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."
Well.. (Score:2)
Re:Well.. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well.. (Score:5, Informative)
"Rejected funding" is really just a code word for using a budget bill to eliminate something mostly unrelated to the allocation of specific amounts of government funds. The effect of this bill is that the FCC cannot spend even one dollar of government money to implement their plan, but rules that are already in place say that things like the FCC's plan cannot be privately funded. Therefore, they have $0 to implement the plan. Thus, the plan is void and will be replaced with whatever plan the funding has been allocated to (in this case, the old FCC rules before the recent change).
It's the same effect as making a gun legal, but outlawing the specific ammo for it. Sure, you can legally own and use the gun, but if they've banned its ammo, then they've effectively banned the gun. If you're hellbent on owning a projectile weapon, then you'll have to buy whichever one you can legally buy ammunition for.
And yes, as I'm sure you're thinking, politicians really DO play some damned stupid games. The mating rituals of various brightly colored birds and amphibians are simple and logical by comparison.
Re:Well.. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:it doesn't matter (Score:4, Funny)
Well, we will just have to see what the senate says.
Re:it doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:it doesn't matter (Score:4, Interesting)
Please. (Score:4, Insightful)
Try to keep tinkgs in perspective.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: two possibilities (Score:5, Funny)
Also, "A veto override is a political catastrophe for a President"... Yes, when has something being a political catastrophe had any sway in changing Bush's mind?
I swear, that man scares me more than Reagan!
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:it doesn't matter (Score:5, Informative)
A veto override requires passage of the bill a second time by both houses of Congress, each with a 2/3 majority. See Article I, Section 7 of the US Constitution.
"May veto?" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:"May veto?" (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
He thinks it's not even relevent (Score:4, Funny)
And yes, you can consider this flamebait if you please ; I'd rather get modded down on
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]...
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: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).
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.
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.
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.
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 sen
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
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: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.
Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
400-21? (Score:2)
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:Amusing (Score:3, Funny)
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
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!
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: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:Amusing (Score:2)
The fact is the media is NOT giving us the straight story. Some outlets are biased one way and some the other. Whichever side is talking tends to ignore bias in their favor, and point out the bias against them.
The problem i
Re:Amusing (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want a real analysis on bias of Western (read American) media, read Manufacturing Consent [amazon.com].
Liberal bias has been shown over and over. (Score:2)
In 1995 Kenneth Walsh, a reporter for U.S. News & World Report surveyed his fellow white house correspondants on who they voted for. 50 voted D 7 voted R. 7:1.
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 t
What??? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:What??? (Score:3, Funny)
You mean to be telling me that my government might be doing something good?
No.
The House is just saying that maybe the government is wrong in screwing Americans over as much as they were going to, and are trying to revert back to the more gentle screwing you were getting earlier.
A decrease in bad is not the same as an increase in good.
Re:What??? (Score:2)
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.
Re:A little bit about the FCC Chairman (Score:5, Informative)
for a minute there . . . (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:for a minute there . . . (Score:2)
Independent government-funded media.
Re:for a minute there . . . (Score:2)
Damn I loved Dexter Pinion
Re:for a minute there . . . (Score:2)
In Oz, on the other hand, we have a small population - most of our cities only support one newspaper, and we really have only one national paper. On top of this we have ridiculous limits on the number of TV and rad
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:Goes against the UD (Score:2)
The UD is utopian crap which shouldn't really enter into any discussion of politics in the United States.
And here, you can always publish your missive. John Peter Zenger. Google for it, you might learn something.
Re:Goes against the UD (Score:2)
The former US ambassador to the UN, Jeane Kirkpatrick, agrees with you. She described articles of the UD as "a letter to Santa Claus".
Incidentally, the US did not accept the Declrations on the Right to Development, or the Rights of the Child.
The US and Somalia were the only countries not to accept the Declaration on the Rights of the Child (Somalia lacking a real government and being run by warlords).
Re:Goes against the UD (Score:2)
Rights are only rights inasmuch as they don't require an action by another in order to be exercised. There is nothing in this law that prevents you, legally, from owning a broadcast outlet. Go buy one if
Re:Goes against the UD (Score:2)
And so it's more free if it's controlled by the government?
Who the fuck said anything about government control? We're talking about placing ownership limits. That's it. If you own media outlets, you are limited in what you can own. Limits. On. Ownership. No government ownership. No "socialization" of the media. Lim. Its.
The UD is utopian crap which shouldn't really enter into any discussion of politics in the United States.
Really. I find it fascinating that you think that a topic shouldn't enter int
Re:Goes against the UD (Score:2)
Did you bother to read the OP? If corporations/individuals do not own the media outlets, governments are the only other possible owners.
I find it fascinating that you think that a topic shouldn't enter into a dicussion based on geography. So should it be discussed in Canada? Peru? Bangladesh, per
Re:Goes against the UD (Score:2)
maybe if your a def mute who never leaves the house and your only source of "media" is the television. this is the communication age, information travels thru so many different facets so many different ways we could lose television altogether and be just fine.
Please send all UN comments (Score:2)
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.
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.
Am I being too cynical... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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:The president might veto this? (Score:2)
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:What the answers mean (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The president might veto this? (Score:4, Informative)
Let's say Microsoft, AOL, and Disney want to push digital rights management (DRM) as a political measure -- forcing all computers, old and new, in the United States to be DRM-enabled at the hardware level. So they form a political action committee -- a PAC, say called the MAD DRM PAC.
Now they wanna donate $100,000 to say...Bush. So instead, they each pump ~$33,300 into MAD DRM PAC, and then MAD DRM PAC donates that money (~$100,000) to Bush's campaign. Now that money didn't come from Microsoft, AOL or Disney, it came from MAD DRM PAC.which "decided" to donate that money to Bush.
So Bush wouldn't have to wear the MS logo, the AOL logo or the Disney logo because he didn't receive a DIME from those companies, he recieved all his money from MAD DRM PAC, which is a non-profit organization.
Your understanding of political campaign fundraising issues is somewhat limited. No offense.
Re:The president might veto this? (Score:4, 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.
Re:This decision has been long been made... (Score:2)
Clear Channel's profitibility is suspect. Why? I'm not quite sure. But their so
Re:This decision has been long been made... (Score:2)
I am. Executive compensation packages. They're what is killing our wages and lots of companies. They're the reason why stockholders have been suing various corporations (Judge Group, Disney, etc) lately. If Clear Channel fired its CEO (L. Lowry Mays) his reward for being fired would amount to $28 million, not counting stock benefits. (source: CNN Money)
Multiply that by all the upper level executives and you see the problem. They parasit
Here's what I'd like to know (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Here's what I'd like to know (Score:2)
All I can say is this.. (Score:2)
Bring it...
This bill gets vetoed, it's over for Bush. Easy as that.
Re:All I can say is this.. (Score:2)
Over the course of a presidential campaign, given a candidate not afriad to go to bat?
It will become a huge issue.
Re:All I can say is this.. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:All I can say is this.. (Score:3, Informative)
he urged Americans to send him, the other commissioners, and members of Congress their thoughts via post, telephone and email. According to the FCC's Adelstein nearly two million people have done so. And by the FCC's own calculations, over 99.9 percent of these citizens demand that the FCC keep the existing media ownership rules, or tighten them.
It's funny how you claim an independent magazine is a "lunatic fringe news source" because it
I'm sick and tired ... (Score:2)
What? They overturned a decision like that, shit. Well keep going, nothing to see here.
Crazy (Score:2)
Good work congress. now do the same yeoman's job on ip laws and turn the clock back to say 1780.
Veto possibilities... (Score:4, Interesting)
Why is this bad? (Score:2, 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
I Don't Usually Advocate Violence... (Score:2)
therefore, I would like him to be head about the head, neck and breast area several times.
I can't wait for him to retire and wait for his daddy to arrange for his next job. Who knows...we may find him on the Supreme Court soon.
I shake my head in shame. (Score:2)
If the prez vetoes, he will be such an asshole. He already is, to an extant. I still think that we're better off with him than we would ever have been with Gore, but I digress. It's not like we had much of a choice anyways.
I already feel some amount of shame for voting for him, but I will completely shamed if he vetoes. I really would like this bill to pass. I really hope that the pres listens to the majority of the population in this one, considering he has to put his job on the line in a year and a
Wait, what did they decide? (Score:2)
You know it's funny (Score:4, Funny)
Re:You know it's funny (Score:3, Insightful)
A good example of why concentration is bad (Score:3, Informative)
This is an article about the US media fawning over private Lynch despite the fact that she was injured by US military incompetence, not Iraqis, that she was captured without a fight, not firing her weapon valiantly to the end, that the US met no resistence in the hospital during her rescue and actually fired on a doctor trying to bring her out and hand her over.
Luckily for the rest of the world the actual facts have not been totally obscured because non-US media outlets have managed to get hold of the story... but the fewer outlets there are, the less would actually be known about this. As it is it sounds like half of America is still swallowing the 'enhanced' story whole... must be the same half that thinks Iraq used chemical weapons in the war and that the September 11 attacks were linked to Iraq.
In fact, when you look at it the media is already basically concentrated by virtue of the fact that it is ideologically concentrated. Once an 'accepted' version of a story is selected by someone, it becomes gospel and is repeated throughout the land.
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 t
Re:A good example of why concentration is bad (Score:3, Informative)
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).
Shooting something off is about it. (Score:2)
"Since the FCC's vote June 2, criticism of the commission's decision had grown from the left and right of the conventional political spec
The Harsh Reality (Score:3, Informative)
This 2002 ruling criticized the FCC for the "arbitrary and capricious" 35% national ownership cap and told the FCC to reconsider it. Though he probably enjoyed doing it, Powell thus had very little choice in the matter of changing the cap, despite what everyone likes to believe. In fact, he has referred to this fact over [fcc.gov] and over [fcc.gov] again.
It may be possible to justify the 35% cap somehow. The judge did not destroy the cap, he basically just vacated it. On the other hand, he did wipe out the cable-broadcast cross-ownership rule completely because he didn't think that it could be justified. The same logic is easily applied to the other major part of the June 2003 rule changes: newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership. There is no point in arguing that point of the rules, as the Judicial Branch would throw it out the window immediately.
So, if you are all looking for someone to verbally crucify, look towards the judicial bench that prompted this rather than the FCC.
major clarification (Score:5, Informative)
Much of this is froufrou. While I take some sort of glee in the fact that the *partial* rollback measure was attached as a "rider" to a spending bill - just like how Congress screwed LPFM back in 2000 - similar legislation must still be passed by the Senate, and then survive a conference committee, a veto, AND an override, in order to actually happen.
Symbolically, this is a very good thing (as well as being somewhat historic in a political sense), but in the real world it will likely get axed in the dead of night by the real string-pullers in Congress, and what the FCC did will stay in place.
That is why just ignoring the FCC to begin with makes for more fun. (viva microradio!)
Seriously tho, if you want the scoop on the politics you can get near-daily updates from media reform lobbyists working the Hill [mediareform.net]. I don't know if they keep archives of their reports, but I do remember seeing that more than this rider was in play at one time. One other proposed amendment (sunk before getting to the floor, I believe) would've rolled back most if not all of the FCC's changes, but the one that made the cut was the weakest of the bunch.
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.
Re:A different perspective (Score:2, Insightful)
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:A different perspective (Score:2)
Just take their argument where they state we are "unambiguosly better off" due to "more competitive" and "less concentrated" media and ask, why then does Cato argue for less competition when they just praised the results of more competition?
Not a sound argument indeed!
Cato == Corporate Ass & Tongue Oralators
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 o
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