Slashdot Mirror
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai Is Under Investigation Over $3.9 Billion Media Deal
According to a report in The New York Times (Warning: source may be paywalled), Ajit Pai and the FCC approved a set of rules in 2017 to allow television broadcasters to increase the number of stations they own. Weeks after the rules were approved, Sinclair Broadcasting announced a $3.9 billion deal to buy Tribune Media. PC Gamer reports: The deal was made possible by the new set of rules, which subsequently raised some eyebrows. Notably, the FCC's inspector general is reportedly investigating if Pai and his aides abused their position by pushing for the rule changes that would make the deal possible, and timing them to benefit Sinclair. The extent of the investigation is not clear, nor is how long it will take. However, it does bring up the question of whether Pai had coordinated with Sinclair, and it could force him to publicly address the topic, which he hasn't really done up to this point.
Legislators first pushed for an investigation into this matter last November. At the time, a spokesman for the FCC representing Pai called the allegations "baseless" and alluded to it being a partisan play by those who oppose the chairman. "For many years, Chairman Pai has called on the FCC to update its media ownership regulations," the FCC spokesman said. "The chairman is sticking to his long-held views, and given the strong case for modernizing these rules, it's not surprising that those who disagree with him would prefer to do whatever they can to distract from the merits of his proposals."
Legislators first pushed for an investigation into this matter last November. At the time, a spokesman for the FCC representing Pai called the allegations "baseless" and alluded to it being a partisan play by those who oppose the chairman. "For many years, Chairman Pai has called on the FCC to update its media ownership regulations," the FCC spokesman said. "The chairman is sticking to his long-held views, and given the strong case for modernizing these rules, it's not surprising that those who disagree with him would prefer to do whatever they can to distract from the merits of his proposals."
... to see Ajit Pai in an orange jumpsuit being led off to prison in handcuffs. Maybe that would wipe the stupd shit-eating grin off his face. He is an arrogant sociopathic twat, and I would love to see justice served. But I don't expect to.
Nice how you can be so certain of a crime having been committed with only some allegations and a fraction of the facts to go on.
It couldn't be that, no matter the timing of this rule change or the enactment of any similar change in regulation, there would be major players who jump at the chance to take actions the old rules prevented. Right? That's just too simple and logical. It *must* be some criminal shenanigans if it's someone on the "other side" doing something you disagree with.
Especially if that guy knows a guy who knows a guy whose granddaughter once attended a corporate party for employees where her boyfriend worked. He may as well be carrying bags of money with corporate logos into his office.
If someone broke the law I'd like to see them pay the price, but this smells too much like witch-hunting and the Spanish Inquisition.
Here's a radical idea; How about waiting for facts before calling for somebody's head on a pike just because you disagree politically? I know, that's crazy-talk, but give it a try sometime. Might start a trend that ends up saving *your* bacon down the road.
Or, not.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
I don't know that Obama made any good decisions regarding the FCC. Just look at Meredith Baker and Tom Wheeler. Two industry stooges of the worst kind. I have no idea why Obama would have tried to appease anybody, least of all McConnell. That bastard literally said, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
One more thing I don't get: Why do Republicans think that by saying Obama did it, that somehow makes it not Donald's fault when the problem isn't fixed, or gets made worse? It's not like he hasn't had time, or the congress at his disposal. He has been in office for one year, and the only thing he's succeeded at is getting rich people like me lower taxes, and deporting people who have been pillars of their communities for decades.