The W
Views: 100815308
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
24.11.14 1600
The W - Current Events & Politics - FCC Lifts Restrictions
This thread has 2 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1(2012 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (16 total)
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1301 days
Last activity: 1098 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
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.



"You will never get that TV show. You'll never, ever get the Republican TV show. The Writers Guild of America, my union, is at a minimum, 99 percent leftist liberal and, like me, socialist. And we don't know how to write it. We don't."
- Lawrence O'Donnell, former Capitol Hill aide; co-producer/executive story editor/writer for "The West Wing"; and, creator/Executive Producer of "Mister Sterling" on why Republicans and conservatives are "practically invisible" on TV during CNN's "Relibable Sources", 3/25.
Promote this thread!
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 22 days
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
#2 Posted on
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.





and maybe I should open up my sensitive side/but really, the sensitive side sucks./I've been there./You can only imagine the kinds of sweaters they make you wear.

NWA:TNA - I'm sure something happened, but I was at pub quiz. Oh well.
Tenken347
Boudin blanc








Since: 27.2.03
From: Parts Unknown

Since last post: 9 hours
Last activity: 5 hours
#3 Posted on
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








Since: 29.4.03

Since last post: 4088 days
Last activity: 4087 days
#4 Posted on
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








Since: 12.3.02
From: Your Grocer's Freezer, NC

Since last post: 753 days
Last activity: 25 days
#5 Posted on

    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.




-LS

"I don't know if we can beat these bastards." "Maybe not, but we don't have to JOIN them."
messenoir
Summer sausage








Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 578 days
Last activity: 444 days
AIM:  
#6 Posted on
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








Since: 12.3.02
From: Your Grocer's Freezer, NC

Since last post: 753 days
Last activity: 25 days
#7 Posted on

    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?






-LS

"I don't know if we can beat these bastards." "Maybe not, but we don't have to JOIN them."
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 366 days
Last activity: 360 days
#8 Posted on

It seems that nearly 99.9 percent of the people that had a clue about this was against it. Of course it passed.



George Washington gave his signature
The Government gave its hand
They said for now and ever more that this was Indian Land

"As long as the moon shall rise"
"As long as the rivers flow"
"As long as the sun will shine"
"As long as the grass shall grow"


Leroy
Boudin blanc








Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 5 days
#9 Posted on

    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.



"It's hard to be a prophet and still make a profit."
- Da Bush Babees
The Thrill
Banger








Since: 16.4.02
From: Green Bay, WI

Since last post: 221 days
Last activity: 68 days
#10 Posted on

"America may have some problems, but it's our home. Our team. And if you don't wanna root for your team...then you should get the hell out of the stadium. Go America." --Stan Marsh, South Park


    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.



Star wipe, and...we're out.
Thrillin' ain't easy.

.
.
THE THRILL
ACW-NWA Wisconsin Home Video Technical Director...& A2NWO 4 Life!

All-Star Championship Wrestling...now a proud member of the NWA!


Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1301 days
Last activity: 1098 days
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
    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)


"You will never get that TV show. You'll never, ever get the Republican TV show. The Writers Guild of America, my union, is at a minimum, 99 percent leftist liberal and, like me, socialist. And we don't know how to write it. We don't."
- Lawrence O'Donnell, former Capitol Hill aide; co-producer/executive story editor/writer for "The West Wing"; and, creator/Executive Producer of "Mister Sterling" on why Republicans and conservatives are "practically invisible" on TV during CNN's "Relibable Sources", 3/25.
messenoir
Summer sausage








Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 578 days
Last activity: 444 days
AIM:  
#12 Posted on

    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








Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 5 days
#13 Posted on

    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.



"It's hard to be a prophet and still make a profit."
- Da Bush Babees
NIKO
Chorizo








Since: 24.4.02
From: Amherst, Massachusetts

Since last post: 3594 days
Last activity: 3504 days
AIM:  
#14 Posted on
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.



"Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind."
--John F. Kennedy
drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 22.4.02
From: Long Island

Since last post: 18 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#15 Posted on
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.



Today's Out-Of-Context Quote, Courtesy of hardygrrl:

"...between the grime layer and the Seventies game show host hair, I'd rather rim Undertaker after a White Castle/Schlitz bender."
messenoir
Summer sausage








Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 578 days
Last activity: 444 days
AIM:  
#16 Posted on
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.
Pages: 1Thread ahead: Colombia's civil war seems to be spreading
Next thread: Wolfowitz in context
Previous thread: As if NYC doesn't have enough problems....
(2012 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Lots of Second Amendment talk from the commentariat, but nobody seems to be asking how this fellow came to waive his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search. Think the off duty cop conned him into agreeing to it?
The W - Current Events & Politics - FCC Lifts RestrictionsRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.134 seconds.