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."

37 of 223 comments (clear)

  1. An alarmist view by Dutchmaan · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is all about consolidation of our media to a more "centralized" structure. You know the precursor to the state run that we always point to about OTHER countries that lack our "freedoms" This administration is openly hostile to free press, so any move they make will be filtered through that lens.

    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. 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.

    3. Re:An alarmist view by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

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

      Fox News has the oldest audience of all TV news outlets, cable or network. The median age of a Fox News viewer is dead five years.

      https://www.theatlantic.com/bu...

      http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:An alarmist view by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Corporate interests already run the US government for their own benefit, why would they allow the state to take over?

      Because the broadcasters that won't play ball are going to be first up against the wall when the revolution comes. And by revolution I mean the same old shit coming around again.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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!
    8. Re: An alarmist view by easyTree · · Score: 2

      I didn't know there were companies in the US that had the power to imprison a person for not complying with them.

      Happy to google it for you... first link clicked says

      On its website, CCA states that the company doesn’t lobby on policies that affect “the basis for or duration of an individual’s incarceration or detention.” Still, several reports have documented instances when private-prison companies have indirectly supported policies that put more Americans and immigrants behind bars – such as California’s three-strikes rule and Arizona’s highly controversial anti-illegal immigration law – by donating to politicians who support them, attending meetings with officials who back them, and lobbying for funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Showing just how important these policies are to the private prison industry, both GEO Group and Corrections Corporation of America have warned shareholders that changes in these policies would hurt their bottom lines.

      !!

    9. Re: An alarmist view by easyTree · · Score: 2

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

      You make it sound so heartless. I have it on good authority that this imbalance will change once people are overtly the product. Then, the situation will reflect the good and fair society you expect.

    10. 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.

    11. Re: An alarmist view by slinches · · Score: 2

      No, that's the government acting on behalf of the media companies. So, yes, it is a problem when companies can buy laws to entrench their business methods. From what I can tell, Libertarian philosophy agrees with that and seeks to reduce/distribute the power of government so that it can't be abused like that as easily.

      --
      Knowledge Brings Fear
  2. Kill the dinosaurs and reuse the spectrum. by HornWumpus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When was the last time you watched/listened to broadcast?

    The kids?

    Broadcast is already dead, it's just zombie media for now, same as dead tree.

    The RF spectrum still has value.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    1. Re:Kill the dinosaurs and reuse the spectrum. by TimSSG · · Score: 5, Informative
      Yesterday, and get off my lawn. Tim S.

      When was the last time you watched/listened to broadcast?

      The kids?

      Broadcast is already dead, it's just zombie media for now, same as dead tree.

      The RF spectrum still has value.

    2. Re:Kill the dinosaurs and reuse the spectrum. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      When was the last time you watched/listened to broadcast?

      The kids?

      Broadcast is already dead, it's just zombie media for now, same as dead tree.

      The RF spectrum still has value.

      Medium wave is virtually useless for anything we would think about using it for today. Short propagation during the day, and worldwide at night. Noisy as hell during the spring summer and fall as lightning strikes throw spikes all over the band.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re:Kill the dinosaurs and reuse the spectrum. by rmdingler · · Score: 2

      There remains some value in the diversity of the news reports you're using to glean an opinion from, as long as you understand each viewpoint has an agenda behind it.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    4. Re:Kill the dinosaurs and reuse the spectrum. by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2

      When was the last time you watched/listened to broadcast?

      The kids?

      Broadcast is already dead, it's just zombie media for now, same as dead tree.

      The RF spectrum still has value.

      Antenna business is booming and an increasing number of people (myself included) are discovering how amazing broadcast TV is post ATSC and cable company price hikes.

  3. I, for one... by dfn5 · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... welcome our regulation free media overlords.

    --
    -- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
  4. 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.

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

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

  6. 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!
  7. 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.
    1. Re:Really? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      "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.

      Every outfit accidentally gives incorrect news from time to time. Almost always with an admission and correction But today's crypto-conservatives claim anything that they disagree with is fake news.

      But we must remember, the with noting that the fellow didn't add th incredibly fair and balanced Fox News, so he believes that Germany is sunnier than the United States. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... With no retraction, this is apparently the real deal.

      The Fake News bullshit is merely projection upon the part of Boris and his fifth column in the US.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  8. Oh... by XSportSeeker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Color me surprised, yet another move from Ajit Pai against societies' best interest and for corporations and conglomerates to fill their pockets. Wow, who would've thought.
    And of course it comes right after a huge string of natural disasters that killed people all around and destroyed property everywhere, where the role of local media played an important role on informing people of what's happening.
    I'm sure nothing bad will come out of it, such as local broadcasting stations being sold left and right, closing doors and abandoning the communities they had a presence and important role as source of information. Nonono.

  9. 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.
    1. Re:Thanks for vaccinating the other democracies by sims+2 · · Score: 2

      Why should the electorate be informed? That would make it harder to get unqualified people elected. Such as why education funding keeps getting cut.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    2. Re:Thanks for vaccinating the other democracies by Xyrus · · Score: 2

      It all started with Fox News winning cases for being an "entertainment" company as opposed to a news organization. It's pretty much all gone downhill from there.

      --
      ~X~
  10. Don't bitch about the FCC by eclectro · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As a conservative, I think this decision is a horrid one that is made more out of ideology rather than good government. It follows from the incorrect conclusion that because companies can merge to form larger conglomerations, why can't radio stations do so too?

    Even though the FCC voted for this, ultimately the buck stops with congress and they are the ones that need to be held accountable. 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.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    1. Re:Don't bitch about the FCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It honestly does not make one bit of difference. They are already consolidated. They have been for years. NPR is just as bad. NPR is where I discovered this banana.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    2. 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.
    3. 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!
  11. 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.

  12. 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.
  13. If they'd just eliminate this OTHER rule ... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If they'd just eliminate the rule that a single entity can't own broadcast stations in enough markets to have a potential audience of more than about a third of the population, it would be possible to buy up cheap or failing little UHF stations and create new networks.

    THAT rule is essentially anti-competitive anti-upstart protection for the old networks, which are primarily contracted programming services for a collection of separately-owned stations and groups of stations. It's why you don't see a lot of new network upstarts, and things like CNN and Fox News only/initially happened on cable - despite a vast underserved viewership.

    (In CNN's case it was people who wanted actual news reporting, after the major networks' news organizations decided the viewers really wanted news-like entertainment. In Fox News' case it was people who wanted to hear conservative viewpoints (conspicuous by their absence on mainstream media) once CNN had sold out to the left-leaning mainstream - first figuratively, then literally. There's been room for a new one since the lead-in to the 2012 presidential election, when Fox News went all-in for the neocon faction of the R side, abandoning the libertarian, paleo-conservatve, religious-right, and perhaps a few smaller, factions.)

    Such an effort doesn't need to be restricted to just the rich, by the way. Imagine crowd-funded news networks. B-)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  14. Re:First side effect? by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 2

    50%? You mean 98%. It will be one national market. New TV will be "slightly" more local than radio and TV, but not much. TV will only be local in the sense of sports and even then, might not be enough in many venues to cover a poorly performing local team vs a national favorite (say in Football, the Cowboys, Packers, or Patriots)... I mean, sorry for Browns, Bengals, or Lions, but the advertisers will pay more to show other games.

    And good luck with the news outside of maybe 6 major venues around the country (New York, DC, Dallas, Chicago, LA, Atlanta), the rest of you are going to lose out big time....

    --
    We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
  15. If you want bad stuff like this to stop by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    you need to take care of your working class. Otherwise folks like Trump will continue to take advantage of their desperation to get stuff like this through. Everytime a tech worker looked down on a blue collar guy for not 'updating' their skills you're playing right into the hands of the folks that made this happen. Congrats.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/