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."

8 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 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.
  5. 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.