Grimis
Scrapple Level: 135
Posts: 1541/4700 EXP: 28694983 For next: 640098
Since: 11.7.02 From: MD
Since last post: 4713 days Last activity: 3167 days
| #1 Posted on 2.6.03 1159.30 Reposted on: 2.6.10 1200.17 | Well, the FCC has screwed the pooch and eased the media restrictions this morning. The last thing we need at this point is the further consolidation of all things media in anybody's hands, whether it be conservative or liberal.
What's amazing is that people running the gamut from Ted Turner to Conservative radio hosts think that the easing of restrictions is a bad idea. We've alredy proven, at least on the radio side, that Clear Channel can run smaller stations out of the market and replace them with their identical brand of crappy genres and news formats they dredge in from other markets. Imagine what happens when TV companies are able to do the same.
Sounds like Democrats and Republicans in Congress didn't want to see this happen. Hopefully, those congressmen will reverse this decision within the sixty-day window. Promote this thread! | | spf
Scrapple Level: 144
Posts: 1946/5410 EXP: 35857689 For next: 852705
Since: 2.1.02 From: The Las Vegas of Canada
Since last post: 3069 days Last activity: 404 days
| #2 Posted on 2.6.03 1207.53 Reposted on: 2.6.10 1208.04 | I am currently preparing to meet my Maker as the end is nigh...Grimis is absolutely correct and I am in total agreement with him.
The part that strikes me as darkly humorous is the contention that this will somehow increase the diversity and quality of content available to consumers. I must admit I am failing to see how letting Infinity, Clear Channel, Bonneville, and a couple of other companies control the vast majority of the public radio waves is going to be beneficial to anyone except for themselves and the politicians they donate money to.
I think something which people seem to overlook in this discussion is that the goal of the public airwaves shouldn't be solely to produce maximum profit for the people we license this public resource to. I have nothing against the networks and the radio people making money, but when increased profits come at the expense of the consumer while the companies are using the resources that we still own as the citizens of this country, I find myself somewhat annoyed.
And good heavens I just can't bear the thought of anymore of the atrocious radio that lives up and down the Chicago dial.
| Tenken347
Knackwurst Level: 115
Posts: 87/3258 EXP: 16317761 For next: 493654
Since: 27.2.03 From: Parts Unknown
Since last post: 41 days Last activity: 3 days
| #3 Posted on 2.6.03 1208.15 Reposted on: 2.6.10 1208.43 | To be fair, this is just an easement of restrictions for television companies, while the radio industry was completely deregulated. I still don't think that it's a good idea, but it shouldn't be a problem to the extent that Clear Channel has made with its radio network. | -proletarian-
Chipolata Level: 28
Posts: 59/123 EXP: 119221 For next: 12119
Since: 29.4.03
Since last post: 7500 days Last activity: 7499 days
| #4 Posted on 2.6.03 1219.42 Reposted on: 2.6.10 1219.43 | I have no idea how this bill passed. In public, seemingly everyone was against it. I guess money makes people do silly things, huh?
And to be honest, the LAST thing any free country needs is increased consolidation of media ownership. The fewer players there are in the media, the easier it is to control public opinion..... | Enojado Viento
Potato korv Level: 58
Posts: 477/662 EXP: 1528327 For next: 49228
Since: 12.3.02 From: Your Grocer's Freezer, NC
Since last post: 4165 days Last activity: 3437 days
| #5 Posted on 2.6.03 1248.25 Reposted on: 2.6.10 1258.12 |
Originally posted by spf2119 I am currently preparing to meet my Maker as the end is nigh...Grimis is absolutely correct and I am in total agreement with him
The NRA, a sizable number of Jesus freaks and a few other liberal groups made common cause. And I never thought we'd be in agreement either.
Such are the extraordinary times we live in I reckon.
How a governing body can vote against overwhelming public and private opinion is at the very least cause from a massive hue and cry. If people calling in to say "no" cause both your phone system and your e-mail server to crash . . .
This is a black day. Our laws state the airwaves are the province of the public and this is pretty much giving massive conglomerates a blank cheque. | messenoir
Summer sausage Level: 49
Posts: 95/449 EXP: 854750 For next: 29139
Since: 20.2.02 From: Columbia, MO
Since last post: 3989 days Last activity: 3856 days
| #6 Posted on 2.6.03 1642.16 Reposted on: 2.6.10 1643.28 | From a report on NPR, it seems the general public just didn't really care about this issue, or it at least didn't fall in their purview. I disagree with that sentiment, and also wholeheartidly oppose the further consolidation of media. But at this point, the economy seems to be one of the few things on most people's radar. Thus votes like this can come in under that radar. | Enojado Viento
Potato korv Level: 58
Posts: 479/662 EXP: 1528327 For next: 49228
Since: 12.3.02 From: Your Grocer's Freezer, NC
Since last post: 4165 days Last activity: 3437 days
| #7 Posted on 2.6.03 1950.03 Reposted on: 2.6.10 1950.31 |
Originally posted by messenoir From a report on NPR, it seems the general public just didn't really care about this issue, or it at least didn't fall in their purview.
It was barely covered in major news outlets, really. The only reason it hit my local news at all is the presdient of the broadcasting concern that owns them has opposed this from day one.
And really, why would they cover it? When people found out--whether through alternative media, alerts from organisations, etc, they were damn pissed and jammed the FCC's website and phonemail system to tell them so.
But even with that, the voice of the people goes unheard. Methinks some serious cashola changed hands. Thank God two of the commissioners tried to hold as many public hearings as possible and get the word out. Not their fault they were (at best) buried on page 12.
And I doubt this gonna help the economy if a Clearchanneling effect happens in TV and local newscasters get shitcanned for whomever that crew in Baltimore that runs pretaped news for like 15 or 16 communities all over the nation.
Who exactly was crying for TV to suck as bad as radio and how many times can I punch them?
| Eddie Famous
Andouille Level: 98
Posts: 609/2221 EXP: 9444842 For next: 209545
Since: 11.12.01 From: Catlin IL
Since last post: 2620 days Last activity: 2161 days
| #8 Posted on 2.6.03 2240.53 Reposted on: 2.6.10 2259.02 | It seems that nearly 99.9 percent of the people that had a clue about this was against it. Of course it passed. | Leroy
Boudin blanc Level: 100
Posts: 130/2336 EXP: 10151761 For next: 202671
Since: 7.2.02
Since last post: 12 days Last activity: 6 days
| #9 Posted on 3.6.03 1446.05 Reposted on: 3.6.10 1447.33 |
Originally posted by Tenken347 To be fair, this is just an easement of restrictions for television companies, while the radio industry was completely deregulated. I still don't think that it's a good idea, but it shouldn't be a problem to the extent that Clear Channel has made with its radio network.
This is not entirely true. While national caps were removed in 1996 (hence the Clear Channel explosion in the last 7 years), the new deregulation redifines what consitutes a local market. So, hypothetically, if there were four radio stations and you owned one, you might not be able to purchase any more.
Under the new regulations, all media outlets are taken into account. So how much you can purchase now depends on the total number of media outlets available (newspaper, broadcast TV, cable TV providers, and ISPs). So while your one radio station might make-up 25% of the radio stations in a local market, it may only be 5% of the total media outlets available. Hence, allowing you to purchase more.
There are supposedly some changes as to how markets are physically defined, but I haven't seen any documentation on the changes yet. One things for sure, none of the FCC's recent changes will allow for less consildation.
Oh, and while I am on a roll - did anyone catch FOX News last night, basically downplaying these regulation changes? News Corp was one of the loudest proponents of COMPLETE deregulation of media ownership - a fact, of course, they failed to mention. | The Thrill
Banger Level: 108
Posts: 402/2781 EXP: 13131438 For next: 389105
Since: 16.4.02 From: Green Bay, WI
Since last post: 3633 days Last activity: 232 days
| #10 Posted on 4.6.03 0807.39 Reposted on: 4.6.10 0813.27 |
Originally posted by Enojado Viento It was barely covered in major news outlets, really. And I doubt this gonna help the economy if a Clearchanneling effect happens in TV and local newscasters get shitcanned for whomever that crew in Baltimore that runs pretaped news for like 15 or 16 communities all over the nation.
Who exactly was crying for TV to suck as bad as radio and how many times can I punch them?
ABC had a decent amount of stuff on the FCC decision available to affiliates, which we used, although they did barely mention it on "World News Tonight" on Monday. (DISCLAIMER: I work for an ABC-affiliated station.)
Is that Baltimore crew "The Daily Buzz?" HORRIBLE morning television. The local WB affiliate up here airs that crap...we dunno why.
As for your last statement...true dat. True dat. | Grimis
Scrapple Level: 135
Posts: 1550/4700 EXP: 28694983 For next: 640098
Since: 11.7.02 From: MD
Since last post: 4713 days Last activity: 3167 days
| #11 Posted on 4.6.03 0906.28 Reposted on: 4.6.10 0907.07 | Originally posted by The Thrill Is that Baltimore crew "The Daily Buzz?" HORRIBLE morning television. The local WB affiliate up here airs that crap...we dunno why
The Baltimore stuff is News Central which is a newscast centralized from Owings Mills, MD and fed to stations owned by Sinclair Broadcasting. They do national stuff and weather fed from Maryland interspersed with localized stuff. Thankfully, Channel 45 here runs local news at 10 and NewsCentral at 11. The NewsCentral stuff is rather....rough to say the least.
(edited by Grimis on 4.6.03 1007) | messenoir
Summer sausage Level: 49
Posts: 98/449 EXP: 854750 For next: 29139
Since: 20.2.02 From: Columbia, MO
Since last post: 3989 days Last activity: 3856 days
| #12 Posted on 4.6.03 1400.15 Reposted on: 4.6.10 1402.45 |
Originally posted by Enojado Viento
Originally posted by messenoir From a report on NPR, it seems the general public just didn't really care about this issue, or it at least didn't fall in their purview.
It was barely covered in major news outlets, really. The only reason it hit my local news at all is the presdient of the broadcasting concern that owns them has opposed this from day one.
I read about it in the NY Times pretty much constantly. Granted, much more people watch TV then read newspapers.
But then, this is perfect example of why TV news sucks. They're more concerned with showing cool pictures and perfecting the art of the dramatic pause (not mentioning the several hours they gotta give to what the temperature is on each seperate street in your city) then taking some time to explain how something like this will affect our lives. | Leroy
Boudin blanc Level: 100
Posts: 131/2336 EXP: 10151761 For next: 202671
Since: 7.2.02
Since last post: 12 days Last activity: 6 days
| #13 Posted on 4.6.03 1634.10 Reposted on: 4.6.10 1635.03 |
Originally posted by messenoir >But then, this is perfect example of why TV news sucks. They're more concerned with showing cool pictures and perfecting the art of the dramatic pause (not mentioning the several hours they gotta give to what the temperature is on each seperate street in your city) then taking some time to explain how something like this will affect our lives.
I think it has to more with the fact that at least two (probably more) of the major networks were really for deregulation. Or if not for it, ready to take advantage of it had they disbanded ownership rules all toegther. One of the issues was whether or not major networks could actually merge - like a TV version of AOL-Time Warner - and I personally believe they did not want to address the issue until it already too late. | NIKO
Chorizo Level: 31
Posts: 110/152 EXP: 167702 For next: 17663
Since: 24.4.02 From: Amherst, Massachusetts
Since last post: 7005 days Last activity: 6915 days
| #14 Posted on 5.6.03 0801.02 Reposted on: 5.6.10 0810.03 | I think this is a true sign of the apocolypse. I actually found myself in total 100% agreement with Joe Scarborough(sp?) the other day, which wouldnt be strange, except that normally I have to fight the urge to throw a brick through my TV if a hear him talk for more than 5 minutes. | drjayphd
Scrapple Moderator Level: 126
Posts: 1252/4035 EXP: 22940139 For next: 144028
Since: 22.4.02 From: New Hampshire
Since last post: 766 days Last activity: 350 days
| ICQ: | |
| Y!: | |
|
| #15 Posted on 5.6.03 1308.11 Reposted on: 5.6.10 1311.49 | It's nice to see something everyone can get behind and agree upon. Unless the people that can actually DO anything about it don't agree. -_- I'm BEGGING for Congress to overturn this ruling while they can. | messenoir
Summer sausage Level: 49
Posts: 103/449 EXP: 854750 For next: 29139
Since: 20.2.02 From: Columbia, MO
Since last post: 3989 days Last activity: 3856 days
| #16 Posted on 5.6.03 1623.34 Reposted on: 5.6.10 1625.50 | The Senate is looking to overturn it, the House is looking to keep it (along party lines) and the White House are looking to keep the restrictions.
The path that the Senate seems to be taking would be a simple majority vote which would not need White House approval. | ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |