Supreme Court Lets FCC Relax Limits On Media Ownership (nytimes.com) 34
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times: The Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Thursday that the Federal Communications Commission could relax rules limiting the number of newspapers, radio stations and television stations that a single entity may own in a given market. The decision is likely to prompt further consolidation among broadcast outlets, some of which say they need more freedom to address competition from internet and cable companies. Critics fear that media consolidation will limit the perspectives available to viewers.
The rules at issue in the case, initially adopted between 1964 and 1975, had been meant "to promote competition, localism and viewpoint diversity by ensuring that a small number of entities do not dominate a particular media market," Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote for the court. But the rules, he added, were a relic of a different era -- "an early-cable and pre-internet age when media sources were more limited." "By the 1990s, however, the market for news and entertainment had changed dramatically," Justice Kavanaugh wrote. "Technological advances led to a massive increase in alternative media options, such as cable television and the internet. Those technological advances challenged the traditional dominance of daily print newspapers, local radio stations and local television stations."
The case, Federal Communications Commission v. Prometheus Radio Project, No. 19-1231, concerned three rules. One barred a single entity from owning a radio or television station and a daily print newspaper in the same market, the second limited the number of radio and television stations an entity can own in a single market, and the third restricted the number of local television stations an entity could own in the same market. In 2017, the commission concluded that the three rules no longer served their original purposes of promoting competition and the like. The vote was 3 to 2 along party lines, with the commission's Republican members in the majority.
The rules at issue in the case, initially adopted between 1964 and 1975, had been meant "to promote competition, localism and viewpoint diversity by ensuring that a small number of entities do not dominate a particular media market," Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote for the court. But the rules, he added, were a relic of a different era -- "an early-cable and pre-internet age when media sources were more limited." "By the 1990s, however, the market for news and entertainment had changed dramatically," Justice Kavanaugh wrote. "Technological advances led to a massive increase in alternative media options, such as cable television and the internet. Those technological advances challenged the traditional dominance of daily print newspapers, local radio stations and local television stations."
The case, Federal Communications Commission v. Prometheus Radio Project, No. 19-1231, concerned three rules. One barred a single entity from owning a radio or television station and a daily print newspaper in the same market, the second limited the number of radio and television stations an entity can own in a single market, and the third restricted the number of local television stations an entity could own in the same market. In 2017, the commission concluded that the three rules no longer served their original purposes of promoting competition and the like. The vote was 3 to 2 along party lines, with the commission's Republican members in the majority.
Clarification (Score:5, Informative)
They were not deciding if media consolidation was OK. They were deciding if the FCC had the regulatory authority to make such a change. The court decided, unanimously, that they did.
If they had decided otherwise, it would open up any such regulatory changes to lawsuits against the change. This includes further tightening media ownership rules, or changing rules on pollution, or regulations on corporate governance.
https://reason.com/volokh/2021... [reason.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
... though you'd expect the coverage on slashdot to be pro-chinese rather than pro-US foreign policy narrative and anti-china/russia - just look at the bullshit regarding both China and Russia hacking, plus Reuters parroting that's here now.
Slashdot went to shit when it was sold off - from the comment ranking system that was used to suppress narrative contradictory info, to the shift to regurgitating the misinformation we see in mainstream media.
Re: Clarification (Score:3)
Yet here you are, commenting.
Huh, weird.
Given the state of our body politic (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't matter, Media consolidation is a bad thing. While I don't see too much coming from this initially, it will likely lead to the extinction of all newspaper and tv stations in some markets, by having the "owner" shut down them down and leaving only internet IPTV and news websites as the only way to get any news, and none of it local.
There's not really a solution here. Local news is effectively extinct in every market that isn't the capital city of the state. Even then, often local reporters working for
Re: (Score:2)
There's not really a solution here. Local news is effectively extinct in every market that isn't the capital city of the state.
First off the largest market in each state is often not the capital. In fact only 17 states have their largest city as the capital. While some others may be close enough to their largest city to be considered part of the same "market", it still isn't very common for a state capital to be the largest news market in a state.
Secondly there are certainly potential solutions. I don't feel confident enough to advocate for any particular solution, but for instance Australia has recently forced tech companies to pa
threw away the principle (Score:4, Interesting)
So, because there is more access methods now, they decided to throw away the rules instead of applying them more broadly to the new ways of access.
What SCOTUS should have done (Score:4, Insightful)
Is they have should have gone for the throat and said FCC, SEC, FTC, FEC, etc. rule-making is unconstitutional per se because all legislative and pseudo-legislative activity must be enacted explicitly by only the Congress.
It would have utterly horrified and enraged progressives and big corporation-loving republicans, but it would have been considered a judicial Gettysburg for the forces of populism on both sides because it would have gutted the power of the administrative state to render the people's assembly a vestigial organ.
Re:What SCOTUS should have done (Score:4, Informative)
You obviously dislike what is being done with the delegated powers, but delegation goes back the beginning and is clearly Constitutional. You don't have to believe me, ask the First Congress:
https://www.theatlantic.com/id... [theatlantic.com]
Of course times were different then, so maybe there is a "living Constitution" argument against delegation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
The No True Scotsman of furriners who don't get American politics is ridiculous.
Yes, all parts of the American political spectrum accept private property as a given.
That's not the same thing as lacking any left wing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"CNN/MSNBC & NPR "both sides" everything" ??? What alternate universe are you watching in?
He likely means right wing from the perspective of most of the free world, not just the US. And while all politics of the western world does not share the same classification of conservative and liberal, it is true that even the liberal politicians in the US are pretty conservative by the standards of most of the western world. Democrats arguing over whether we should have a single payer system would be like Europeans arguing over whether minorities should be allowed to vote. It is not a liberal idea for ev
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What the US - and the World - needs is for some of the truly benevolent billionaires to get together and establish a Global Free Press foundation beholden to nothing but the truth. It'll never happen - and it's the one thing that would truly level the playing fiel
sinclair broadcasting can use this to Force RSN's (Score:2)
sinclair broadcasting can use this to Force RSN's be added or that market can just lose ALL locals on any in market pay tv system.
FCC can also limit smaller ownership; (Score:2)
Frankie say ... (Score:2)
Relax??? If those rules were any more relaxed they'd be under the table/host. citation [nytimes.com]
Pfft (Score:2)
Posting to undo a 'slip-of-the-finger' incorrect mod.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh boy! Monopoly Media! (Score:1)
JUST what we need!
Then again, it makes it easier for a nefarious government to control the flow of information.
To enforce the "right" viewpoint.
"Consolidation" (Score:1)
So newspeak for "monopolism".
As if that wasn't the media mafia's mode of operation to begin with.
Enjoy the same disadvantages of state-owned media, with none of the advantages!
Basically the Internet Explorer of America's media world.
6 corporations control 90% of US media outlets (Score:4, Informative)
What do you mean
These 6 corporations control 90% of the media outlets in America. The illusion of choice and objectivity [techstartups.com]
So glad for this. (Score:2)
There were just so many choices anymore! All those different views to contend with, who could keep up?! Hopefully here soon we can just have 1, maybe 2 providers for the whole country. We could call them The Ministry of Love and The Ministry of Truth. They would never hurt us, they love is, right?
I Already Left Media Due To Cosolidation (Score:2)
Most, if not all of the radio stations in my market are ultimately owned by 3 companies. They're all through subsidiaries that make it look like they're not....but ultimately...three companies control pretty much every radio station. They're all over-commercialized garbage where the minutes of not having advertising per hour is a LOT smaller than the minutes of advertisements per hour. Very little to no localized content. It feels like I'm not listening to local stations anymore.
They're not losing out becau
Excellent (Score:2)
We now have both kinds of integration: horizontal and vertical.
Many "local" TV stations are actually owned by a few large companies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
That is a sample of our "horizontal" integration.
And many distributors now own the end-to-end production pipeline. That is the vertical part, which has become standard.
Gone are the days where the studio, network, cable are separate entities. Now even the streaming service, and the internet providers are fully "vertically" integrated. Universal