FCC Ignores Public, Relaxes Media Ownership

anthrax writes "Ignoring Congressional and public comments, the FCC voted to relax ownership rules that have prevented broadcasters from owning newspapers in the nation's 20 largest media markets. After holding several public hearings that overwhelmingly opposed the relaxation of the rules, and Congressional hearing where Democrats and Republicans (even Ted 'Tubes' Stevens) voiced opposition to the move, the FCC voted 3 to 2 to relax ownership. On the same day the FCC voted 3 to 2 (by a different split) to cap the size of any cable company at 30% of the nationwide market, a limit Comcast is up against."

This is an outrage

The brazen disregard show by those 3 commissioners is absolutely shameful. How dare they defy the will of Comcast?

isn't democracy great?

Unelected FCC commissioners making decisions that will have a huge impact on the future of communications in this country... I'm sure this is exactly what the founding fathers had in mind when they drafted the Constitution.

Re:isn't democracy great?

Unelected FCC commissioners making decisions that will have a huge impact on the future of communications in this country... I'm sure this is exactly what the founding fathers had in mind when they drafted the Constitution.

Considering that the newspaper as we know it is circling the drain, I don't think that any government decision related to newspapers will have "a huge impact on the future of communications in this country."

Re:isn't democracy great?

Older folks still read newspapers and vote in greater numbers than younger folks.

Re:isn't democracy great?

So tell me... Exactly what DID the framers of the constitution have in mind with regard to 20th century media?

Have you talked to older folks lately?

Older folks still read newspapers and vote in greater numbers than younger folks.

No they don't (read newspapers) - they hate today's media. By and large they have moved onlline.

All the older people I know (my family, plus other people's family) are all on

Re:isn't democracy great?

Considering that the newspaper as we know it is circling the drain

But the companies will still have undue influence of the press. Having a free press isn't just about not having government interference, but also about having a diverse enough job market for journalists that they are not simply serfs in a corporate fiefdom. At least with the 30% ownership law, we will still have three media outlets left in ten years. Of course there is nothing preventing them from having many of the same people on all three Board of Directors.http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/corporate_community.html [ucsc.edu] Face it, whoever controls the "tone" of the media can pick the winner of major elections. That's what all these giant elections funds are about, advertising. Now if big media become even more highly concentrated, then big election funds become secondary to being blessed by those who tell mainstream America what to think.

Most of the candidates are bought & paid for.

Now if big media become even more highly concentrated, then big election funds become secondary to being blessed by those who tell mainstream America what to think.

Awww. How cute. Someone who thinks that how they vote matters.

The largest contributors to... the Clinton, Obama and Romney campaigns are ...

Goldman Sachs... They must want something quite badly...

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008 [opensecrets.org]
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008 [opensecrets.org]
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00000286&cycle=2008 [opensecrets.org]

Giuliani's top contributor is Ernst & Young, but the banks are up there too.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009908&cycle=2008 [opensecrets.org]

The same people giving money to both sides... Almost as if they don't care who wins. Funny that, eh...
 

Re:

The newspaper industry has historically had one of the highest profit margins of any market, and while some forces have shifted, they are not really in serious danger provided they are willing to adapt. Newspapers have readily taken up internet mediums, a

Internet News?

You posted that comment on an internet news site. Just thought I'd point that out.

Re:

I like reading the Editorials in the Wall Street Journal. Too bad they don't have funnies. :(

The Boston Globe Editorial page sucks, but they have a nice collection of funnies: Dilbert and Fox Trot come to mind.

http://sentenceofdave.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

Re:

There most assuredly won't be an impact. Effects, perhaps, but very minimal ones, as print media is dying.

That aside, if you actually bothered to read the constitution, the only federal office that was intended to be popularly elected was that of Represen

Re:isn't democracy great?

You say "unelected" as if "elected" were a good thing. I for one prefer my civil servants unelected, constrained by law and custom from privately benefiting in any way from their position, and well paid but not highly so. (Frankly, the people who want to run governments as if they were businesses really should fuck off to run businesses instead.) "Elected" to me means, "loudest-hooting monkey in the crowd of hooting monkeys". He who tells the most lies, promises the most outrageously stupid things, and greases the most palms gets elected. To be in a position of power and *unelected*, one must show at least some competence for some length of time. Unless of course appointed by an elected person, in which case, the same problems as with election apply.

The last four decades have shown up the 'bug' in democracy, and it is this: there is nothing constraining a politician to tell the truth, the whole truth, while in office or campaigning for office. Given that bug, the whole system is compromised.

Re:isn't democracy great?

So ... if you write up a resume, throw it around to various companies; phone them to follow up and make sure they got it; have some former co-workers or bosses ready to tell someone a bunch of good things about you and then go to an interview to brag about your skills and end up finally getting the job because a group of individuals sat down and decided that your campaign for the position was the most impressive (or at least the most convincing and impressive series of exaggerations, false promises and downright lies) how is exactly is that different then campaigning to get elected for a government position ?

The way I see it campaigning for any "regular" job and campaigning for an "elected" government position is pretty much the same thing. The only difference is the number of people voting for you and the number of people you will be working for if you get the position.

Re:

I'm pretty sure the "damage potential" is related to the job, and independent of the means to getting that job.

County judges are elected. Last I checked, a county judge couldn't do a fraction of the damage an appointed supreme court judge could. Fire depar

Re:Demi-Kratos Kinda Rules?

I think the whole point of TFA is that the news has a great impact for just about any part of our life. (how's that for vague!)

Hey I'm all about the news. My childhood heroes weren't astronauts or generals. They were journalists. The free press is our first line of defense against everything from abusive Government officials/policies to corporations poisoning our natural resources. I can think of few things more important then ensuring an independent media, beholden to nobody (Government OR Corporate) with a mandate to inform the public.

That said, I've grown extremely weary of the 24 hour news cycle. Anchors that talk to each other so they can make the story they've already run ten times sound fresh. "Experts" with agendas. Shows like Crossfire that boil the most complex of issues down into two extremist points of view and call it "debate".... over here on my left I have "aging hippie liberal douche" while over here on the right I have "pissed off white trash redneck conservative".

All of the above annoys me. But I get downright pissed off when I think of the priorities of the 24 hour news cycle. Like endless coverage of the court battles related to Anna Nicole Smith. Or the fucking aerial coverage of Paris Hilton reporting to jail. They have twenty four hours to fill and waste it on this garbage instead of covering the war? What the fuck is that?

To quote America (The Book) [wikipedia.org]:

A free and independent press is essential to the health of a functioning democracy. It serves to inform the voting public on matters relevant to its well-being. Why they've stopped doing that is a mystery. I mean, 300 camera crews outside a courthouse to see what Kobe Bryant is wearing when the judge sets his hearing date, while false information used to send our country to war goes unchecked? What the fuck happened? These spineless cowards in the press have finally gone too far. They have violated a trust. "Was the president successful in convincing the country?" Who gives a shit? Why not tell us if what he said was true?

Re:Demi-Kratos Kinda Rules?

I agree with most everything you said. Except that part where your liberal bias was showing! Cover that up now and then

If 'liberal bias' == 'wants a free and independent press' then guilty as charged. Try as I might, I couldn't locate any examples of prominent conservative media personalities that support the principle of the free press.

don't give away everything on the first date

Don't you wish you could find out ;)

You know the mind of the founders?

The founders wrote into the constitution the supreme court justices, who also aren't elected. Why would the founders be appalled by the office of FCC commissioner?

Re:You know the mind of the founders?

Why would the founders be appalled by the office of FCC commissioner?

Because the founders also wrote in, a free press. Having three giant corporations controlling all of mass media isn't free. That's why there were ever restrictions on how many newspapers or radio stations or television channel any one company could own. Whatever size chuck of the media one group controls, it is that same size chunk of the electorate that they can spin towards the candidate of their choosing. Imagine if we only had Fox News, or only had Air America. You can see how that might give one company undue influence. Just look at what happened to the quality of pop music since ClearChannel has be allowed to take over radio stations all over the country. Now apply that to the quality (and pay for play) of all of the news that mainstream America gets.

Re:You know the mind of the founders?

Because the founders also wrote in, a free press. Having three giant corporations controlling all of mass media isn't free.

Yeah, they would be appalled. Appalled that people turned to gov't instead of opening their own printing press.

Censorship? Sure! Regulate Ownership? Fuck NO!

Why does the FCC not do what it is supposed to do, regulating who can use what bands of airwaves, but is quite happy to throw a bunch of unconstitutional fines around for exposing a "forbidden" section of epidermis or saying a "forbidden" word if they don't like the show?

Does this really matter?

If anyone hasn't already noticed, print media is dying. Prime example would be Tribune Co., but you could also look at the New York Times. Circulation is dropping rapidly, and digital presence will soon be as, if not more, important than print editions.

O

Re:

If print media is dying, maybe netcraft will confirm such.

In the worst case it's the beginning of the end for newspapers. It is important to remember that the difference between news on dead trees and news on your screen is only a quantum leap. A newspape

Thank God

As an Englishman, the one flaw in my inborn sense of cultural superiority has been the lack of Rupert Murdoch owned tabloids in America. Thank you, FCC.

Re:Thank God

the US Government has become more evil than the government we once fought to gain independence from in the first place, is it too late to surrender to the British? sorry about that mess back in 1776...

Re:

It's a noble sentiment you speak, but the government here in Britain, is as corporate, as corrupt, as oligarchical and as authoritarian as the government in the USA at the moment - if not more so. Seems to be the way of democracies of late. How we can tur

Re:

Murdoch has owned the NY Post since 1976. I'd call it a tabloid. I'd call it lots of other things, but I'd need to call in the Marines to help expand my vocabulary.

Re:Thank God

As an Australian, I apologise to you for Rupert Murdoch.

We're very, very sorry.

Re:

As an American recently moved to the UK, I can easily say that, although the British media is generally much, much better that that of the US, most British newspapers are absolute shite.

Newspapers in Britain on par with the likes of the New York Post (eg.

Re:

"Newspapers in Britain on par with the likes of the New York Post (eg. The Sun and The Daily Mail) are held in high regard"

Neither of those "newspapers" or their readers are held in high regard. "Sun reader" has been used as a synonym for "unthinking mouth

Re:they may take europe

You're mistake is in assuming that Jim Iraqi is going to come in and start running Sharia law for the country.

He won't be. It will be your friend Bob who used to work at the plant before he converted, and so on. It's easier to imagine a massive civil war where you're shooting up people who look differently, but if your friends and family are devout muslims are you really going to take it to them?

The merging of the media plays into this in part. Everyone in the states hates muslims now because TV says they're bad, but in 50 years time TV could be talking about how fantastic muslim life is. Episodes of Friend 2050 would have Phoebe Jr forgetting her hijab with hillarious consequences and people will be lining up in the streets to get some of this religious action.

Cultural conversion can't be stopped by guns, because by the time you get to the point where a military uprising is appropriate you've already lost.

Bill Moyers piece

Bill Moyers just did a piece on this Monday evening:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/12142007/watch2.html [pbs.org]

While fascinating, it was also one of the most horrific examples I have recently seen of a runaway Executive Branch. Once again we, as US citizens, need to rely upon our elected officials in Congress. Who knows how well that will turn out......

Re:Bill Moyers piece

As much as I have issues with the current Executive Branch, it is an act of Congress that created the FCC, and Congress that ultimately has the responsibility to regulate things. Any laws they create take precident over the FCC. They are more to blame than the executive branch, who is at least consistent in it's views about most things (pro-big-business). Delegating the responsibility of regulating the airwaves to 5 people seems the ultimate in shirking responsibilities, in my opinion. I realize that it is not this congress that created the FCC, but maybe if we had fewer 3 letter agencies, and actually had Congress directly make policy, they would be busy enough to actually have to do work, instead of grandstand about trivial issues. It's a lot harder to bribe 250 people than 3. Nowhere in the constitution does it say anything about any government entity having the ability to delegate its authority to a smaller body.

Other less-nightmarish results...

Well, it may (probably will) end up being a more propagandized operation, but there are outcomes that most media owners may not have anticipated:

* the newspaper dies, in favor of locally-owned websites that provide the same info, networked across other regional/local sites to become a loosely-knit news org in its own right (and unlike FreeBSD, the megacorp-owned newspaper really is losing relevance and readership to the web site... now if only these sites could start talking to each other).

* the independant papers, stations, and etc. pick up credibility among the more clued-in folks out there (and in many areas, already has. Most big towns/cities have one or more free weekly papers that do very well by giving the paper away for free and charging for ads).

* CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc. start losing eyeballs to more regionally-oriented channels (e.g. NWCN in the Portland-Seattle corridor, where you get news that's local enough to matter directly, but regional and global enough to keep you apprised of stuff you might want or need to know. Yes it's run by Comcast, but it does open more than a couple of doors to competing local interests who want to do similar things).

* Local indie stations get a larger audience as propaganda-weary listeners decide that they really don't like their news in 'Clear-Channel-beige' anymore. If my little corner of the planet is any indication, it's already begun to happen.

While these may or may not ever occur, the possibilities are there, and as naive as it may sound, I tend to put at least a little faith in the ability of a contrary and loud-mouthed population such as that found in the US to devise their own alternate solutions to media-megacorp-induced propaganda.

IMHO, Yellow Journalism has never really went away - it merely diversified. We merely get glimpses and bits of occasional integrity swimming in an ocean of propagandistic crap, with alternating currents of barely-masked opinion clashing against each other on a constant basis.

In either case, I get more news off the Internet now, and from non-established sources (e.g. not CNN, not Fox, not the NYT)... I suspect that more of my fellow humans do as well - more than any media corp would ever be willing to admit, even to themselves.

/P

Re:

In either case, I get more news off the Internet now, and from non-established sources (e.g. not CNN, not Fox, not the NYT)... I suspect that more of my fellow humans do as well - more than any media corp would ever be willing to admit, even to themselves.

Re:

Why hasn't this already happened then? How will a injection of new network funds and resources, including the benefit of cross-media promotion, hasten the already non-existant rush from core dailies to free-at-the-Starbucks independents? Wishful thinking.

Not sure which one you're referring to, but I'll take a stab and assume that you're talking ab't regional news channels...

Ironically, when it comes to anything broadcast, the FCC is the biggest obstacle (followed closely by capital funding). Cable cha

How the hell?

Quoth the article header: " On the same day the FCC voted 3 to 2 (by a different split) to cap the size of any cable company at 30% of the nationwide market, a limit Comcast is up against."

How the hell does that work, anyhow? Does the ISP start turning down new subscribers ("Sorry folks, we're all full up on business here, please try our competition")?

I've got to be misunderstanding it somehow. Please help me out here.

Re:

OK, let's say comcast has 29.9 million subscribers, and they consider attempting to purchase another local cable provider that has a potential reach of .2 million customers. That would put them over the limit, and prevent them from purchasing that provide

Re:

How the hell does that work, anyhow? Does the ISP start turning down new subscribers ("Sorry folks, we're all full up on business here, please try our competition")?

It means they can't move into new neighborhoods, mostly. For instance, Comcast and Verizon have a thing where one of them isn't allowed to sell service in downtown Portland OR. There's lots of areas that Comcast (or Warner, or any cableco) has never bee

Re:

Easy. Comcast spins the numbers such that it doesn't look like they have more than 30%.

Haven't you ever read How to Lie with Statistics [wikipedia.org]?

Ignores Congress?

If Congress genuinely opposed the maneuver, couldn't they simply pass a law enacting the restrictions they wanted? My understanding is that executive departments need to operate within the law. The legislative decides, the executive abides.

Now, if the bought and paid for congressmen just wanted to appear populist while not actually doing anything, I suppose simply speaking out against the decision would do fine.

This could save print journalism.

This could save print journalism.

The other parts are interesting, too, but the part that grabbed me is that this permits large radio and television conglomerates to prop up the ailing print newspaper media, which in the US anyway, is in dire need of proppi

Re:

This could save print journalism.

...from what?

AP, UPI, Reuters... they'd all get their dough off of websites if the paper dies, and aside from local articles, they're pretty much all you get in an average paper (some, like the NYT or WashTimes etc. do make a larger effort to get their own writers out in the world, but for the most part, pool reports are pretty much it for anything that isn't specifically local).

Personally, if you want to save print journalism, what you need is a loose network and open source the thing.

No, that's not a buzzword. You get a bunch of folks who can string together some decent HTML, coupled with journalism school students (and grads, and amateurs who can write), decent and somewhat neutral writers or whomever, and pass the info around. For once it would be really cool to get news and info about some politician screwing up, but get that news from people who are there with cameras and laptops. Sports scores? No problem - tabulate 'em and pass 'em into the pool if that's what turns you on.

In short, you make your own pool of volunteers. Pay bounties on verifiable images and stories (e.g. if you get it from more than n sources and it's good info that you can corroborate through independent sources, you pay the best submitter(s) real well). Each reporter has his/her own website, containing news of a standard format that can be shared (into frames or etc), and their own particular site can be arranged however... for your local site, you pick and choose what you want printed that day. Just keep in mind that someone else may do a better job of it than you, and probably will if you suck at it.

Real rough idea and all, but it sounds like fun... I'll have to bang on a lot of details before anything formal gets spat out :)

/P

Re:

The government isn't spending the dollars to save it, it's just allowing other people to throw good money after bad if they really want to.

If someone thinks they could do something with it, why not let them buy it?

I don't care.

And I say that I don't care as a firm representative of the not giving a damn party. As questionable as ownership restrictions were in the Before Internet Time, the availability of infinite platforms from which to speak from has removed any value whatsoeve

Set back...

When Bush was "selected" back in November 2000, all of my friends were very depressed, moping around saying "Our country's progress has just been turned back 25 years."

I guess it's at least 32 years now.

Re:People needed

I have karma to burn so feel free to send this to offtopic land, but can we just get a sitewide ban on these lame spam links please? 3 or 4 in this thread alone!

Re:

what about tinyurl and proxied links to spam sites? maybe a link report system or a seperate modifier like -1 spam or something like that w/ a few metamods to confirm/deny the mod so rogue mods can't ditch legit links

Re:

Spam - don't follow the link

Re:

Well, that's primarily a Department of Justice/Federal Trade Commission issue, not an FCC issue, though the FCC will most certainly get its hands on it.