Slashdot Mirror


FCC To Loosen TV, Newspaper Ownership Rules (reuters.com)

The FCC is planning to vote on rolling back landmark media ownership regulations that prohibit owning a television station and newspaper in the same market and making it easier to acquire additional TV or radio stations. Reuters reports: If approved at the FCC's November meeting, the move would be a win for newspapers and broadcasters that have pushed for the change for decades, but was criticized by Democrats who said it could usher in a new era of media consolidation. The FCC in 1975 banned cross-ownership of a newspaper and broadcast station in the same market, unless it granted a waiver, to ensure a diversity of opinions. The rule was made before the explosion of internet and cable news and Republican President Donald Trump and Pai have vowed to reduce government regulation.

"We must stop the federal government from intervening in the news business," Pai told a congressional panel, noting that many newspapers have closed and many radio and TV stations are struggling. Pai moved earlier this year to make it easier for some companies to own a larger number of local stations. Pai said the marketplace no longer justifies the rules, citing Facebook and Alphabet's dominance of internet advertising. "Online competition for the collection and distribution of news is greater than ever. And just two internet companies claim 100 percent of recent online advertising growth; indeed, their digital ad revenue this year alone will be greater than the market cap of the entire broadcasting industry," Pai said.

52 of 86 comments (clear)

  1. Win? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >The move would be a win for newspapers and broadcasters that have pushed for the change for decades,

    No, the product will become even more shit and the viewership will continue to decline, undermining their investments in buying up all the local players.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    1. Re:Win? by TWX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, but it will probably become more profitable because now operating costs will come down even further. All of the local on-air staff, gone. Local staff that manage programming and other content decisions, almost all gone if not all gone. Engineering staff, no longer need to staff enough to work the studios as there are no studios, probably half or more gone, just limited to staff to maintain a bit of local equipment. Even that might be reduced since it may be possible to outsource that, and multiple stations could end up with the same maintenance partners.

      What's funny is that journalism schools already annually graduate more students with journalism or communications degrees than there are jobs in the whole profession. Now that all of your local on-air talent is essentially gone, in my market that could be 50 people, and while my market is a bit larger than most I could reasonably expect any city over 100,000 people to to have at least 25 on-air, with more than 300 metro areas over 100,000, that's 7500 on-air staff losing jobs, plus all of the rest of the support staff.

      Frankly it's dangerous for so few people to own all of the press. We're already into an era of Yellow Journalism, and it's only going to get much worse and to polarize people far more. Honestly it could lead to outright civil war when those people that control the media push peoples' buttons in order to drive ratings.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Win? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      FCC approves the big brother network, the only network to be allowed access to the internet. Big brother watching out for you, ignorance is strength, truth is fake news and voting is stupid, only nazis vote.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    3. Re:Win? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      "No, the product will become even more shit and the viewership will continue to decline"

      And the news business will lose customers and influence, and diminish.

      As it deserves. If the news business wants to expand its influence and profitability, the competition out there is either unbiased or 'honest' (as in stating up front the bias held), and the mainstream news businesses either reestablish credibility or suffer.

      I'm not hopeful, since bias and political activism in the news business is both fundamental - they are now predicated on supporting their chosen political movements, whatever they are -, and pervasive - this is the assumed normal state of affairs by not only the owners, but management, experienced team members, and the incoming rookies. It is their business model now. To pivot and become journalists may not be possible in the time remaining before they are forced to retract and take the crumbs of a huge, growing market they should be the dominant players in for perpetuity. They chose this path, the 'mainstream media'. They have no complaint, though the dominant politics is also based on a contrived philosophy that cannot survive objective analysis.

      And yes, the competing political movement suffers from leadership that has abdicated their position as 'opposition', and have no moral standing with their supposed followers. those who look for an alternative to the force-fed politics of the alleged mainstream have had to look elsewhere for a leader, and compromise for the sake of doing something else, rather than cave in and surrender.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    4. Re:Win? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      competition out there is either unbiased or 'honest' (as in stating up front the bias held)

      Bringing you the most liberal news reporting in the nation! This... is CNN!

      Real conservative reporting! Fox News is on the scene!

  2. Pai Guy by labnet · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hah, what did you Amercians do to deserve Pai.
    He's not even trying to hide being bought by big money.
    He should just setup a bidding platform to buy legislation.

    --
    46137
    1. Re:Pai Guy by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bidding would imply only one winner, so only one payment.

      Lobbying lets politicians take money from everyone.

    2. Re:Pai Guy by gtall · · Score: 2

      Now he's building up his brand name so he'll be able to pull in big bucks when he leave government. It is important to have a goal in life. The fact that involves screwing America to get there is just part and parcel of the alleged Administration.

  3. It would make things much more efficient by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    With fewer companies to coordinate with, it would be much easier to promote a consistent agenda.

    1. Re:It would make things much more efficient by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      It seems fairly consistent right now...

  4. NYTTV by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    the WaPo Channel. the SF Examiner Morning Zoo.

  5. This is pretty much the end of the USA. by Narcocide · · Score: 2

    In their next move, billed as a effort to recoup massive loss on infrastructure, the FCC will negotiate sale of the entirety of independent network broadcast corporations to a state-owned Russian company.

  6. Here's why: by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The whole reason for loosening these rules, and the rules on local ownership, is to pave the way for the far-right Sinclair Broadcast Group to buy even more TV stations across the country. Instead of local news, you will only get stories that reflect the Sinclair agenda.

    More centralized control over local media.

    https://www.salon.com/2017/10/...

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Here's why: by AaronW · · Score: 1

      Yes, because we need more of this...

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

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    2. Re:Here's why: by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      Yes, they do.

    3. Re:Here's why: by gtall · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "The Sinclair Broadcast Group doesn't own newspapers, you fuckwit." Yet.

    4. Re:Here's why: by netlag1 · · Score: 2

      Among the newspapers it is about to buy are the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times

    5. Re:Here's why: by netlag1 · · Score: 1

      Or maybe not... Tribune Media spun off the newspapers into a seperate company 3 years ago, Tribune Publishing.

    6. Re:Here's why: by Gonoff · · Score: 1

      far-right Sinclair Broadcast Group to buy even more TV stations across the country

      Yeah, because only the far-right media groups would abuse this. No one else. Nope...

      Pretty much. Yes, there will be exceptions, but it will mostly be good news for extremely bigoted, rich, science denying, sociopathic old white guys

      ,

      --
      I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
    7. Re:Here's why: by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Like Soros, Slick Bill, Bernie, Chuck, the rest...

      When you describe them as 'bigoted, rich, science denying*, sociopathic old white guys', you cover a broad swath of political leadership in the US.

      Don't dismiss this. You chose the brush. This is your painting, I'm just observing.

      * - Bring it on, all political movements in America deny science when it suits them. And for the same reasons.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  7. I hate to say it by rmdingler · · Score: 2, Insightful
    There was a time when regional television and newspapers had a large say in shaping the belief set(s) of average Americans, yet now, it seems like that ship has sailed.

    People under 50 get their news on the cellphone, and whether that's the Facebook or Twitter or updates, the share of news influenced by old school local news & dead tree papers is bordering on insignificant.

    Pai is right, not because of his fealty to the industry, but because the consolidation doesn't impact a significant monopoly of the news market.

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

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:I hate to say it by PoopJuggler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except he wouldn't be doing this if he wasn't being paid to. So somebody has an agenda at play, and part of it is media control for mass mind rape.

    2. Re:I hate to say it by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      People under 50 get their news on the cellphone, and whether that's the Facebook or Twitter or updates, the share of news influenced by old school local news & dead tree papers is bordering on insignificant.

      People over 50 as well. I do not know anyone who reads an actual "paper" anymore.

    3. Re:I hate to say it by DogDude · · Score: 1

      What's really fucked up is that most people see nothing wrong with that. I read all of the local news I can find daily, and 95% of people I talk to have no idea about 95% of important stuff going on in their local communities.

      Are most people just hopelessly addicted, or are people just that dumb? Maybe they're just that lazy? I don't get it. It's like being in Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    4. Re:I hate to say it by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      People over 50 as well. I do not know anyone who reads an actual "paper" anymore.

      Not daily, but I pick up and read the local paper for three reasons:

      The website doesn't include every bit of the physical paper, to see if I know anyone in the obits or criminal/court section, and last, but not least, because the little bitch in charge of killing off the Mickey(s) is careless despite the relative McMansion size of her litter box.

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

      Ernest Hemingway

    5. Re:I hate to say it by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. He might be a genuine idealist, who truly believes in the infallibility of the market and that all government control is tyranny.

    6. Re:I hate to say it by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      "People under 50 get their news on the cellphone"

      So instead of cheap paper, television, or radio, the youth are using Internet on whatever device suits them.

      Same news. Same sources. Same problems. The nail cares not how big the hammer is, or if it's a rock, or your neighbor's dog's head. It's still getting pounded.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    7. Re:I hate to say it by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Hey, let's talk about that bridge thing. I've got this ICO coming up, and you could really, really cash in. Simple exchange, and BOOM! you're a Blockchain Billionaire!

      Keep the Island, I've got a blockchain toll app in development.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    8. Re:I hate to say it by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      "Except that all of the misinformation in the electorate is from TV commercials."

      That's funny. Did I miss the whoosh?

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    9. Re:I hate to say it by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      "If people get sick of the Internet, going back to radio and TV and newspaper will be nigh well impossible."

      The Internet is the new Radio, Newspaper, Television, and some new things. Going back is neither necessary nor helpful. Moving forward and making new media is the solution, if needed.

      Beware Net Neutrality. The government would love to regulate the Internet as if it were broadcast technology.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    10. Re:I hate to say it by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      The problem is that people over 50 vote in droves. People under 50 can't be inconvenienced with voting.

    11. Re:I hate to say it by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Have you noticed that reading diverse news hurts? Sometimes your long-established viewpoints are wrong, and have to change, and it's physically painful?

      That's why.

      People don't want to be informed; they want reinforcement. They haven't learned to swallow the embarrassment of their failure and enjoy the burning sensation of their mind crying out against a violation of all it's held holy in its own little world, then finally rushing through the sensation of discovery of all kinds of new internal consistencies that strengthen and reinforce each other.

  8. Re:CNN Should Rejoice by bobbied · · Score: 2

    For Pete's sake, that's what we have now, or nearly so. News is nearly single perspective now and owned/controlled by a handful of like minded people.

    The only fly in the single source ointment is the internet's low cost of entry into the new business. All you need is a couple of dollars and some time and you (YES YOU) can have a web presence like the New York Times... Who cares if you provide accurate information, they certainly don't.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  9. Re:I am buying newspaper stocks by bobbied · · Score: 2

    In case you haven't noticed, broadcasting media (TV and Radio) has been hitting the skids along with the news papers. One possible exception is "talk" radio. They are all on the same flight path, fighting with online competition and internet alternatives and will suffer the same fate. The writing is on the wall for broadcast TV, trust me.

    Increased reputation won't help..

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  10. Again.... by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

    This is the end of our Republic.

    1. Re:Again.... by clonehappy · · Score: 1

      OK, Hillary, time for bed.

  11. Re:CNN Should Rejoice by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    The MSM provides much more accurate information than any fucktard with a web page (I include Breitbart and Infowars in the fucktards with web pages)

  12. Re:what logic? by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

    You seem to be mistaking the two purveyors of advertisements with those looking for and posting the news to the internet.

  13. Yawn by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

    Another day, another chip out of the rules and regulations that make us civil and decent to each other.

    Nothing good can come of this, which is the hallmark the Trump administration: Just how badly can we fuck this country up in 4 years?

  14. say buh-by to Google News by superwiz · · Score: 1

    Step 1: further consolidation of geographically-biased opinion news.

    Step 2: further cluster fuck of opinions (you think California being completely out of step with the country is something, wait until every state votes by 75%-25% margin).

    Step 3: further financial incentives to suppress opposing view points (left or right -- it doesn't matter -- as long as they oppose the cluster fuck in a particular geo market)

    Step 4: complete disregard for whether it is right or wrong to suppress unpopular speech. No national politician wins a local election unless they rail against those who oppose the cluster-fuck views. There is already a loud voice to suppress "hate speech" on college campuses. It will become the norm once every market is dominated by 1-opinion news sources.

    Step 5: with complete lack of defenders and a deluge of critics, Google News folds to salvage its other businesses from judicial and legislative encroachment

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    1. Re:say buh-by to Google News by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Step 1: further consolidation of geographically-biased opinion news.
      Step 2: further cluster fuck of opinions (you think California being completely out of step with the country is something, wait until every state votes by 75%-25% margin).

      Doesn't the last election show you that the mainstream media, which was solidly backing Clinton, is utterly impotent to sway elections in the way you describe?

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    2. Re:say buh-by to Google News by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Doesn't the last election show you that the mainstream media, which was solidly backing Clinton, is utterly impotent to sway elections in the way you describe?

      How do you figure? It was precisely in the last elections that you had very polarized votes by geographic areas. California is just one striking example of that. People who make their living being "normal" don't want to voice opinions which in their geographic areas are considered "crazy". So I don't know how much influence social media has on the news. Most people on social media communicate with people they already know in real life.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    3. Re:say buh-by to Google News by superwiz · · Score: 1

      At this point the US media establishment is a major threat to world peace and security, perhaps the biggest one whilst the US military/security complex is the worst we have seen since the Nazis. People willing to kill millions to earn millions.

      This is lunacy, but I don't care to debate as to why. I don't think there is any convincing crazy.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  15. Are they nuts? by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    Which morons are in the FCC? Those rules need to be stricter and limit how many stations one owner is allowed to have nationwide.

  16. Still think trump's ideas don't get implemented? by MxMatrix · · Score: 2

    Well ... guess who profits from this, not himself but his 'friends' will.

    --
    Bach says it all.
  17. Re:If so, why does that matter?, continuing... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    (Continuing another hyper-sensitive-touchpad bogus post.)

    But, seriously, it seems to me that reducing the cost of operation may also make it possible for others to enter the field. The rule was missing for a century or so, and there was some diversity. Yet, under it, there has been enormous consolidation. Maybe this is one of those good-sounding ideas that have unintended consequences that completely swamp and reverse their intended effect.

    Regardless, after the way the media, as a block, savaged Trump, I'd expect his guys to be looking for subtle ways to do

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  18. Re:If so, why does that matter?, continuing... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1, Insightful

    (and there it goes again)

    Regardless, after the way the media, as a block, savaged Trump, I'd expect his guys to be looking for subtle ways to do them a bad turn. Changing rules to shake up their competitive environment (in a way that, as a bonus, looks like they're just going with their ideology and/or doing them a favor) would fit my expectations nicely.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  19. Another day, another chip out of the rules and regulations that make us civil and decent to each other.

    ORLY?

    Seems to me that, before the regulation was put into place there was an era of competition, and after it there has been nothing but nearly monolithic consolidation.

    Seems to me that, if the intent was actually to produce news competition or sweep back a tide of anticompetitive collusion and consolidation, it had either failed miserably or (like the "fairness doctrine") worked to the detriment of what it was supposed to accomplish.

    In either case - useless or counter-productive - it should be eliminated.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  20. Sinclair Group lobbying is successful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The Sinclair Group is celebrating it's successful lobbying of Pai and support of Trump today.

    They now can proceed with their master plan to buy up as much of the Radio, TV, and Newspaper industry as they can (and with the billionaire Smith family behind them they can buy up a LOT.)

    Their stated plan is to create a vertically integrated media empire to challenge FOX News from the far-right and to indoctrinate America in the Smith family's fundamentalist Neo-Fascist/Christian Dominionist viewpoint with onerous contracts that include numerous "must run" segments and editorial controls that make FOX look like Air America.

    Welcome to the new Oligarchy where several conservative billionaires control 75% of the media Americans get their news from.

    This is the end-game that was started in 1973 months after Nixon was forced to resign. The Conservative Cabal decided "if you can't beat 'em, BUY THEM." and set out to overturn the 1934 FCC rules that bared cross-market ownership of multiple media. It got a big boost in the Reagan Administration with the demise of the "Fairness Doctrine" and an even bigger boost in the 1996 Telecom Act that loosened ownership rules (that enabled FOX to be created as what it is today.) The odious SCOTUS decision in the "Citizens United" case codified the idea that Money=Speech and now, this is the final stroke to remove practically all ownership regulations and allow Money=Speech to dominate and create outright Propaganda Empires.

    ALso, next week, the FCC gives the deathstroke to the Internet by killing the "Net Neutrality" rules, and pay-to-play becomes the rule of the Internet.

    America, it was fun while it lasted.

  21. FTFY by budsetr · · Score: 1

    "We must stop the federal government from intervening in the MONOPOLY business," Pai told a congressional panel. I bet he also tried to gas the jedi sent to negotiate with him.

  22. Gesture by racknithi · · Score: 1

    good decision make all thing Gesture Lock Screen

  23. AShit Pie by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 1

    Yay, AShit Pie will squeeze out another turd of a ruling.

    --
    'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman