------ Forwarded Message From: matthew patton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 19:26:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [infowarrior] - White House Drops Effort to Relax Media Ownership Rules
I generally don't comment on this sort of thing but having just read Reason's interview with Mr. Powell (son of outgoing Sec of State) I would be remiss if I didn't counter some of the article. Read the article here. http://www.reason.com/hod/at012605.shtml and the interview here. http://www.reason.com/0412/fe.dc.the.shtml > Officials said one reason the administration decided not to seek > Supreme > Court review is that some lawyers were concerned that the case could > prompt > the justices to review related First Amendment issues in a way that > could > undermine efforts by the commission to enforce indecency rules > against > television and radio broadcasters. Over the last year, the agency has > issued > a record number and size of fines, and has been pressed by some > conservative > and other advocacy groups to be more aggressive. This one got my craw up. Congress makes the rules of indecency and so forth and tasks the FCC to enforce them. Not only does the FCC not listen to every broadcast looking for offenders, they take action only AFTER citizens lodge complaints. Much like the police wait till after the crime is committed before intervening. So the fact that the agency has issued a record number of fines and so forth is because broadcasters have been offending the public by breaking decency terms spelled out by Congress in law. The fault lies entirely with broadcasters who are hellbent on degrading and debasing our society with the filth they put on the air. > In a bitterly partisan vote in 2003, the commission voted 3-to-2 to > approve > a package of deregulatory measures drafted by Mr. Powell that rolled > back decades of ownership restrictions. and it's funny who's complaining about it. As Powell expounds in the article, the rules would actually make very very little impact. He is clearly concerned with the balance between allowing business to go about it's thing and bring about benefits to consumers without the gov't seeking to destroy initiatives as the FCC has done for decades, vs making sure that other players with presumably differing points of view are still permitted a means to speak. > One of the rules Mr. Powell sought to ease restricted a company from > owning > a newspaper and a television or radio station in the same city. > Another rule > limited the number of television stations owned by the networks, as > well as > the number of television stations owned by a single company in the > same > market. And BTW it's CONGRESS that specifies what those limits are. The FCC said 45%, congress compared that to the previous 35% and set the cap at 39. > In some recent statements he has said he erred politically by not > promoting > the changes in a smaller, more piecemeal fashion, so as to avoid the > political fallout that ensued after presenting the larger package of > changes. that's Washington for ya. You may be right. You may be gosh darn right. But you're also dead right too. > Some members of the coalition said they feared that further > consolidation > would increase the amount of indecent programming by a smaller number > of > outlets struggling to maintain high ratings and gain market share. oh and get slapped with the ensuing fines? What a freaking specious argument. > Mr. Powell responded by assailing the decision, saying it had > "created a > clouded and confused state of media law." and irrespective of the Philly court, he's completely correct. The laws are a disaster. > interest," Mr. Adelstein said. "This is an historic decision for the > media democracy movement." what a bunch of xxxx. If you want "media democracy" what about allowing low-watt stations to exist? That's your perverbial thousand voices all screaming at once that "democracy" necessarily means. And while I am sympathetic to the "people's radio" notion, the FCC's stance is totally understandable and IMO the right one. Plus anyhow with the Internet and nearly zero-cost bandwidth, if you have a message that's even worth listening to it can be done over the 'net and reach zillions of people across the world instead of some podunk 3 mile radius. The need for radio or broadcast spectrum for the 2-bit outfit is long past. > But Mr. Copps cautioned that the fight was not over, and that the > next head > of the agency should be careful not to make the mistakes that Mr. > Powell had made. ah yes, the "we lost the election by a landslide but don't you even dare think you have a mandate from the people" Democrats. Landslide you ask? If 3.5million votes counts as a landslide according to Hollywood in the statist's favorite TV show "West Wing" and for the Dems (natch) think that gives them the authority to do whatever they damn well please, then the '04 victory for Bush is one too. > "This is welcome news, but we've got to be vigilant and not let > anyone try > to sneak consolidation through this agency in some piecemeal > fashion," Mr. > Copps said. The horrors! Let's see AT&T was blown to bits. Consumers lives tanked royally and the baby bells have been dragging their feet every which way they can to protect their little fiefdoms and snuff out those who would dare compete with them or offer new services. And now SBC wants to buy what's left of AT&T to boot. Powell makes an IMO important point that a monopoly is not measured by the size of the company but by the effect it has on consumers. There is nothing inherently wrong with big business. Unless all you talk to is anti-business, anti-capitalist socialists and communists passing them off as statist Democrats. ------ End of Forwarded Message You are a subscribed member of the infowarrior list. Visit www.infowarrior.org for list information or to unsubscribe. This message may be redistributed freely in its entirety. Any and all copyrights appearing in list messages are maintained by their respective owners.
