Slashdot Mirror


FCC Ends Decades-Old Rule Designed To Keep TV, Radio Under Local Control (variety.com)

The FCC on Tuesday voted to eliminate a rule that required broadcast station groups to maintain a physical presence in the community of their primary local coverage area, a move that critics say will help media companies further consolidate their operations and even be a boost to the ambitions of Sinclair Broadcast Group. Variety reports: But FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said the elimination of the rule has been a long time coming and will produce cost savings for stations. He said the "overwhelming majority" of public input favored the elimination of the rule, citing the support for such an action even from National Public Radio. "Continuing to require a main studio would detract from, rather than promote, a broadcaster's ability and incentive to keep people informed and serve the public interest," Pai said. The National Association of Broadcasters supports the rule's elimination, and has argued that it will free up funds for stations to spend on staff and programming. Commissioner Michael O'Rielly said the elimination reflects how the public currently interacts with local businesses -- not by visiting their facilities, but through telecommunications and social media. The rule dates to 1940. The two Democrats on the commission opposed the change. "There are many broadcasters who do an extraordinary job serving communities during disaster," said FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel. "But let's be honest -- they can only do so when they have a real presence in their area of license. That's not a retrograde notion -- it's a fact."

17 of 223 comments (clear)

  1. Re:An alarmist view by youngone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Except in the US it won't be State run media, because why would it be?
    Corporate interests already run the US government for their own benefit, why would they allow the state to take over?

  2. Ajit Pai is a cunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    fuck that fucking fucker.

    1. Re: Ajit Pai is a cunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are correct, but there must be more emphasis on what a cunt this cunt really is.

      I am truly upset and a bit teary. Mock me all you want.

  3. Sinclair is a propaganda company by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They are the US broadcast equivalent of Silvio Berlusconi's broadcast companies.

  4. Bad subject by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't think it's right to call yourself "alarmist". I mean, whether it's state-run or just run directly by the corporations who control the politicians, it's definitely a move to centralize control in a few people's hands. That's just obvious.

    The very least we can do is call this "realistic", "forward looking" or "awake". To call it "alarmist" is to undercut how certain the outcome is.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  5. Really? by YuppieScum · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "NBC and CNN have repeatedly been caught peddling fake news..."

    Have they really? Can you cite some, or indeed any, examples? Please be aware, news is not "fake" just because someone who doesn't like it says so.

    Anyway, the only people this action will serve well are those who have a vested interest in reducing the number of independent news reporting sources.

    This is going to have the same effect on local news as the consolidation of local newspapers had - true reporting replaced by slightly-localised standard content.

    --
    This sig left unintentionally blank.
  6. Re:An alarmist view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Broadcasters in America haven't been credible news sources for _decades_. They were corrupted way before the cable outlets.

    Only 80 year olds get their news from NBC/CBS/ABC/NPR.

    Every administration is hostile to non-pet media. Have you just started paying attention?

    You are right to a point. News these days is often about ratings, which means that it may be substance light and pundit heavy. You can make that worse when they have a clear and determined ideological bent. I'd argue that CNN is about ratings. MSNBC and FOX are probably more in the clear ideological bents, with fox the worst of the pair. None of the three are fake news, though some pundits may push into that area from time to time. Now you could order that the amount of actual news they deliver is not particularly high.

    When we lose local news and radio, we lose one more check against corporate control of information. Yes, your right that we already sort of lost it a long time ago, since groups kept buying up all the stations. I haven't kept up with local news lately, and that is a shame. I remember it covered local issues well. We need the small and independent voices. Sinclair I believe is the name of the one right wing group that controls so many stations.

    Big business whine that we must lower their taxes or they won't be able to get bigger. I'd almost argue the opposite, that we must raise the taxes on big business to encourage the smaller to thrive.

    Absolute power corrupts absolutely, as usual and if you believe that trickle down is going to work this time well, you're an idiot. The people that make decisions about pay only really care about paying just enough so they can keep enough staff to do the work, and they are more than willing to replace someone with 20 years experience with someone with none, and call it saving the delta in the two salaries.

  7. Thanks for vaccinating the other democracies by sandbagger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...against these grand experiments.

    The USA got rid of the fairness doctrine that required standards in news gathering and broadcasting and look at the result. Now you'll have gated access to the internet so that news becomes even more corporatized and with no local coverage, you could have hurricanes ripping up the district before the studio a time zone or two away decides to see if they can get someone with a cell phone to do a live hit.

    Great.

    Your electorate will be less informed than ever.

    --
    ---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
  8. This sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Part of the social contract for being able to use precious spectrum exclusively (spectrum is considered a public resource) is to provide a public service. That service is inherently local by the nature of radio propagation. Removing the local requirement just turns stations into glorified corporate repeaters providing no service to the communities whose spectrum they occupy.

    This is yet another violation of the public commons by amoral corporate douchebags, same as endless copyrights.

  9. Pandora by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's interesting, because just a couple days ago I noticed a small town near here with their own low-power radio station. When it gave station identification it was Pandora Media (I think the "Media" part was right) and it didn't have a human DJ - it was a male synthesized voice. With this ruling I think we'll see this sort of thing pop up everywhere - small low-power FM stations serving small areas that are 100% automated. That will be profitable because the FCC won't require staff in person at the stations.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
  10. Re:Don't bitch about the FCC by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As a conservative, I think this decision is a horrid one that is made more out of ideology rather than good government.

    Well, that's what passes for conservatism these days, Corporatism. There is money to be made on the way down.

    With republicans who don't understand the dangers, or with the Democrats who are so impotent because they are burdened down with social agendas to the point everybody who does not live on the east/west coast won't vote for them.

    Well then, we get corporatism, and let me know how that works out for the people who live in the middle. And you are wrong about Republicans in office not knowing the dangers. They do not give a flying fsck about the dangers. There's a lot of money to be made, so get out of the way.

    As long as they can get some poor sod to vote for them, they line their pockets with money from the corporations that they actually work for. They do not even hide that any more. If Joe six Pack will vote for people who are going to give themselves big tax breaks, and throw millions of them off of a admittedly flawed healthcare system with no replacement, and can do it by reusing the same old tropes, then those people do deserve to lose their money, and go bankrupt if they have a big healthcare bill. Good for them. Because that's what they voted for, and must be exactly what they want to happen to them.

    But seriously, Modern Republicans aren't conservatives, they are corporatists. There is a huge difference. I wish Barry Goldwater would ressurect from the grave and drive the corrupt out of the temple.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  11. Re:Don't bitch about the FCC by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Insightful

    With republicans who don't understand the dangers, or with the Democrats who are so impotent because they are burdened down with social agendas to the point everybody who does not live on the east/west coast won't vote for them.

    Holy false equivalence Batman. "Blame both of them, those horrible conman who got the job by offering to work for less than going rates, and the good employees who didn't underbid them"

    Or, more accurately, I blame conservatives. Those who are so horrified about some social agenda that they keep voting for the asshole who enable this in Congress.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  12. Re: An alarmist view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The difference is libertarian idiots scream loudly whenever the government might tell them what to do, and are stunningly silent when a corporation has that same power or worse.

  13. Re: An alarmist view by Vermonter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I didn't know there were companies in the US that had the power to imprison a person for not complying with them. Please enlighten me as to what companies have the same coercive power as a government (or, as you put it, "worse").

    Curiously, would you want to try to sue a corporation if you had to go through a special court owned and operated by said corporation? I'm guessing not. Yet if we sue the government, we are using a court system that is run under the same institution. Personally, I would rather not consolidate all the interested that could potentially act against me.

    It always amuses me when people distrust the people who run corporations while at the same time trust the people who run governments, as if the two are run by completely different kinds of people.

  14. Re: An alarmist view by link-error · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The punishment for sharing a video can be worse than killing somebody.

        That's directly from the media companies.

       

    --
    -Unresolved symbol? Byte me!
  15. Re: An alarmist view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If I as a voter have direct control over who is my government how did Obama ever become president? Or Trump for that matter?
    The fact is that individuals have very little control over who is their government.
    At least I can buy shares to a publicly owned company. If I can buy enough shares I have control of that company.
    Now you might not think that's fair, but I read somewhere that life is not fair.
    At least no corporation can send jack boot thugs into my home on its own and I have some chance that I can sue them in a court that might at least give me a shot at winning.

  16. Re: An alarmist view by guruevi · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The corporations only take the freedom and money you allow them to take. If you donâ(TM)t let them, they will die.

    The government takes your freedom and money at gunpoint.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com