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

This is an outrage

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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?

Thank God

[Malevolent Tester]

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.

Re:Thank God

[FudRucker]

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...

Re:Thank God

[GaryPatterson]

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

We're very, very sorry.

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!

Bill Moyers piece

[chumpboy]

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......

Re:Bill Moyers piece

[nebaz]

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.

Other less-nightmarish results...

[Penguinisto]

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

How the hell?

[palegray.net]

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.

Ignores Congress?

[Xeth]

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.

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:they may take europe

[TeraCo]

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.

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.

Most of the candidates are bought & paid for.

[Colin Smith]

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...

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 ;)