FCC Ownership rules.. Look out!

[fiddler1]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/18/business/media/18broadcast.html?ei=5065&en=3587dbb202bd2dcc&ex=1193371200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

More evil from the enemies of freedom

 

[Wilkero]

I'm not sure that deregulation is necessarily a bad idea. While I don't support the media editorializing the news rather than simply reporting it, I don't think the government should tell private citizens (or entities, like corporations) whether or not they can own something simply because they already have something similar. It's kind of the like the government saying that if you own an apartment complex in a city, then you can't buy another one, because if they allowed that, then someone could end up owning all the rental housing in that city. It just seems kind of absurd.

 

[leipo]

It's kind of the like the government saying that if you own an apartment complex in a city, then you can't buy another one, because if they allowed that, then someone could end up owning all the rental housing in that city. It just seems kind of absurd.

So you are comparing a media outlet to private property? You lost me there.

 

[Green Mountain Boy]

The problem is that the FCC shuts out small media outlets with regulations and then eases the restrictions on the big media conglomerates so they can monopolize.

 

[runderwo]

They should deregulate and simply require that the newspaper mention its ownership next to the name of the newspaper, and the TV station mention its ownership whenever one of its own segments begins.

The problem is when you have multiple levels of indirection of ownership, but that is nothing that the current system addresses anyway...

 

[jd603]

Exactly, I consider this bad news at the moment. If the market was already a free market then it would be a /good/ thing. This , with the state of our fascism-enhanced government will just allow the large corps. to increase their monopolies.

Health care, media, telecom, defense, healthcare -- those are the most closed-up markets that I see. In most cases it wasn't the result of a free market like some people like to blame. Especially with Telecom that I have had a lot of first-hand experience with...

 

[wfd40]

this is actually one issue that Dr. Paul's stance has me more than worried - in fact, its almost a deal breaker.

First, read this article by Ted Turner: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0530-08.htm

As it stands now, none of the 'free market, de-regulate etc. etc. talk will save America from being over-run by the big 4.

If you don't think that having only a few media conglomerates (a few of which are owned by the same multinationals that make bombs and guns and other such peaceful products) your really so far out there that I probably won't even engage you in debate.

That said, what is Dr. Paul's position on such and wtf can we do to reverse this terrible trend?

When the smaller businesses are gone, where will the new ideas come from? Nor does this trend bode well for new ideas in our democracy -- ideas that come only from diverse news and vigorous reporting. Under the new rules, there will be more consolidation and more news sharing. That means laying off reporters or, in other words, downsizing the workforce that helps us see our problems and makes us think about solutions. Even more troubling are the warning signs that large media corporations -- with massive market power -- could abuse that power by slanting news coverage in ways that serve their political or financial interests. There is always the danger that news organizations can push positive stories to gain friends in government, or unleash negative stories on artists, activists or politicians who cross them, or tell their audiences only the news that confirms entrenched views. But the danger is greater when there are no competitors to air the side of the story the corporation wants to ignore.

Naturally, corporations say they would never suppress speech. That may be true. But it's not their intentions that matter. It's their capabilities. The new FCC rules would give them more power to cut important ideas out of the public debate, and it's precisely that power that the rules should prevent. Some news organizations have tried to marginalize opponents of the war in Iraq, dismissing them as a fringe element. Pope John Paul II also opposed the war in Iraq. How narrow-minded have we made our public discussion if the opinion of the pope is considered outside the bounds of legitimate debate?

Our democracy needs a broader dialogue. As Justice Hugo Black wrote in a 1945 opinion: "The First Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public." Safeguarding the welfare of the public cannot be the first concern of large publicly traded media companies. Their job is to seek profits. But if the government writes the rules in a certain way, companies will seek profits in a way that serves the public interest.

If, on Monday, the FCC decides to go the other way, that should not be the end of it. Powerful public groups across the political spectrum oppose these new rules and are angry about their lack of input in the process. People who can't make their voices heard in one arena often find ways to make them heard in others. Congress has the power to amend the rule changes. Members from both parties oppose the new rules. This isn't over.

 

[Wilkero]

So you are comparing a media outlet to private property? You lost me there.

You're correct; a media outlet is not exactly the same as privately owned real estate. I just think that regulation of ownership like this isn't necessarily protecting us. What is the goal of the current regulation? I'm guessing that it is to make sure that people are not subjected to only one corporate view in all of their local media.

Under current regulations (and my understanding of this is derived only from the article linked in the original post), a company cannot own both a radio station and newspaper in the same town unless they owned it before this regulation was enacted. All this does is create a situation where companies will diversify their media geographically. As a result, one company could still own several different media outlets in several different cities. With the advent of cable, satellite TV, satellite radio, the internet, etc., people are not beholden to their local media for their information. So, why have the regulation? It doesn't seem to serve it's intended purpose anymore.

 

[jd603]

There's some truth, switching to free market now would probably cause problems. However as Ron said, he'll "legalize competition". With Telecom at least, that simply means allowing competing carriers to use the RBOC (Vz etc.) lines again.. like they allowed for awhile and it increased competition greatly.

However, shortly after Bush's admin came in they relaxed that legislation greatly and it killed CLECs (competitive carriers), 100s of thousands of jobs gone, billions in investments, all to favor Verizon and friends. That's fascism at work.

It is tricky though, since we've come this far on the current system, I think theres pretty easy moves that would "legalize competition" in these industries though. Would be great if he can elaborate, I'm sure he could with health care at least.

The main thing to understand is we are NOT in a free market economy despite what CNBC will tell you. Question is, how do we go from where we are now back to the free market? Now this is a good question for Ron!

this is actually one issue that Dr. Paul's stance has me more than worried - in fact, its almost a deal breaker.

First, read this article by Ted Turner: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0530-08.htm

As it stands now, none of the 'free market, de-regulate etc. etc. talk will save America from being over-run by the big 4.

If you don't think that having only a few media conglomerates (a few of which are owned by the same multinationals that make bombs and guns and other such peaceful products) your really so far out there that I probably won't even engage you in debate.

That said, what is Dr. Paul's position on such and wtf can we do to reverse this terrible trend?

 

[Syren123]

The problem is that the FCC shuts out small media outlets with regulations and then eases the restrictions on the big media conglomerates so they can monopolize.

Exactly. This is exactly the problem. Big media conglomerates also make it very difficult for independent outlets to operate in their market, so they eventually sell, thus effectively silencing any remaining independent voices.

Deregulation is a Newspeak term. It doesn't really mean de-regulation.

 

[Hook]

The reason this is a problem is the artificial restriction on supply. If it only cost $100 to start your own station, the entire problem would be moot since anyone could start a new station for every station that was bought out.
The FCC makes starting stations prohibatively expensive for all but huge investors.

 

[Wendi]

Deregulation that really means deregulation is a good thing. Deregulation that really means something akin to "controlled semi-regulation for a specific goal" is definately a bad thing. Unfortunately, I believe the deregulation being discussed here is the latter.

 

[Matt Collins]

What is the goal of the current regulation?

To legislate and regulate in favor of big business. Remember big business LIKES big government because big government can legislate and regulate in their favor and essentially stifle their competition.

 

[seapilot]

Matt is right, I own a small business and its hard to compete with big business when they push the government to make rules that favor them. Didnt notice any big name businesses donating to Dr. Paul in the Wall St. Journal Article.

 

[Matt Collins]

Matt is right, I own a small business and its hard to compete with big business when they push the government to make rules that favor them. Didnt notice any big name businesses donating to Dr. Paul in the Wall St. Journal Article.

Do you have an aviation business?