to be misunderstanding it somehow. Please help me out here.

    --
    512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
  9. Re:FCC corruption rife by ralf1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Spam - don't follow the link

    --
    "Would you, could you, with a goat?" Dr Seuss
  10. Ignores Congress? by Xeth · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If Congress genuinely opposed the maneuver, couldn't they simply pass a law enacting the restrictions they wanted? My understanding is that executive departments need to operate within the law. The legislative decides, the executive abides.

    Now, if the bought and paid for congressmen just wanted to appear populist while not actually doing anything, I suppose simply speaking out against the decision would do fine.
    --
    If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
  11. Re:You know the mind of the founders? by Original+Replica · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    We are all just people.
  12. Set back... by yroJJory · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Jory
  13. Re:You know the mind of the founders? by Bartab · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
  14. Re:they may take europe by TeraCo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You're mistake is in assuming that Jim Iraqi is going to come in and start running Sharia law for the country.

    He won't be. It will be your friend Bob who used to work at the plant before he converted, and so on. It's easier to imagine a massive civil war where you're shooting up people who look differently, but if your friends and family are devout muslims are you really going to take it to them?

    The merging of the media plays into this in part. Everyone in the states hates muslims now because TV says they're bad, but in 50 years time TV could be talking about how fantastic muslim life is. Episodes of Friend 2050 would have Phoebe Jr forgetting her hijab with hillarious consequences and people will be lining up in the streets to get some of this religious action.

    Cultural conversion can't be stopped by guns, because by the time you get to the point where a military uprising is appropriate you've already lost.

    --
    Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
  15. Re:Demi-Kratos Kinda Rules? by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  16. Internet News? by mosb1000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  17. Re:Does this really matter? by sgt_doom · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Circulation is dropping rapidly, and digital presence will soon be as, if not more, important than print editions.

    Say it ain't so!!!

    I mean, they (moronic newsies, half-witted pundits, talking headjobs, etc., ad nauseum) constantly yap at us that they are giving us the "content" we demand - yet if that were truly and honestly the case, circulation would not - and continue to - drop.

    Obviously, they are feeding us pure crapola (except, perhaps, for those McClatchy newspapers which are about the ONLY newspapers in America which still actually print truthful, non-propaganda articles - also, the various alternative political newspapers throughout the country such as this wonderful example).

    I frankly (sorry Newty) can't understand why anyone would read any American news instead of following the more (usually) honest international news or the standard blog spots (Bradblog, Buzzcom, Thinkprogress, Commondreams, Waynemadsenreport, noquarterusa.net, liberalavenger, etc.)

  18. Most of the candidates are bought & paid for. by Colin+Smith · · Score: 4, Informative

    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. Awww. How cute. Someone who thinks that how they vote matters.

    The largest contributors to... the Clinton, Obama and Romney campaigns are ...

    Goldman Sachs... They must want something quite badly...

    http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008
    http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008
    http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00000286&cycle=2008

    Giuliani's top contributor is Ernst & Young, but the banks are up there too.

    http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009908&cycle=2008

    The same people giving money to both sides... Almost as if they don't care who wins. Funny that, eh...
    --
    Deleted
  19. Re:Demi-Kratos Kinda Rules? by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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 ;)

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  20. Have you talked to older folks lately? by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    No they don't (read newspapers) - they hate today's media. By and large they have moved onlline.

    All the older people I know (my family, plus other people's family) are all online. Even if they don't have a computer they just use the library - wander down to the library sometime and have a look at who is using the systems.

    If old people are still reading newspapers, how come readership is dropping dramatically across the country - we've not past the bell curve of baby boomers really dying in large numbers yet.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  21. Sacramento, California. by DietPepsiAddict · · Score: 2, Interesting

    California's political capital, and we've got *one*: The Sacramento Bee.
    We USED to have two (The Bee & The Mercury), but then the Bee bought Mercury and that was the end of any chance of unbiased reporting.

    My little brother & I used to deliver the Bee back when they had competition.
    The paper had to be neat, properly ordered, folded, properly wrapped for the weather, & delivered NLT 5am (6am on Sundays).

    Now, I'm lucky if I get my paper by 7am, it's NEVER in order, & rarely "neat" nor folded.
    I have to spend the first thirty minutes just restructuring the damned thing so it looks like I might have purchased it from a publication that gave a damn about its image.
    (If there was a 'box anywhere near, I'd walk to it and buy it every morning - at least then I'd get a usable copy.)
    Complaining has done absolutely *nothing* - they don't care, there IS no competition in this town.

    On any given day, you'll be hard-pressed to find ANY page that does not include an ad (and more-often-than-not, a pair of full-page, full-colour ads back-to-back), and the front-page, above-the-fold story is usualy something better left to the Sports or Entertainment section.
    Stories about our government giving us the shaft?
    Those are buried as single paragraph blurbs in the side-bar on page Z-257 in the middle of the Viagra & "Massage Therapist" ads.

    If you want NEWS in this town, you go online for it & get it from the API, Reuters, BBC, CNN, NBC, et al.
    Because the ONE local newspaper we have is more an advertising supplement & "touchy-feely" rag unfit for lining the parrot cage.