They did it: FCC approves looser media ownership regulations (1 Viewer)

[LanceJ]

At Salon.com:

"FCC votes to ease media ownership rules"

Folks, this is scary.

LJ

 

[Jack Briggs]

Absolutely agreed, and I've touched on this issue in my PBS thread.

In discussing this, attempt the near impossible: eschew politics. This is an important subject with far-reaching implications for democracy as practiced in the U.S. And I just don't see how it can be discussed while adhering to our no-politics proviso. So expect closure at any time.

 

[Dennis]

Is there a silver lining to this?

It just seems like baby steps towards a totalitarian future. I started noticing this when all of the companies started merging and buying each other out to the point that there seems to be less and less options for us. It's going to be like cable!

 

[LanceJ]

Jack: Yep, this could DEFINITELY be a political subject. And I will not discuss that aspect here.

I'm just spreading the news...........

LJ

 

[MickeS]

Well, we might not have to worry about taking different opinions into account any longer.

Seriously, I don't think the issue is ownership concentration as much as it is what the owners do.

When it comes down to it, I think the main problem will be that there'll be more commercials everywhere, and higher costs for consumers. I don't think content will change much.

It still stinks though, especially after seeing recently how a majority of the american media (at least on TV) willingly played along with whatever the White House administration fed them. I don't think it can get much worse, so I don't think this decision makes much difference, sadly.

/Mike

 

[Jason_H]

This is quite frightening, indeed. I had been hearing about this vote for months, but it really happened. I hear rumors there are bi-partisan efforts in Congress to overrule this FCC rule, but I'm not certain. Might be a very good time to contact your local representative/senator.

 

[Brian E]

Democracy only works if folks participate. If you're for or against, let 'em know.

 

[Ryan Wright]

Democracy only works if folks participate. If you're for or against, let 'em know.

Call me a pessimist, but I don't think they give a damn. I've written thoughtful, polite letters to my congresscritters. All I've ever received in return is a bunch of pandering, nonsense and bullshit where the critters refused to take an issue on either side.

Me: "I feel strongly about x, and this is why."
Them: "There are valid opinions on both sides of x. Believe me when I say I am working to ensure the correct course of action is taken. I thank you for your concern, and don't forget to vote for me in the next election."

No good bastards. I've no idea who to vote for because they won't answer simple questions about where they stand on any given issue.

I've got half a mind to run for a state office as an independent with a "just the facts, ma'am" campaign. I've got no problem telling people which way I'd vote on any given issue and why.

 

[Josh Lowe]

A lot of this is total FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) being spread by certain organizations. I can't get into it more because it would result in a locked thread. All I'll say is that those blindly opposed to relaxing those regulations are being manipulated in the exact same manner that they're claiming will happen if there's more consolidation. Ironic, no?

 

[Holadem]

I've got half a mind to run for a state office as an independent with a "just the facts, ma'am" campaign. I've got no problem telling people which way I'd vote on any given issue and why.

And you will misarably fail. That was very naive of you.

There is a reason these people are so ambiguous. It's the only way to get elected. Name me one person that has made it while talking straight all along (actually don't, it would get this thread closed). Talking straight = alienate a large portion of the populace ==> You lose ==> Yeah, you're honest, but your honesty ain't doing much good to anyone if you can't get yourself in position of power and actually do the things you believe in.

In any case, this news is bad news.

--
Holadem

 

[Ryan Wright]

That was very naive of you.

I haven't done it yet. Only said I had "half a mind" ...

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Yep, bad news for sure. I heard a guy from the FCC talk about it the other day, and I knew that his mind had already been made up.

Even though complaints against it were running like 97%, and the reporter said that their own survey had a really hard time even finding 10 people that were for it.

Maybe we'll get lucky and the whole thing will blow up in their faces. One man they talked to said that a he found out that a forest fire was headed towards his house so he turned the TV on, only to find infomercials!

I can see the small stations getting swallowed up, and their programming changed to the new company's 'national' format, with no news, or even updates, at all.

And I don't even want to get into the thousands of media people that will be out of work.

Glenn

 

[Todd Hochard]

I propose that we relax the "no politics" aspect of this, because I'd REALLY REALLY like to hear why the continuing homogenization of our media (and the opinions which they often present as "fact") is a good thing.

FM Radio has already been ruined, IMO, by companies such as Clear Channel, who have provided me the "privilege" of hearing the same 50 songs as I drive the entire Eastern seaboard, hearing the same station jingles along the way.:rolleyes

Todd

 

[D. Scott MacDonald]

And I don't even want to get into the thousands of media people that will be out of work.

Sadly, I think that this will happen anyway. There are just too many sources of information out there for all of them to survive. For example, Seattle is currently a two-newspaper town, but I don't expect that to last much longer.

While I agree that this is scary, I don't think that it will have quite the impact that you all think it will. There are a huge number of ways to get your news these days (way more than there were ten years ago), so I just don't see one demographic controlling all of the info that we receive.

 

[Colin Dunn]

Could this be why more and more people are turning to the Internet and forgetting about the broadcast mass media? Lots of dull, homogenized, corporate content, owned by a few indistinguishable corporate conglomerates. It's no wonder I don't listen to the radio or watch TV very much anymore...

 

[RobertR]

Do we have fewer sources of information than we did, say, 30 years ago? I rather doubt it. Also, from what I've read, some opponents of these looser rules aren't necessarily in favor of greater access to independent voices. Part of the problem I have with the FCC is that they do this sort of thing half heartedly--loosening here, restricting access there.

 

[Joseph S]

I'm not surprised. Apparently, all my calls and letters concerning the failure in enforcing the HDTV/Digital 5/1/01 and 5/1/02 went without a response for a reason. They were all on vacation.

When is the auction of the old bands? When will Sinclair give me HDTV? When will Fox and Sinclair put out a digital signal that can be received outside of their parking lot???

Why was this Clear Channel TV edition shoved through so quickly when the issue of our tax dollars was shoved so far off the plate by these very commissioners?? The answer is $$$$$$$$$$$, I hope the amount of $ is enough to cover the next round of junkets.

So now we can get more of the same junk on multiple channels in the same old lower resolutions than we were promised to have been eliminated.

 

[ThomasC]

Some ads took on Rupert Murdoch, whose News Corp. owns Fox News Channel, 20th Century Fox TV and film studios, the New York Post and other media properties. Murdoch told a Senate committee last month he has no plan for a media buying spree after the changes, other than his proposed acquisition of DirecTV, the nation's largest satellite television provider.

Hey Simpsons writers, how about an entire episode dedicated to bashing News Corp. and Murdoch?

 

[Chris Beveridge]

There are a huge number of ways to get your news these days

Unfortunately, the vast majority of people do NOT seek out other news source. The bulk of at least US citizenry that pay attention enough typically get their information just from their evening news or the smattering they get from the morning shows like GMA and Today.

Check out this link about the "American Matrix", as it covers aspects of the media and the way people are (and wanting to be) fed their news among other topics.

 

[RobertR]

Unfortunately, the vast majority of people do NOT seek out other news source.

In other words, as in so many aspects of life, it all comes down not to "I should be protected from the big bad whatever that's doing evil things to me", but rather "I should take responsibility for the way I run my life instead of blaming others".