home

FCC Gives Up

By TChris, Section Media
Posted on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 08:33:27 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

Michael Powell is gone, and so, it seems, is the administration's controversial effort to weaken regulations that prevent media companies from monopolizing the ownership of newspapers and television stations in the same markets. The Justice Department will not seek review of a federal court's order that blocked the FCC's rule change.

"This is a recognition of the failure of the commission to adequately justify its rules and is a recognition of its failure to protect the public interest," FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, a Democrat, told The New York Times. "This is a historic decision for the media democracy movement."

< Zarqawi Lieutenants Arrested | Idaho Man Coerced Into Entering Guilty Plea >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • FCC Gives Up | 15 comments (15 topical)
    Re: FCC Gives Up (none / 0) (#1)
    by glanton on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 08:58:20 AM EST
    TL: Hate to be a wet blanket when we get a rare bit of good news from the rulership, but isn't this way too little, too late? I mean, the public mind has such a deconstructed view of the media at this point; there's really very little trust. This goes for both sides. Libs (myself included, of course) see FOX as only a slightly more extreme, tabloidesque version of what has happened throughout real news: lapdogs for the rulership, no tough questions, only free passes. Yet I hear the other side talk incessantly about a "liberal media." Either way, the monopoly is undoubtedly already in effect. Truly independent voices, it seems to me, have very little stroke. The days of media-as-watchdog are SO over it's ridiculous. Now it's media-as-sales-apparatus. And that's the scariest thing going on in this nation by far, in my humble opinion.

    Re: FCC Gives Up (none / 0) (#2)
    by theologicus on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 10:25:43 AM EST
    While this is good news, it's not great news. There's an important article today in the The Chronicle of Higher Education that indicates why. It suggests why the extremely important story --from last fall and before the election -- of the 100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq did not get wide coverage in the mainstream media. Too often there is a "glass ceiling" for stories like this. They never make it to the top -- until it's too late. Elite control of the media is already concentrated and troubling.

    Re: FCC Gives Up (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 10:53:44 AM EST
    Ok, what is going to happen? For the little guy? the monopolizing game is always played this way.

    Re: FCC Gives Up (none / 0) (#4)
    by pigwiggle on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 10:58:49 AM EST
    Folks, regulation is the problem not the solution. What is stopping you from starting up the alternative news source you think US progressives are thirsting for? Corporations will always have better resources to game the system. Go on thinking you’re regulating them; meanwhile they are regulating you, and billing you for it.

    Re: FCC Gives Up (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 11:07:11 AM EST
    With Powell gone, it will be interesting to watch the FCC's conservatives handle the schism between "social" conservatives and "economic" conservatives. The traditional religious Right sees a culture at risk; the laissez faire free marketeers want media markets, concentration and ownership unfettered by the heavy hand of the government. Unfortunately for them, they can't have it both ways. For more, see: "Markets, Morality and Monday Night Football" And speaking of Michael Powell, Jeff from Minnesota won the Michael Powell Award in the Name That Bush Scandal Contest...

    Re: FCC Gives Up (none / 0) (#6)
    by Adept Havelock on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 11:13:35 AM EST
    Very true, Jon. It will be interesting to watch all the so-called conservatives that seem to have nothing but contempt for the open market when it comes to their pet issues like FCC oversight. These people are the first to scream "that offends me, get the govt. to get it off the air. I don't care that the market shows that people want this!" How they butt heads with true conservatives will be a source of laughter for us all. After all, SpongeDob SquareRants can't hoard all the humour.

    Re: FCC Gives Up (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 11:39:08 AM EST
    Corporations could care less what you watch as long as they make money. In fact, General Motors makes a hefty profit in the soft porn business through it's pay per view business in hotel rooms. I don't know why some liberals have a problem with Fox. Don't watch it. Meanwhile, NPR, PBS and Air America have more listeners combined than Fox News (the network that broke the Bush DUI story) has viewers. Not to mention ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN. The reason there is no mass progressive media is the same as the reason there is no mass fascist media (and those that think Fox or the WSJ are fascist you might want to consult a dictionary) - there's no proven way to make money in it. Notice how Clear Channel has become a huge advocate of Air America in recent months. This after listening to Randi Rhodes say they conspired to keep her from syndication for the past ten years. With the internet and a myriad of other ways of transmitting information quickly, this becomes much ado about nothing. And remember, it was President Clinton who signed the Telecommunications Deregulation Act of 1996.

    Re: FCC Gives Up (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 11:40:03 AM EST
    Thanks for the Chronicle lead, Fred. I would toss on the fire that the New York Times Company was one of the organizations pushing hardest for further consolidation. This is mentioned without elaboration by Labaton in his Times piece today -- which was published in the business section, not news section. Put another way, the Bush administration could not find a way to justify a Times Company initiative because it was too radical, too corporate-minded and too politically sensitive. ...In case you're all wondering how we got to this point.

    Re: FCC Gives Up (none / 0) (#9)
    by theologicus on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 02:04:48 PM EST
    Your welcome, Julio. (!)

    Re: FCC Gives Up (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 02:38:20 PM EST
    "Posted by BocaJeff: "Corporations could care less what you watch as long as they make money. Utterly untrue. The right-wingers who own or run several of the major media outlets have actively driven dissenting voices out of their companies. When Conrad Black purchased some 70% of Canada's newspapers, the consolidation in which most of the staff was fired favored the ideologues who made Conrad Black happy. Everyone else: the boot. "I don't know why some liberals have a problem with Fox." Because they lie with impunity. "Don't watch it." What does that have to do with it? They are using our airwaves to spread lies. That's illegal. " Meanwhile, NPR, PBS" Both of which have been taken over by rightwing interests. "The reason there is no mass progressive media is the same as the reason there is no mass fascist media" Hardly. Air America can't get a station in Los Angeles because of winger-owned stations unwilling to lease their airwaves. "... there's no proven way to make money in it." Absurd and untrue. Air America is making a great deal of money. "Notice how Clear Channel has become a huge advocate of Air America in recent months." You just contradicted yourself. But Clear Channel is a disgusting propaganda machine, in many cases spreading violence with their lies, such as the 'how to kill bicyclists' theme on an Ohio CC station, or the smashing of Dixie Chicks CDs, organized in the south by CC. "With the internet and a myriad of other ways of transmitting information quickly, this becomes much ado about nothing." Not in the slightest. Most Americans are grossly misinformed, to our great detriment. And remember, it was President Clinton who signed the Telecommunications Deregulation Act of 1996." Another of his disgraces. At least he didn't drive the country to war for the profit of his friends. We shall have our airwaves back, and woe to the companies that have promoted lies for political favor and profit.

    Re: FCC Gives Up (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 09:38:50 PM EST
    Business 101 for Dummies: Publically Funded Corporations (an Oxymoron, more accurately, Corporately Funded Corporations) have one guiding imperative (supposedly); ROI aka create "value" (capital) for shareholders (other corporations). Today that means Capital Gains, not dividends, because "Public" Corporations always "reinvest" their profits into "innovations" (i.e. Executive compensation and marketing campaigns). Thus, Business must follow the path of eliminating costs (i.e. quality products, quality labor, quality jobs, etc.) in order to maintain profitability (Executive Compensation). You know, those guys who "earned" (bought) their positions through "hard work" (free ride) in college (ivy league) and "reputation" (good ol' boy network). I know, I know - all of them were on academic scholarship. The only time this doesn't happen is when Government comes calling, heaping fines and taking money out of the hands of the Corporations and their shareholders (other Corporations). Rather than reducing REAL waste, "Public" Corporations will, of course, choose to simply pass along all of those excess costs to you, the consumer or you, the recently pink slipped mid/entry level professional (carrying thousands of dollars in personal debt). They can only go so far with that, however. At some point, the burden is too great to pass along. Thus, they must "eat" that cost (i.e. more job losses, lesser quality products - but never executive compensation). But for some, it can also mean installing the relatively cheap new Coal Scrubber, or requiring the meat packing company to spend that darned extra $.10 per unit to inspect their spiced pig innards for Ecoli, or to spend the extra thousand $ to have SEC oversight to (supposedly) ensure that companies aren't building illegal trusts (that any true Keynesian SHOULD [but doesn't] object to). It's too late for additional regs in the media. We would have to resurrect or clone Teddy Roosevelt to break the legalized monopolies of today. So by all means, let's all champion even more biased outlets for "accepted, reputable" information. Its already all gone to hell, let's make it worse for the sake of our entertainment (i.e. Al Franken, Tucker Carlson). Have fun with it. Day trade and dabble in Mutual Funds. Get your 10% earnings while you pay the minimums on your 18% consumer debt. Scrap social services social safety nets. Who cares about society, as long as you get that new gadget/dress you don't need ON-DEMAND. Our system is built to maintain the status quo. The American Dream itself is becoming an Oxymoron, with globalization making Ross Perot's sucking sound a very real prospect. Keep letting the media program your brain. As Tyresius said in Antigone towards the end of his rant to Creon, "That is all I have to say."

    Re: FCC Gives Up (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 06:41:11 AM EST
    theologicus - There is no glass ceiling, but editors might decide to not pay a lot of attention to stories that admit their conclusion could vary between 8,000 and 194,000. The average person reading it would probably mutter, "What a waste of newsprint," and flip the paper in the trash. Paul In LA - The allocation of use of broadcast frequencies by the government was done because there was a finite number available. This was based on both transmission (broadcast) and receiver capabilities (radio and TV). Thus setting both broadcast power limits and frequency allocations, which prevents interference, was done for technical reasons. The content filter was based on the morals of the world at that time This is not the case of the cable channels. They are not broadcast "over the air," but are transmitted over cable from the distribution point to the home. Thus they pose no interference threat to "over the air" broadcasts. The content filter does apply, but is greatly reduced from what it was, and many would argue that since the content is sent to a specific location via private means, rather than broadcast over public frequencies, the FCC has no right to regulate. Now that you have been exposed to some of the background, please continue your usual un-informed rant.

    Re: FCC Gives Up (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 09:12:16 AM EST
    DA - Cable and over the air are two different technologies. Even the Left should understand the difference. Do you think the government should control and issue licenses to publishers? No real difference between cable and paper, both are point to point mediums.

    Re: FCC Gives Up (none / 0) (#16)
    by pigwiggle on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 06:01:41 AM EST
    [they must operate] In the public interest, convenience, and necessity. A sad irony that the implementation of this requirement isn’t in the public’s interest, limiting choice and free expression.

    Re: FCC Gives Up (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:39:59 AM EST
    DA - Yes, I made the point about early government regulation. And it was because, without it, competing stations would be broadcasting on the same frequencies, with the strongest wiping out the weaker. Especially at night. That is why the number of 50,000 watt stations were limited, and why many stations must either reduce power, or go off the air at sundown. The first "cable" was merely over the air TV broadcasts picked up, cleaned up and sent over coax cables. There was no content, although local advertising was sold in some cases, and some community activity was sent over cable. The regulators jumped in an claimed a right to regulate these companies, although they had no good reason. It was a power grab. Along came TNT and CNN and the genie was out of the bottle. There is no public airwaves involved, so all that is left is a claim to protect the morals of the public. Given that cable is a point to point medium, I again note that there is no difference between it and a book publisher.

    FCC Gives Up | 15 comments (15 topical)