Petition: Roll Back FCC Media Ownership Rules!

reismark · November 3, 2003, 23:07

Hey guys,

I think it's really important that as many people living in the U.S. as possible sign this petition.

http://www.mediareform.net/petition

Here's the situation in a nutshell: The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) recently relaxed their limits on media ownership by a 3-2 vote in June. If this decision holds up, it would allow the large media conglomerates like Clear Channel to dominate the media markets without challenge. Not only would the legs of the little guys be cut off, but it would result in less integrity in journalism and less quality and variety in media - specifically in music. Does that serve our interests? I don't think so!

30,000 people have already signed this petition - the FCC's decision is a disservice to everyone except the corporations and their coffers. It'll only take a few minutes of your time and it should lead to positive, lasting change. Good things are already starting to happen because we're speaking out:

http://www.mediainfo.com/editorandpu...ent_id=2007541

Quote:

House Dems Push for Vote on FCC Rollback
GOP Leadership Likely to Block Effort

WASHINGTON -- (AP) A mostly Democratic group of House members on Tuesday urged Republican leaders to schedule debate and a vote on a resolution that would repeal media ownership rules approved by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) earlier this year.

The leadership has pledged to kill the measure, which moved to the House last month after the Senate's 55-40 approval. The resolution would undo changes to FCC regulations governing ownership of newspapers and television and radio stations.

Critics say those changes could lead to a wave of media mergers and ultimately stifle diversity and local viewpoints in news and entertainment. A federal appeals court already has temporarily placed the rules on hold.

The lawmakers said they will send a letter to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, asking him to allow a vote on the measure. Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., the lead backer of the resolution in the Senate, is joining the effort.

"The voice of the Senate has been heard loud and clear," Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., said. "The House should be given the same opportunity."

Hinchey's staff said 180 Democrats, one independent and eight Republicans have agreed to sign the letter.

The group would need 218 signatures on a petition to force a House vote on the resolution.

A Hastert spokesman did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

To succeed, the resolution -- called a "congressional veto" -- needs majority approval in the Senate and House. The White House has threatened to veto the resolution and it would take a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate to override.

Lawmakers critical of the FCC rules acknowledge stiff resistance in the House, but they doubt President Bush would use his first veto to defend the rules.

There are other pending legislative attempts to roll back the ownership rules, most of them focusing on restoring TV ownership restrictions.

In June, the Republican-dominated FCC completed an extensive review and voted 3-2 along party lines to ease decades-old ownership restrictions. The changes included allowing a single company to own TV stations reaching nearly half the nation's viewers as well as broadcast stations and a newspaper in the same area.

On Sept. 3, a federal appeals court in Philadelphia temporarily blocked the rules from taking effect the following day as scheduled. The court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the case Nov. 5. Several other legal challenges to the rules from broadcasters and consumer groups are pending.

We *can* make a difference. Thanks, guys.

Velociryx · November 4, 2003, 09:43

There's integrity in journalism now?

See what you mean tho...doesn't sound particularly good!

-=Vel=-

Stuie · November 4, 2003, 10:04

Quote:

Your signature brings the number of people who have signed this petition to 30014.

Sava · November 4, 2003, 10:14

Quote:

Your signature brings the number of people who have signed this petition to 30016.

wooo hoooooo!

Ming · November 4, 2003, 10:25

I'll pass on this one. The artificial limits placed on media ownership by the FCC should be repealed. Another case of the government making laws that stop legitimate businesses from doing just that... running their business.

If large media companies do a bad job and limit variety and provide a product people don't want... alternatives will thrive.
We call that free enterprise. Why should the media business be treated any differently than other industries.

As far as "integrity in journalism", surely you jest...

Sava · November 4, 2003, 10:28

Quote:

If large media companies do a bad job and limit variety and provide a product people don't want... alternatives will thrive.
We call that free enterprise. Why should the media business be treated any differently than other industries.

Because... just like Communism... Capitalism's ideals rarely translate into reality. Without limits on media ownership... one or two super companies would eventually take everything over. How can alternatives become available when massive conglomerates control airwaves and communications with an iron fist?

alva · November 4, 2003, 10:56

Hmm, Ming, I agree in principle with your statement, however in the real world I would some control(in general) isn't a bad thing IMO.
Look at what's happening in Italy where Berlusconi has basically taken over everything and now (almost) get's way with (almost) everything. Any law that doesn't suit him, get some propaganda going, then change the law (with public support or at least very little opposistion).
I know I'm sort of contradicting myself and even proving your point where I use the "(almost)" , the danger lies in the fact that at some point he will he get away with everything without the "almost".

Ming · November 4, 2003, 11:09

If the big companies do not provide what people want, they end up shooting themselves in the foot. If people continue to listen/watch/read, then they are voting that they like what they are getting. It's that simple. There is no problem with big conglomerates if people like what they are getting. If they have a problem, they can go to alternative sources...

There will ALWAYS be alternative sources. You just have to find them. If you are too lazy to do so... then don't blame the media.

Sava · November 4, 2003, 11:20

Ming... I can just see you now, watching 1984, yelling at the people being brainwashed... "YOU ARE JUST TOO DAMN LAZY TO FIND ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF MEDIA!"

Ming · November 4, 2003, 11:26

Yep... because unlike the fiction that 1984 is, in the REAL world, people do have alternatives. If they are too brain dead to look for them, or are satisfied and happy with what they currently get... that's their problem

Again... another case of Government stepping in when then shouldn't.

Sava · November 4, 2003, 11:33

That theory of yours is all well and good, but I must point out the most people in America work hard, have little time, and must rely on broadcast TV, or newspapers, or even cable news for information. The two latter should be open to competition and such. Because they are premium services that people pay extra for. Broadcast TV is free to anyone with a TV. It should not be in private hands. Why? Because private companies will always put their bias or agenda through.

The government absolutely should be stepping in and monitoring the flow of information to prevent some conglomerate from taking over everything. What happens then? A few powerful, or one powerful person controls everything that people see, every bit of news people get. Now you may consider yourself a smart person who can detect bias, but I think human beings are mostly victim to their senses. The images that are pumped into our TV's, the words we read in our news do affect us. It's not hard for someone to shift public opinion by producing propaganda or biased reporting. Government exist to protect the publics interest. And the people, IMO, who wish to diminish the public's ability to protect itself are only in it for sinister reasons.

JohnT · November 4, 2003, 11:37

Sava, it's amazing you can ascribe monolithic powers to a corporation while at the same time ignore the fact that the government owns the army.

"The government absolutely should be stepping in and monitoring the flow of information to prevent some conglomerate from taking over everything. "

This shows as much a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the real world works as anything in Kidicious' threads.

JohnT · November 4, 2003, 12:36

Quote:

That theory of yours is all well and good, but I must point out the most people in America work hard, have little time, and must rely on broadcast TV, or newspapers, or even cable news for information. The two latter should be open to competition and such.

Have you even turned on the TV? The damned news is everywhere, large and small media alike, from your local TV "Alive at 5" news broadcast (where most of the "mindless masses" that you are thinking about get their news) to public access stations to the plethora of "documentarian" channels ala Discovery, PBS, C-Span, and even ESPN?

Have you ever turned off the TV and turned on the AM band on your radio to listen to all the whackos, especially the ones that come out at night? Ever log on to the internet and been amazed at the width and breadth of the media coverage, from Al-Jeezera to Reuters to the Knoxville News-Sentinel? How about magazines, newspapers, Readers Digest?

The idea that there is no alternative media and that people don't access it, is to deny the total proliferation of this media and its metamorphasis into non-traditional forms over the last 25 years and completely misses the point of the evolution of the "media" industry.

"A few big corporations." ****, son, look about you.

Ming · November 4, 2003, 12:39

On one hand, Sava tells us in other threads that government controls the media and that all we get is government propaganda, and here he advocates them stepping in to protect the masses...

WHICH IS IT GOING TO BE SAVA

JohnT · November 4, 2003, 12:40

Let me be even more blunt: It is because we live in a society where the private individual and corporation can control the generation and broadcasting of information which allows us to enjoy the overwhelming preponderance of media and information that exists today. An abundance that would not be in a world where this control was the sole province of the government, or even in a world where the control is heavily "regulated" by the government.

Sorry Sava, but once again your words and arguments fly smack in the face of the realities of todays world.