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."
"May veto?" (Score:4, Interesting)
Can't figure it out (Score:4, Interesting)
What I haven't quite figured out is -why- congress is so pissed. They were out for a piece of Powell during that hearing where he defended the decision.
Lets face it- almost everything our politicians do now is either in the interests of business, stripping our rights, or pork-grabbing for votes come next election(some all of the above). This is, if I ever saw it, some seriously anti-corporate stuff. Is this a case of public opinion being strong enough that they thought they couldn't get away with going with the corporations? Has our house and senate been replaced by aliens? :-)
[discuss]...
Small Point (Score:2, Interesting)
Please, feel free to flame, but it's the truth. The rules only hindered business and were not 'protecting' anyone.
A little bit about the FCC Chairman (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the guy who is saying that it's perfectly OK for a small number of companies to gobble up even more media outlets.
I don't think Mr Powell has learned very much about antitrust.
for a minute there . . . (Score:2, Interesting)
Goes against the UD (Score:5, Interesting)
When all media is controlled by large corporations, it really precludes any involvement of the general populace.
Re:Well.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Rights Shmights (Score:4, Interesting)
If you live in a state that is even considering legalizing the medical use of marijuana, your state's federal funding may be axed.
An amendment that would prohibit unlawful search and seizure of personal data between government agencies pertaining to records of suspected terrorists was struck down.
And finally Sheila Jackson Lee's amendments were unanimously voted down (hooray).
This FCC crap is the least of your worries.
Media Regulation through Fair Use Rights (Score:1, Interesting)
That way, a small news organization could, for example, use the Fox News feed of the State of the Union but then provide an independent commentary.
Here's what I'd like to know (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:it doesn't matter (Score:4, Interesting)
Veto possibilities... (Score:4, Interesting)
Why is this bad? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:"May veto?" (Score:5, Interesting)
North Dakota... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yet, every once and a while, there is a suprise, like Dorgan (i think it was) spearheading this effort (read his debate with the head of Fox). And the public shooting down the effort to allow banks for sell personal info (Big Corps advertised like every commercial break in support of the bill).
Anyway, I reelecting Dorgan (well what theres no green party here
Re:Don't let them fool you (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
I agree. So far as I can tell, the only independent news organization on the web is Salon, and it has barely been able to survive, let alone prosper enough to buy other organizations. Every other news site with original content is just an extension of some other, offline version: newspapers, cable news channels, etc.
In short, Powell's argument that there are more choices today rings hollow. The Internet has much to be said for it, but levelling the playing field of the media isn't something it has been able to accomplish.
Re:it doesn't matter (Score:3, Interesting)
The rules about owning newpapers and radio stations and whatnot still go away.
Just the limits on station ownership go back.
Have I understood this correctly?
Re:it doesn't matter (Score:3, Interesting)
The House can't overturn a Presidental Veto, the Senate can. However if the President decides to fight this if there strong anti-FCC feelings in the Senate it could get ugly for him.
If the Senate can get 50-60 votes for the bill, the President would be wise to sit on his hands and just let it go, there are bigger fish to fry.
Re:What the answers mean (Score:5, Interesting)
Nope, I'm one of those pathetic people who actually studied history and learned how bad it was before unions formed.
Are unions perfect? Absolutely not. They can, and must, be improved. However a bad union is infinitely superior to no union.
Go read up on what life was like pre-union. It sucked damn hard. The Rockerfellers of the world were able to pretty much do what they wanted to and no one could stop them. Unions are the only thing that has a proven track record of putting a check on corporate power. Come up with a better idea and I'll back it, but unless you can I'll keep trying to improve unions, not destroy them.
I will definately agree that *some*, not all, unions have been failing in their primary duty to serve their members. This can be corrected fairly simply through regulation and oversight, it is not necessary to dismantle unions in general.
My main argument in favor of unions is simple: Where I live (Texas) unions don't have much clout, and wages here are around 20%-30% lower than they are in the average union state. It doesn't get much simpler than that.
Re:it is veto proof int eh house.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yup. He doubtless will. And he will doubtless claim that he supported the idea all along. Mr. Bush has a history of opposing popular measures, then claiming that he supported (or invented) them when they are inevitable.
For example, while he was the Governer of Texas he fought tooth and nail against the Patient's Bill of Rights. Vetoed it once, and allowed it to pass without his signature when it went through the Ledge with a veto-proof majority. Later, during his Presidential campaign, he claimed credit for the bill and listed it was one of his accomplishments as Governer...
Typical of the man, and typical of the media that not a single reporter called him on it.
Re:Amusing (Score:3, Interesting)
The bias isn't for left or right, it's against reporting. Reporting is a waste of resources from their point of view. If they all spent some money on discovering the truths and the arguements that underlie the issues we the citizens care about or that effect us but only a few of us know about because we are directly effected then the media companies would have higher because our democracy and economy would function more efficiently. But if any one media outlet begins spending money on reporting they make everyone richer, including their competition.
There are also issues like access to the populace that they all see in their self-interest to prevent others from getting. NPR is seen as a liberal outlet by some, but they were out front fighting with Clearchannel against micro-broadcasting so it is not classically liberal. The classical liberal view is for the dissemination of ideas not for the protection of a tiny media class, whatever their presumed political point of view. This latest FCC ruling and the DSL killing ruling earlier this year also flew under the radar because it is in the media owners interest to not have competition against their cable modems. This is basic self-interest, which just happens to conflict with the public interest. You see this also when the dis blogs and other internet news sources as somehow having less accurate reporting than even their own. The new copyright laws that take away my property right of lending software or creating a new work that disparagingly references some book of long dead author who voted against Abraham Lincoln, and whose great grandson voted for Adolf Hitler because it is still "owned" by his ancestors. There used to be rules preventing media distributors like the television networks from producing (and hence "owning") televison programs to prevent this type of conflict of interests.
Well I'm hoping Jefferson was right and ideas are the least amenable things for ownership. Though I hope he wasn't right about the need to take up arms every generation or two to rid ourselves of our own hostile governments.
Re:A good example of why concentration is bad (Score:3, Interesting)
If the news source goes too far with their reporting, the leaks stop and they end up with far less news. So the military sets up Lynch as a war hero to give the troops and public something good to focus on at a time that the military campaign was in the doldrums, the press is going to print that story as told because it would cost the reporter, station, and network too much in future news leaks to research and print the actual story.
The problem is that the stations are too close to the government, not too close to each other.
Re:What the answers mean (Score:2, Interesting)
We have labor laws today that govern working conditions, minimum wage, safety, etc. These laws are the result of early unions. Today, unions serve no other purpose except to line the pockets of their leaders and control politicians.
My main argument in favor of unions is simple: Where I live (Texas) unions don't have much clout, and wages here are around 20%-30% lower than they are in the average union state. It doesn't get much simpler than that.
It does get simpler. You said nothing about cost of living in the respective states. I bet it's a helluva lot cheaper to live in Texas than closed-shop states.
Re:A good example of why concentration is bad (Score:3, Interesting)
Pretty convenient that she 'can't remember' half of her ordeal (the half where she got 'rescued' from a civilian hospital).
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I think I hope the President vetoes the bill (Score:3, Interesting)
The US media coverage during the Iraq war, for instance, fully demonstrated how one sided the US media already is - following the war in US and European media (even pro-war European media) one could be excused for thinking one were following two different wars.
On some issues, "freedom" of speech in the US is like being allowed to whisper while ten people are standing around you screaming through megaphones.
Allowing more media consolidation means allowing narrow economic interests to control even more of what the public hear, see and read. Talk all you want about how people can choose to read something else - fact is most people don't know whats available outside the mainstream because they're never told about it and never see it, and effectively don't have an opportunity to make the choice because of that.
My Prediction (Score:5, Interesting)
Rather than do that he'll probably back off on his threat to veto the bill, sacrifice the current FCC Chairman Michael Powell, have the next Chairman sabotage the enforcement mechanisms via administrative fiat and creative legislative re-interpretation. And then he'll vow to Big Media to make a full-court press to reinstate the changes...after his re-election.