----- Original Message ----- Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 8:25 AM Subject: NYTimes.com Article: Republicans Are Adding Weight to Reversal of F.C.C. Media Rule
> Yes! Yes! Yes! > I'm particularly pleased about this because I have been part of the crowd that has been sending messages to my reps in Congress through Moveon, ACLU and I don't know what other organizations. > > I'm beginning to believe that the Internet can truly make a difference. > > Selma > Republicans Are Adding Weight to Reversal of F.C.C. Media Rule > > July 23, 2003 > By STEPHEN LABATON > > WASHINGTON, July 22 - Until recent days, the nation's > largest media conglomerates had hoped that the House of > Representatives would kill the growing political efforts to > overturn their recent deregulation. > > But in a stunning political development, the House now > appears poised to support the reversal of a new rule that > permits the nation's biggest TV networks to grow even > larger. > > The House began debate today on a spending measure that > contains a provision that would overturn the new network > ownership rule. Both supporters and critics of the rule say > that the measure has broad bipartisan support and is likely > to be approved this week. > > Because a Senate committee recently approved a similar > measure by a broad bipartisan majority, the movement in the > House increases the likelihood that Congress will reverse > at least some key elements of the new media ownership rules > adopted last month by the Federal Communications > Commission. In recent days, the White House has publicly > joined the debate, saying that advisers have recommended > that President Bush veto the legislation if it is passed by > both houses. > > Such a veto could be overridden by two-thirds of the voting > members of the House and Senate. > > The growing political movement to reverse the rules is > remarkable at a time when Washington's major political > institutions and federal courts have been dominated by > deregulatory thinkers. It was assumed that the House would > defend the new rules and block any effort to change them. > But that changed last week when 11 Republicans deserted > their leaders to join with the 29 Democratic committee > members to approve the measure in the legislation on the > floor of the House tonight. > > That decision came in response to a groundswell of > criticism to the new rules by a broad coalition of liberal > and conservative organizations that raised concerns about > media companies growing too large. The groups include the > National Organization for Women, the National Rifle > Association, the United States Conference of Catholic > Bishops and organizations representing Hollywood writers > and independent producers. > > The new media ownership rules, adopted by a bitterly > divided F.C.C., are among the most significant deregulatory > steps undertaken during the Bush administration. They relax > many of the most significant restrictions on the ability of > broadcast and newspaper conglomerates to both expand into > new markets and extend their reach in the cities where they > already have a presence. > > The House measure would reverse one of the most significant > new rules. The commission had ruled that a network could > own television stations that reach up to 45 percent of the > nation's viewers, an increase from 35 percent. The House > measure would restore the old 35 percent limit by > prohibiting the commission from spending any money to > permit the transfer of a broadcast license to any company > above that limit. > > Today, the House rejected an amendment by two Democrats, > Maurice D. Hinchey of New York and David E. Price of North > Carolina, that would have reversed two other new media > ownership rules. Those rules would make it easier for a > company to own a newspaper and a broadcast station in the > same city and allow a company to own more TV stations in > the same market. > > The House voted 254 to 174 to defeat the amendment after > some members said they supported it in principle but urged > their colleagues to vote against it on tactical grounds. > They said they feared that if the amendment were adopted, > the bill would not pass by a veto-proof margin. > > Despite its defeat, the move toward reversing the network > ownership rule is a significant political blow to both > House leaders and the chairman of the F.C.C., Michael K. > Powell. Mr. Powell, an architect of the deregulatory > effort, is on vacation, and the commission's top spokesman, > David Fiske, said he would have no comment on the day's > events. > > The commission voted 3 to 2 along party lines last month to > make the most far-reaching changes to the media rules in a > generation. The new rules were heavily promoted by media > conglomerates, some of which urged the commission to go > even further, and against a flood of comments from hundreds > of thousands of people who opposed the changes. > > House leaders, recognizing that they faced an embarrassing > defeat if they made an issue of the network cap provision > on the floor, decided to let it pass with the hope that it > could be stripped when the measure is reconciled with the > version of the spending bill adopted by the Senate. Such > hope may be futile, however, because one of the chief > sponsors of a similar measure reversing the new F.C.C. > rules is Senator Ted Stevens, the Alaska Republican who > heads the Senate Appropriations Committee. > > The media ownership provision is part of a $37.9 billion > spending bill that finances the Justice, State and Commerce > departments. > > There was little discussion today over the provision to > restore the national television cap to 35 percent. > > But a sharp debate was prompted by the amendment proposed > by Mr. Hinchey and Mr. Price to reverse the two other new > rules. > > "Restoring these previous rules is essential to preserving > the localism, diversity and competition in our airwaves - > standards that are needed for a vibrant democracy," Mr. > Price said. > > But the amendment drew widespread opposition from some > members on tactical grounds and others for substantive > reasons. > > Reflecting the apparent view of a large number of > Democrats, Representative David R. Obey of Wisconsin, the > ranking Democrat on the appropriations committee, said he > supported the amendment in principle but urged his > colleagues to oppose it for fear that it would weigh down > the legislation and put a veto override at risk. > > "I oppose everything the F.C.C. did," said Mr. Obey, the > chief sponsor of the measure restoring the network > ownership cap to 35 percent. "But the problem is you have > to make intelligent decisions as to how much you can bite > off." > > He added, "We are taking on the media giants of this > country, and when you do that, you better doggone make sure > you have the votes. This is a killer amendment. It will > break the camel's back." > > Other senior Democrats agreed. > > "On substance, they are correct, but the perfect good is > the enemy of the good," said Representative John D. > Dingell, Democrat of Michigan. He said that the reversal of > other new F.C.C. media rules could be accomplished by other > legislation. > > And a number of Republicans said they opposed the proposal > because it represented a step backward. > > "This amendment would stop in its tracks the reasonable > deregulation of the rules," said Representative Billy > Tauzin of Louisiana, the chairman of the Energy and > Commerce Committee. > > Repeating one of the main justifications offered by the > F.C.C. for the new rules, Mr. Tauzin said that the > Hinchey-Price amendment would lead to the elimination of > free over-the-air television. > > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/23/business/media/23FCC.html?ex=1059963101&ei=1&en=b8f6216349861f3e > > http://www.nytimes.com/ads/nytcirc/index.html _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
