House Overturns FCC Media Consolidation Plan 348
son_of_a_general writes "Looks like the House of Representatives just overturned the FCC's media consolidation rules, previously covered on Slashdot here(1), here(2), and here(3). The article over at CNet shows that the House passed a bill that overturned the rules, by a 400 to 21 vote. All is not clear yet, however, as the bill still must pass through Senate and face being signed by a President who has already indicated that he may veto."
it doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Please, can the government make one good decision this year, please??? I mean sure, it's just a correction of a previous bad move, but it's something. Gotta set the expectation bar low to achieve satisfaction.
Vox Populi (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way I could see this getting messed up is if the language gets neutered in a compromise bill, though, so we're still going to have to speak out to our local Representatives and Senators to let them know what we think. And with any luck, they might even listen.
Don't let them fool you (Score:5, Insightful)
At the time of last month's vote, Powell said the United States needs "modern rules that take into account the explosion of new media outlets" and are not tied to a "bygone black-and-white era." Technology offers a wealth of media alternatives--such as the Internet, 802.11 wireless networks, XM and Sirius satellite radio, DirecTV, hundreds of cable channels, low-power FM radio--that were not available a generation ago, the argument goes.
While it's true that these options may (or may not) have existed a generation ago, it is my considered opinion that most of them are on the fringe, expensive to break into and maintain, and have yet to prove themselves viable. Why should big-biz media interests be allowed to further control the media that is already established and has a wide audience, while the independent interests would be force to assume take all the risk to develop new channels? Especially when those new channels would probably get swept up (by another FCC gazelle-style roll over) by the big-biz outlets once they were established as viable?
Go House. I'm surprizingly proud.
GMFTatsujin
Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Amusing (Score:4, Insightful)
I recommend Eric Alterman's What Liberal Media [whatliberalmedia.com] as a resource (from a left-wing perspective) on media bias: it's not the whole truth, but it's probably the best thing written on the subject.
Re:it doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Small Point (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd have to disagree. Allowing huge media conglomerates to own more media outlets is not a good thing. The media has been, from the beginning of this country, the watchdog of government. It's changed, for the worse, into more of a cheerleading outfit these days and that's not a good thing and consolidation can only make it worse by allowing for less diversity and less opposing opinions. The media is supposed to keep the public informed and keep the government in check but that is less likely to happen with local issues and opposing views when the media becomes more national and less diverse. This is bound to happen when a small number of corporations own most of the media outlets across the country.
The media as a watchdog is much more important than the media as a business.
Am I being too cynical... (Score:5, Insightful)
The president might veto this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Any politician that takes more than a certain amount of campaign contributions (say, both an absolute threshhold of $10K and a certain percentage of their total fundraising) from a corporation (including individiuals that work for that corporation) or organization has to wear a sticker, clearly visible both from the front and the back, with the logo of the company or organization on it whenever they are in public in an official capacity. Think of those stickers pasted all over racing cars.
I wonder how many stickers Bush would have.
Re:Amusing (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh?
Can they seriously be deluded enough to think that the benign anchor Tom Brokaw could possibly be to me as Rush Limbaugh is to them? What channel are they watching? Do they honestly think people are leaving messages on Brokaw's answering machine that say:
"Mega-dittoes, Tom! I laughed so hard last night at that imitation you did of Bush. And the scorching tongue-lashing you gave Cheney! Wooo! And when you closed your newscast by saying, 'The conservatives are ruining this country because they hate America', I was clapping, I tell you, clapping. You gotta run for President!"
* * *
I don't begrudge the conservatives their jingoistic news channels and hate-mongering "Why don't you get AIDS and die" talk radio hosts. I'd just like them to admit the bias. Admit that they're seceding from reality by creating a cocoon of alternate news outlets that exist only to soothe wounded right wing egos and pound the drum of the most annoying and least noble forms of patriotism.
Is that too much to ask?
Re:Rights Shmights (Score:2, Insightful)
Not necessarily. If it wasn't for diverse and independent media we might not even hear of some of these things that you mention. I believe the consolidation of media is a very important issue. We need to worry about this because it will affect all of us.
Re:Amusing (Score:5, Insightful)
It's simple. The bias is their POLITICAL neutrality. How can neutrality be a bias? Quite simple. That neutrality rewards the extremists and punishes the moderates. Those that are willing to go to extremes find that their ideas and arguments are given equal credence to a moderate idea. Even if all the facts and fingures go against it. Must keep the neutrality!
Put that on top of that these sources are looking for viewers, so information gets pushed down, and entertainment gets pushed up. Meaning that the nuances of tax bills and foreign policy go pretty much unnoticed.
What we want is reality neutral. If something is BS..say it. Give the facts, and let us decide from that. Don't cover up facts in order to give the impression of political neutrality.
Re:A different perspective (Score:2, Insightful)
This decision has been long been made... (Score:5, Insightful)
We need to act now, before the decision has been rendered. Once it has, there is very little chance of getting it changed. What's at stake is the very nature of democracy in this country. There is no way to rectify this if a bad decision is made. How do we rectify this in 10 years from now, once Clear Channel has bought up the few remaining independent stations? Do we really expect that at that point, a healthy debate about breaking up Clear Channel will be allowed by Clear Channel?
Clear Channel says it needs to be allowed to buy the remaining independent stations in order to become profitable. If they haven't become profitable at this size, what makes us believe that will become profitable when they have taken over the rest? Lets face it folks, these guys are lying to us saying that they are not profitable. They are quite profitable now, and what's really driving this is pure greed at the expense of this country's core values. They are destroying this country at the expense of a few bucks. Enough is enough.
Not what it means (Score:1, Insightful)
It means that House members are tired of arguing over the bill in question and are ready to call it a day and vote for whatever the bill has in it.
Appropriations bills regularly pass by very large margins.
Re:A different perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not a sound argument. First of all most of those "500-plus" channels are all owned by a few conglomerates. There is FOX, FOX NEWS, FOX SPORTS, and there are 5 HBO's and 5 Showtimes, and then there is AOL Time Warner and so on and so forth. There were only a few stations in 1973 because the technology was still in its infancy and the demand was not as high as it is today. It is important to notice that those stations were all owned by different companies so in that respect it was more diverse not less. More stations != more diversity.
Re:Can't figure it out (Score:5, Insightful)
Fortunately, this issue is one where the interests of politicians (their interest being themselves) and the general public (their interest also being themselves) intersect. With Fox News' rise to the top of the cable news ratings with a wide margin behind them, as well as an even wider one during events that interest the general public such as wars and terrorist attacks, left-leaning politicians have come to realize what many of their Republican colleagues figured out while the "Big 3" networks were at the top of the heap: a healthy variety of opinion in the media is a good thing, because it stops one side or another from having their character assassinated on a daily basis. One would logically assume that the right wing politicians would be in favor of greater media consolidation now that Fox News is in the lead, but years of left wing network TV media have convinced the older politicians that homogeneous media of ANY kind is a bad thing, so they're voting against consolidation, too.
Savor it while it lasts...
Re:Amusing (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want a real analysis on bias of Western (read American) media, read Manufacturing Consent [amazon.com].
Re:Can't figure it out (Score:5, Insightful)
When you look at it there are large swathes of both sides of politics who would oppose this on principle. On the left, anyone with a serious civil liberties, free speech type agenda will surely be opposed to this. On the right, anyone with a small government/libertarian type agenda will naturally oppose the concentration of media power as contrary to their aims.
It's really only the chumps in the middle - Bush with his corporate pals and neocons, Lieberman and the member of the New York/Washington set of big government Democrats - who are going to want to allow this.
Is it possible that, just for once, this is a case of politics actually reflecting what people want irrespective of partisan allegiance? What's going to be really interesting is to see if Bush is game to use his veto, and if so if the house will vote again to overrule him. So far he has basically put the veto stamp away and signed anything that's been put in front of him... kinda like a trained monkey.... (ahem).
Re:Don't let them fool you (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. I recently exposed a non-techie friend to the downsides of media deregulation and his GOP sentator sent him the same talking points memo you quoted. Essentially, he wrote that "new technology" is a new playing field that satisfies the lassiez-faire dream. Err, no its not. How difficult, if not impossible, is it to get my local community or even the metropolitan area's issues on DirecTv? Pretty hard I'd say. Just to get the already established broadcast stations I have to pay an extra rebroadcasting fee.
Compare these entrenched wealthy networks to community radio or the UHF channels of old and I clearly would take the position that new technology and consolidation has made television worse off in regards to "media alternatives."
I really take an issue with the "hundreds of cable" channels line, like they're suggesting there can't be much of a barrier to entry because "hundreds" is such a big number. In real life this means established channels get more bandwidth so instead on one HBO we get six. Instead of one MTV we get two, etc. Worse, televangelist hate-speech gets more channels while less profitable religions (or less profit driven) get no exposure at all.
Also, treating the media like any other product is ignoring its powerful influencial messages and how most people interact (for the lack of a better term) with politics.
Please. (Score:4, Insightful)
Try to keep tinkgs in perspective.
Re:Small Point (Score:2, Insightful)
I think that inferrs that the media and the goverment are in alignment. I don't think that's so much true as the fact that both of them have basically turned into ratings whores - The media for ratings, the goverment for votes - neither caring for the actual welfare of the people.
The media as a watchdog is much more important than the media as a business.
Sort of applies to the goverment as well (assuming a positive sense of "watchdog").
Re:"May veto?" (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe because Bush is our bizarro president? Bush had fewer votes than opponent, so he won the election. Now he does everything that the majority doesn't want. Bush must always be backwards. To bring about peace and stability, he adopts a policy of preemptive strikes. To leave no child behind, he cancels education funding. To protect a forest from wildfires, he cuts down the trees. To protect U.S. from terrorist attacks, he pisses off the entire world as much as possible. Bizarro President is as good an explanation as any. Either that, or it's some kinda bet between all those rich guys.
Re:Amusing (Score:4, Insightful)
For example, back when the majority of people in the United States supported slavery, you'd see opinions that were slightly more in favor and slightly less in favor but anyone who came out with the view that slavery was utterly unacceptable was viewed as too extreme and disregarded. So it was only the pro-slavery extremests that were rewarded
In the present day, you see opinions that are slightly in favor of US foreign policies and opinons that are slightly opposed to US foreign policies but the view that pre-emptive invasion is utterly unacceptable, for example, is viewed as too extreme and disregarded. So it is only the pro-preemptive-invasion extremests that are rewarded.
In general, the media is not a good indicator of whether a view is extreme but only whether a view is popular.
Re:Am I being too cynical... (Score:2, Insightful)
In commissioner Copp's dissent [fcc.gov], he claimed that all the people (citizens) he talked to, not one was for more media consolidation. It could simply be the democratic processes at work: do what your constituents want, and get reelected.
You're not cynical enough... (Score:4, Insightful)
In the report on CNN [cnn.com] they mention that Republicans are going around seeking member's signatures on a pledge to vote to sustain a veto. Since it requires a super majority(2/3rds) to override a veto, they only need 145 votes to defeat this measure.
This was a political game and it's largely symbolic, Republicans vote to support this so when they go back to their constituents they can't be attacked. Then the ones who are in solid seats with no reasonable opposition can vote against it to override the veto.
If you want to make sure that doesn't happen, write your congress critter and let them know how you feel and make it clear you'll be mad enough to start a grassroots campaign against them if they vote against this.
Re:You know it's funny (Score:3, Insightful)
"The mob" (Score:2, Insightful)
It's to prevent the tyranny of the mob.
What's the difference between the broadcast networks and organized crime? The broadcast networks (all of which except NBC are owned by Hollywood movie studios) elect officials because I'd estimate that at least 90 percent of the registered voters just do what the networks say.
Re:What the answers mean (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The president might veto this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Amusing (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, I have never heard CNN claiming to be fair or balanced (unbiased), they leave that decision to their viewers.
I am not saying that CNN is unbiased, but it is funny that you would mention an anchor who doesn't bash conservatives, and does not claim a lack of bias, over the entire channel that is biased and claims to be balanced. I am sorry, but hipocrisy really gets my goat!