Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Media Television The Media

Senate Approves Measure to Undo FCC Rules 503

Posted by michael from the doesn't-mean-nothin' dept.
fortheloveofjava writes "The Washington Post says here that the Senate voted 55 to 40 today to wipe out all of the Federal Communication Commission's controversial new media rules, employing a little used legislative tool for overturning agency regulations. If you signed the MOVEON.org petition, an image of part of it is visible here with sponsoring senators Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Trent Lott (R-MS)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Senate Approves Measure to Undo FCC Rules More

Senate Approves Measure to Undo FCC Rules

Comments Filter:

  • What worries me most (Score:4, Interesting)

    by T1girl ( 213375 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @04:13PM (#6978826) Homepage
    is the part that says, "Even if passed by the House, the White House has promised a veto."

    • Re:What worries me most (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fjordboy ( 169716 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @04:16PM (#6978859) Homepage
      There was a quote in the article that mentioned that even if the bill does go through, it basically just rolls back the legislation to June 2, which isn't a bad deal for most involved. This doesn't repeal everything that the FCC wants, it is just giving them an option to "try again." I wouldn't worry too much about Bush vetoing it, even if he does, with this much of congress against the FCC in this case, I think they'll revise the bill of their own accord.

      • Re:What worries me most (Score:4, Informative)

        by Galvatron ( 115029 ) * on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @06:41PM (#6980342)
        "this much of congress against the FCC"

        How is 55-40, with 5 abstaining, a huge majority? It sounds to me like if Bush vetos it, it will die, as it is well short of the 2/3rds needed to override a veto. As far as I'm concerned, that's a good thing; these rules are stupid in an age where barriers to becoming a content distributor are virtually nil (maybe $10/month in web hosting costs).

        • Re:What worries me most (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Qzukk ( 229616 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @08:01PM (#6980998) Journal
          these rules are stupid in an age where barriers to becoming a content distributor are virtually nil (maybe $10/month in web hosting costs).

          Riiight. And its so easy to get on the air too, you can set up your licensed radio transmitter on... wait, sorry, it looks like clearchannel just bought all the radio frequencies in your city.

          Oh, and that web site? AOL and road runner have both decided to redirect their users to Time's own sites. You can have all the speech you want, but nobody will ever listen to you.

    • Re:What worries me most (Score:4, Informative)

      by rekkanoryo ( 676146 ) * <rekkanoryo AT rekkanoryo DOT org> on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @04:17PM (#6978865) Homepage
      There's always the chance of having it presented again to get that 2/3 majority to make it override the veto.

      • Re:What worries me most (Score:5, Insightful)

        by LostCluster ( 625375 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @04:19PM (#6978899)
        Typically, a bill that doesn't get the 2/3 majority the first time around won't have it the second time if needed to override a veto. It'd take having the political environment shift during the time in between to make several Senators who voted "no" the first time to vote "yes" the second time.

        • Re:What worries me most (Score:3, Insightful)

          by stomv ( 80392 )
          Note that 55 voted Yea, and 5 weren't present... including 4 Dems, who overwhelmingly voted Yea.

          That's almost certainly 59 Yeas -- 67 would need to Yea to override the veto. It isn't likely for the Dems to find 8 Pubs to override a Republican POTUS veto, but it is possible, especially if the grassroots efforts by folks like Move On [moveon.org] continue to be effective.

          Of course, a veto that isn't overriden is just one more thorn in the side of Bush come election time, although it's unlikely to be an issue that will

    • Re:What worries me most (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Otter ( 3800 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @04:18PM (#6978882) Journal
      My impression was that the veto was threatened more than "promised" (although haven't seen an original quote either way).

      Anyway, I don't believe it. Bush hasn't used his veto much (has he vetoed anything?) and I very much doubt this is the time and issue where he's going to start, especially with major Republicans prominently supporting the measure.

    • Re:What worries me most (Score:4, Insightful)

      by the_mad_poster ( 640772 ) <shattoc@adelphia.com> on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @04:19PM (#6978895) Homepage Journal

      And that surprises you? This is Bush we're talking about. He's hardly been a shining example of fairness, intelligence, and respectability so far.

      A white house veto isn't necessarily the death of it though.. it can still go back for a vote and get passed if it gets a 2/3 vote in each Chamber. That bastardized version of a president we currently have isn't all powerful just yet...

      • Yes, he is. (Score:5, Funny)

        by burgburgburg ( 574866 ) <splisken06@@@email...com> on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @04:25PM (#6978965)
        Now step away from the computer and stand over there in the corner. The Patriot Act relocation experts will be by any minute now to take you to Guantanamo Bay, you enemy combatant you.

        Remember kids: If you voice or even think an opinion contrary to your selected President, then the terrorists win.

        • Re:Yes, he is. (Score:5, Informative)

          by micromoog ( 206608 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @04:45PM (#6979197)
          Remember kids: If you voice or even think an opinion contrary to your selected President, then the terrorists win.

          The really sad part is, that's almost a direct quote from Rummy [washingtonpost.com].

    • Don't Worry (Be Happy) (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MBCook ( 132727 ) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @04:23PM (#6978940) Homepage
      Well, I don't think Bush will veto it. If he has said he would veto this measure (I think I've heard that too, but anyways) I think it's more of a "I'll probably do it because of some little reason, but my mind isn't made up that's just how I'm leaning" kind of thing. Even if it's not, a presidential veto can be overturned. If enough people complained to get the house and senate to go and try to reverse it, they can get a veto over turned. That said, since so many people don't like this legislation, it wouldn't be smart to try to go against it (by vetoing) from a purely political standpoint, especially with an election comming up (although thankfully Bush doesn't just do whatever the polls say, he thinks for himself).

      I don't really think we have alot to be worried about. This will get overturned and all semi-right with the world (in regards to FCC policy) will be returned.

      PS: For the record, I support Bush. Full disclosure or whatever.

    • Of course he'll veto it. He needs to control the media to win the next election. He needs to make sure that we have glowing pictures of Iraq on the tube every night.

      Also, it never hurts to also control the voting machines [slashdot.org].

      Sickening.
      • Bush's cronies in Texas are already trying to redistrict the state to increase republican state representatives. In the process, republican electoral votes for the President in national elections. So even if the popular vote favors a democratic candidate, the republican candidate has a better chance of winning. Considering Texas is one of the largest states in terms of electoral votes that's not just disgusting. That's scary.

        • Re:What worries me most (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Sylver Dragon ( 445237 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @05:12PM (#6979482) Journal
          I realize that its popular to pick on the Republicans at the moment, but this sort of redisticting happens every few years (I forget how many at the moment, and am to lazy to look it up for a /. post) Which ever set of aristocrats are in power at the time use this redistricting to help themselves (gee, suprise). This is a normal function of our federal govenment. Is it right, and/or benificial to us pesants? Probaly not, but please don't pretend its new, or one sided.
          Move along nothing to see here...

          • Re:What worries me most (Score:5, Informative)

            by UdoKeir ( 239957 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @06:49PM (#6980417)
            That's right. I generally happens every 10 years (in Texas at least).
            The last time it happened, the situation had to be settled by a district court judge. That was in 2001.
            Now the Texas Republicans want to redistrict again. They didn't like the last result so they're changing parliamentary rules in order to get their plan shoved through. This is all at the behest of the Bush Whitehouse.
            It is not normal to redistrict every 2 years. This is what you do when you want to guarantee getting elected, because you've fscked the economy up so much that you can't get enough of the popular vote to carry you into office.
            It's a bit like getting your brother to block minorities from voting in the state that he's running.
            State Police headlight checks in minority neighbourhoods near the polling station on election day? Perfectly normal.
            Scrubbing thousands of citizens from the voting rolls because their name sounds like that of a convicted felon in another state? Nothing to see here.
            Stupid fsck.

          • Re:What worries me most (Score:3, Insightful)

            by stomv ( 80392 )
            I agree with the other poster about gerrymandering and also agree that the Dems have been doing it in Tejas (just as both parties do it wherever possible).

            The difference is this: redistricting has been done every 10 years, following a census. This isn't law, but it was a reasonable choice. A new census should require redistricting -- it's the most recent, most accurate measure of where people live. The decision to not change things in between was for a number of reasons, including: efficiency, time cons
    • I heard Trent Lott this morning on the radio and he said something to the effect of:

      --
      If it get's vetoed it'll come back again in a bigger package. With a big bow on top.
      --

      The implication being that it'll get stapled to a bill that the President would have a much harder time vetoing.

      =Shreak

  • there goes my media monopoly (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @04:13PM (#6978828)
    damn

  • wait (Score:4, Funny)

    by TedCheshireAcad ( 311748 ) <ted@fUMLAUTc.rit.edu minus punct> on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @04:14PM (#6978833) Homepage
    Wait I thought the government was bad? Especially the republicans, Lott, that is.... someone fill me in.
    • This just shows that enough public backlash can change the minds of politicians.

      • Re:wait (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Elwood P Dowd ( 16933 ) <judgmentalist@gmail.com> on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @04:26PM (#6978974) Journal
        No, their primary concern (the most discussed issue on the senate floor) was the effect this would have on local political coverage.

        Right now, your local NBC affiliate can decide that they're not going to run some reality-TV show tonight, instead they're going to run local political debates. If NBC owned every local station, the local decision making would be removed, and you'd decrease the amount of airtime that each congressperson received for campaigning.

        Congress has always been unnerved about the implications of this latest FCC change, but not for the same reasons you and I were. If the FCC comes back with a way for consolidation to occur while preserving the current type/amount of political coverage, I'm sure it would go through without any fight at all.

        The public backlash just lets those two pricks try to look like heros.
        • The thing is, the "If the networks owned all the stations, there'd be no debates on network stations" argument doesn't quite ring true when you look at all of the network-owned stations that kick the network aside on Friday Nights to air local Major League Baseball games.

  • Mixed feelings. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sheetrock ( 152993 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @04:15PM (#6978845) Homepage Journal
    On the one hand, I appreciate diversity in television, and would hate to see it disappear. So the idea that they're taking strides towards that is encouraging.

    On the other hand, I believe such diversity will only be strengthened by allowing the people with the most resources free rein to develop channels/media as they see fit. You get duplication of effort now (CNN, FOX, MSNBC), where later we could perhaps have two or three media giants offering a broader spectrum (CNN Politics, CNN Music, CNN Sports).

    So in a way I wonder if we should be upset about this.

    • Re:Mixed feelings. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mystik ( 38627 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @04:22PM (#6978933) Homepage Journal

      The problem is --- if one organization owns all channels tv, radio or otherwise, they are tempted to weave their biases into every program they produce.

      By requiring a duplication of effort, it assures the public that there will be differing viewpoints presented to them, so they can hopefully do their own thinking. It is true that it makes the market less efficent, but I believe that this is a neccesary sacrifice.

      • Am I the only one who thinks that if one large organization owns all tv and radio channels and weaves their biases into every program they produce, it will tempt somebody to compete and offer unbiased (or the other bias) news? Isn't it obvious that's not a stable system (well, without government help...)?

    • Re:Mixed feelings. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by mkldev ( 219128 )
      Three media giants with the same large corporate agenda shoving crap down our throats and just trying to make it look different on the surface? Umm... we have that in the recording industry today, and look where it has gotten us. No, deregulation is -never- a good idea. If there's one thing we should have learned from the last two decades or so, it is that.

    • Re:Mixed feelings. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Petronius ( 515525 )
      > CNN Politics, CNN Music, CNN Sports

      one URL for you: MSN.com

    • You get duplication of effort now (CNN, FOX, MSNBC), where later we could perhaps have two or three media giants offering a broader spectrum (CNN Politics, CNN Music, CNN Sports).

      What you are talking about is what I would call diversity of subject, this is nice. But, having multiple entities providing each subject gives diversity of substance, which is esential for an informed, balanced formation of opinion.

    • This decision does promote diversity... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by M-2 ( 41459 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @04:28PM (#6979012) Homepage
      ...the original decision would have allowed the equivalent of a Clear Channel situation nationwide for television and newspapers, as well as outright crosspollination between the two. Which could mean you'd get the Fox News Washington Post and the CNNew York Times, and lead to an even greater polarization in news reporting between the moderates and the right. (There's no real 'liberal press' anymore.)

      There's no real impetus to create that broad spectrum of events - the general intent seems to be to create a single nationally-acceptable product and show it everywhere, in order to sell more ad time and make money.

      The only place we're really getting any 'diversity' is in the pay channels, which aren't dependent on commercials and therefore can take chances. So if they want to make something different like 'Queer as Folk', or 'The Sopranos', or 'Dead Like Me', they can, and if people watch it, it was a good experiment.

      The more diversity in channels, the better it is. If you have three news channels like CNN, Fox and MSNBC, you have three different points of view, and therefore possibly a better chance of getting an idea about what's REALLY going on.

    • Re:Mixed feelings. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by LostCluster ( 625375 )
      There's nothing that stops CNN from creating spinoff flavors. They already have in the forms of CNN Headline News, CNNfn, and CNN en Espanol. There also used to be a CNNsi, but that network was pulled back as a failure.

      What these regulations deal with is how many stations the big network owners are allowed to own in broadcasting, which used to be tightly limited to encurage local interests to own local TV stations. It used to be, the local supermarket barron could own 1 TV station in his home area, and hav

    • The major Problem (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @04:31PM (#6979039)
      One problem is, if the media is owned by very few, then the political perspective becomes very limited, and if the media giants are slanted towards a particular bias, or just go through the good old "if you don't mention it, it doesn't exist" routine at the behest of the corporations/government, what you get is a very uninformed populace. Case in point: 70% of Americans believe Saddam Hussein or Iraq was responsible for 9/11. There is absolutely NO evidence for this, yet 70% believe it. I'm not getting into that. Luckily, we still have the internet.

      Really, the worst problem with media consolidation is the total loss of a sense of a local community, especially on the radio. I feel the major problem isn't TV, it is radio being taken over by ClearChannel, where people have to play their political games to get on the radio.

      Just my .02

    • My car gets forty rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it! Why have two or three media giants? Let's have just one, that will be the most efficient and lead to the least duplication of effort. Let's make it Fox "News" because animals attacking babies is important. That, and foxy boxing. All this choice and diversity annoys and confuses me.

    • Re:Mixed feelings. (Score:5, Informative)

      by kfg ( 145172 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @04:41PM (#6979146)
      You aren't old enough to remember when we had three big TV networks who controled everything, are you?

      I live three blocks from the very first commercial TV studio in history ( WRGB, GE Broadcasting Company, now used as a science lab by the Schenectady County Community College ), my father worked for them in sales and managment. I got to see a bit of how things worked from the inside.

      We do not want to return to that. Trust me on this one.

      This afternoon I've been watching shows about Velociraptors in China, Easter Island, Anime, The Hauorani ( with nudity, as per National Geographic Magazine) and several different and distinct points of view on the same news story, from different nations.

      In the old days I would have had my choice between three essentially identical "day time dramas" and three essentially identical American news shows broadcasting at noon and six only.

      You can take that and shove it. I like my diversity and "duplication of effort," thank you very much.

      KFG

    • later we could perhaps have two or three media giants offering a broader spectrum (CNN Politics, CNN Music, CNN Sports)

      But that's a BAD thing! This is exactly what we want to avoid. This is in fact one point of view, it's Time Warner's point of view, as a matter of fact.

      CNN, MSNBC, and Fox, each having independant news channels is not duplication of effort, it is news from (at least in theory) three different perspectives. Each channel/media corp/etc has it's own slant on the news, getting different persp

  • Why does the FCC have so much power? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Malor ( 3658 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @04:15PM (#6978852) Journal
    I'm confused about why it takes such a major act of governmental will to override the FCC. They aren't elected, and should be subservient to Congress. Congress is the only body that can make law; why is the FCC being granted that power so strongly?

    In essence, the FCC, part of the executive branch, is being given equal status to Congress. To override the FCC, Congress has to pass a new law (which the President has threatened to veto). Congress would then have to override that veto.... requiring a supermajority to regain *their own lawmaking power*.

    Something is REALLY messed up here.

    • Re:Why does the FCC have so much power? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by gmhowell ( 26755 ) <gmhowell@gmail.com> on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @04:21PM (#6978915) Homepage Journal
      In essence, the FCC, part of the executive branch, is being given equal status to Congress. To override the FCC, Congress has to pass a new law (which the President has threatened to veto). Congress would then have to override that veto.... requiring a supermajority to regain *their own lawmaking power*.

      Which is as it should be. The FCC is an agent of the President. It is the executive branch in this particular domain. The congress wants to override the executive branch. The president doesn't want this. Therefor, it takes a supermajority to override the president. Pretty much like every other situation where the congress wants to override the executive.

      Pretty much since 1783, the executive and legislative branches have been co-equal. Huh, imagine that.

      • Re:Why does the FCC have so much power? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mph ( 7675 ) <mph@freebsd.org> on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @04:28PM (#6979007)
        Which is as it should be. The FCC is an agent of the President. It is the executive branch in this particular domain.
        You miss the point. Despite being a part of the Executive Branch, the FCC is essentially serving a legislative function (deciding what the media companies may or may not do, rather than simply enforcing laws passed by Congress). Thus, you're weakening separation of powers, by transfering certain legislative authority to the executive.

    • Re:Why does the FCC have so much power? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Otter ( 3800 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @04:24PM (#6978958) Journal
      In essence, the FCC, part of the executive branch, is being given equal status to Congress.

      That's the whole point of the separation of powers! That the FCC is directly answerable to the president, and can't be trivially overridden by Congress, just because Congress is "more important" than some federal regulatoru commission.

      • However, all of the FCC's power comes from the fact that a law creates it to administer the laws that relate to communications, such as keeping track of who the licensed users broadcast frequcies are, and determining what the qualifications to hold a license is.

        If Congress were to pass a law with a veto-proof majority, they could create a law that would override any contradictory FCC rulings even if the president wants to try to stop it.

        Congress is more important than the FCC... Congress could make life m
      • Actually the FCC is a regulatory body. And it actually derives at least part of its authority from Congress. It is supposed to be a hybride between a legislative and executive agency.

        The constitutional status of these is complicated, some people say they are unconstitutional. Never the less, as things currently stand Congress does have authority over the FCC.

      • That's the whole point of the separation of powers! That the FCC is directly answerable to the president, and can't be trivially overridden by Congress, just because Congress is "more important" than some federal regulatoru commission.

        No. The FCC is not part of the executive branch, it is part of the legislative branch and was created by the congress.

        Check here if you don't believe me:
        http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html [fcc.gov]

        A choice quote:

        Summary

        The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independ

    • I'm confused about why it takes such a major act of governmental will to override the FCC. They aren't elected, and should be subservient to Congress. Congress is the only body that can make law; why is the FCC being granted that power so strongly?

      That's not entirely true. Courts frequently make their own laws as well. And just like the FCC, the judges are appointed, not elected. For a recent example you only have to look to yesterday's 9th circuit ruling on the California recall.

    • Congress created the agencies to handle the nitty-gritty of writing regulations that they wouldn't have the time to do, nor the qualifications to do. The FCC rule-making would take up all of Congress' time alone. Also, I wouldn't want some clueless Congresscritter making rules about the airwaves, airspace, drugs, etc...

    • Re:Why does the FCC have so much power? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Glassbear ( 557667 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @04:30PM (#6979032) Journal

      The FCC has lawmaking power because Congress gave it to them. Legislative delegations of rulemaking authority to federal administrative agencies happen all the time; it's the same reason why the FTC is empowered create a do-not-call list and require telemarketers to pay a fine if they don't abide by it. In each case, the agency is exercising authority delegated to it by the legislature. Nothing new there.

      The more interesting issue, IMHO, is why it's so hard for Congress to overturn an agency rule with which it disagrees. It used to be that you didn't have to pass a law to overturn an agency regulation; you could just have one house of Congress issue a so-called "legislative veto." If that was still the law, then today's Senate vote would have been enough to overturn the FCC. However, the Supreme Court has said you can't have a one-house legislative veto [findlaw.com]. So if the FCC makes a rule with which Congress disagrees, Congress has to pass a new law overturning the rule. Cumbersome, but that's how the Court has said you have to do it.

    • Congress is allowed to make laws that create regulatory bodies that enforce other laws. Like the FBI, IRS, or the FCC, for instance. This is not an abuse of power, merely a delegation of their regulatory authority. However, there have been conflicts in the past concerning whether agencies of the Federal government were encroaching upon the rights of states to regulate things that happen exclusively within the borders of a single state. This conflict is not new, but I doubt it applies here as broadcasti

    • The FCC is part of the executive branch, and is there to execute the laws that have already been passed. When a law is vauge on exact numbers, it sometime specifically tells the FCC to come up with the exact limits as is the case here.

      So, for Congress to take back a power they have granted to the FCC, they do have to pass a new law. The FCC is just a buggy complier... give it garbage laws in and you just might get garbage out...
    • Something is messed up indeed. After reading the article I was wondering the same thing. Isn't Michael Powell part of this agency?

      Regardless, I'm all for diversifying radio and television. Around the Minneapolis area, radio is an absolute joke. Literally ~90% of all radio stations (guesstimate) are owned by Clear Channel, and as a result, we only have one station for each major format in the metro area. Each station is plagued by at least 15 minutes of commercials each hour (more like 20-30 in actuality),

    • BLAME LAWYERS.... yep. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Rahga ( 13479 )
      I was surprised to see this up [fcc.gov] on FCC's website so quickly..... It's really nice to see Congress trying to prevent a train wreck that had more to do with the courts than anything started in the legistlative or executive branches.... And we all know which political party has few friends in and around the benches.

  • And just think... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @04:15PM (#6978854)
    If all the people who signed that petition had voted in the first place, there wouldn't *be* anything to overturn today!

    Remember folks: **AA = all kinds of American Apathy...

  • Trent Lott (R-MS)!!! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Grimlock88 ( 687600 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @04:16PM (#6978861)
    "Trent Lott (R-MS)." I dont know if this means that he is a member of Republicans for MicroSoft or if you mean that he is currently being posessed by Richard Stallman

  • So what power does this leave the FCC with? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Osrin ( 599427 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @04:18PM (#6978874) Homepage
    Doesn't this mean that they're effectively impotent from this point forward, or am I misreading it? I'm English... if parliament vetoed something like this it would spell the end of the agency.
    • Nah. The people on these committees are appointees, so it's accepted they will occasionally screw up and do something silly in the name of ideology. The next admininstration comes it, it changes hands, life goes on. Just our checks & balances (hopefully) in action.
    • The FCC and many other Federal government regulatory agencies are created by laws passed by Congress. These agencies enforce other laws passed by Congress. Congress makes all the laws, and cannot delegate that authority. Congress also has the power to question the actions of agencies it creates, and they frequently do, by holding hearings.

      If an agency is behaving in a way Congress does not like, it is probably because the laws they are allowed to enforce are permitting them to do so. But since Congress

  • The system works? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by SirSlud ( 67381 )
    Nice job, and congrats americans! Looks like the peeps have got a say in matters like this. Take THAT, clear channel! This musician dances with happiness, and its not even my country.

  • Choice (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mopslik ( 688435 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @04:19PM (#6978900)

    The new FCC rules were championed by FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell, who argued that consolidation was less a threat now than when the rules were enacted because consumers have many more choices for their news and entertainment.

    Sure, there's ClearChannel-Affiliate-1, ClearChannel-Affiliate-2, ClearChannel-Affiliate-3... Really, is there that much more choice out there? Internet broadcasting, maybe, but the folks who run their own stations are still being harassed by the tax-hungry powers-that-be.

  • Woot! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by thentil ( 678858 ) <thentil@yahoo.cOOOom minus threevowels> on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @04:20PM (#6978901)
    It's great to see an actual online petition have *some part* in changing things - with all the online petitions that are passed around, congrats to moveon.org [moveon.org] for actually making it effective! Score 1 for democracy (for the moment, at least...)!

    • Re:Woot! (Score:2, Informative)

      by untaken_name ( 660789 )
      Score 1 for democracy (for the moment, at least...)!

      Score one for oligarchy, you mean. A small minority is offended by what's on tv, and by the fact that a point of view they don't share dominates popular culture at the moment, and by the fact that people like pop music and don't really care (en masse) if radio stations play the same crap (because they're still tuning into it, and sponsors are still having success with ad campaigns). Since said small minority knows that they can't win without help, they c

  • This is bad folks. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Last Warrior ( 105980 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @04:28PM (#6979011)
    and you wonder why there is no good new music coming out these days. because executives in board rooms decide what you will like. and it will be based on what they own and promote.

    so now everything you watch on tv, listen to on the radio, see in a movie theatre, or hear on the street will be based on what one set of executives decides you need to know.

    all it takes now is for someone to buy favor with these executives and we have something we are already starting to see. its called media manipulation.

    news brought to you by the highest bidder.
    LW-
    • Holy crap... does the acronym RTFA mean anything?

      Oh that's right.. this is slashdot.

      You know.. Those of you who think you know everything, are really annoying to those of us who DO!

      Smile.. it's Tuesday

    • Re:This is bad folks. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kfg ( 145172 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @04:53PM (#6979287)
      Oh, don't worry, it's not like one powerful media mogul could manipulate the populace and government into a war or anything.

      I'm sure those nasty Cubans really blew up our battleship. I read it in the paper.

      KFG

  • ob simpsons (Score:5, Funny)

    by justforaday ( 560408 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @04:31PM (#6979034)
    why does this remind me of that episode where kent brockman is reading the news for CNNBCBS (a division of ABC)?

  • An unexpected shock (Score:5, Funny)

    by RareHeintz ( 244414 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @04:32PM (#6979052) Homepage Journal
    Egads... I agree with Trent Lott on something.

    I have to go shower now.

  • ...let's hope this passes and the president doesn't veto it!

    We are at a critical juncture. If it doesn't pass, Radio will lose all diversity, Newspapers will only print boring wire stories, and television news will only be about ratings!

  • Universally Opposed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JayBlalock ( 635935 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @04:36PM (#6979102)
    Don't forget, when the FCC opened this up for comment, they got thousands of e-mails against and less than a dozen for. And this is the issue that got the ACLU and the NRA to link arms in saying "this is a bad idea." The feelings of the public AND all the interest groups, regardless of overall political affiliation, is that this would be a spectacularly bone-headed move. I mean, this wasn't just politics making for strange bedfellows, this was an all-out bipartisan orgy. NO ONE besides the media owners is in favor of it.

    So Bush vowing to veto basically means he's disdainfully ignoring the will of the population he was supposedly elected to represent.

    And we ARE still in a *representative* Republic? Right? ... right? Bueller?

  • Senate Voting Record (Score:4, Informative)

    by tashanna ( 409911 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @04:40PM (#6979140)
    Here's the Senate Voting Record [senate.gov] so you can appropriately attack your local representatives if you disagree with their actions.

    But this is /.. We don't talk to our reps, we just bitch about them.
  • Traditionally media leans toward the Democrats, Rupert Murdoch notwithstanding. I would think that letting them get richer would funnel more money toward the GOP's opponents.

    • Riiight... that explains why Clinton was ripped apart for a freakin' blowjob while Bush was the media darling even though he still hasn't presented convincing evidence for his decision to move in on Iraq; a decision which has resulted in the deaths of thousands of Iraqis, the complete destabilization of an entire nation, and all to the tune of hundreds billions of American taxpayer's dollars. And all this while the economy was crumbling and Bush was racking up the largest federal budgetary deficit in US hi

  • Dammit (Score:3, Funny)

    by mchappee ( 22897 ) * on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @05:03PM (#6979398)
    You post a factual story with absolutley no indication of what I'm supposed to think. Is it good? Is it bad? Do you know how frustrating this is? Now I have to read the linkage and attempt to form my own opinion. I don't have time for this! What am I paying you guys for?

    Thank God that I read the story late enough that 30+ people have posted within my threshold. Whew.

    MC

  • It Ain't Over (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Percy_Blakeney ( 542178 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @05:04PM (#6979410) Homepage
    Even if this bill gets though the House, the Senate, and even the President, it won't matter. Read that again, folks, because it is true: this bill doesn't matter.

    The rules have already been stayed by a judge, so there isn't a possibility of sudden waves of consolidation yet. Whatever ruling is set down in the current case in Philidelphia will be appealed to the Supreme Court. This thing is going to be dragged through the courts all the way to the top. That is where the buck will stop.

    So what you've got to ask yourself is, "Do I feel lucky?" Do you think the Supreme Court will rule for or against the media consolidation rules? Before you answer, please review the history of media deregulation. In particular, read up on the cable-broadcast cross-ownership ruling that came out of the D.C. court which prompted this whole fiasco (Fox v. FCC, if I remember correctly.)

    I'll tell you this: there is a significant probability that these new ownership rules will be upheld, not rejected, especially given the conservative leanings of the high court.

    Just some food for thought.

  • FCC and Washington Politics (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Detritus ( 11846 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @05:05PM (#6979413) Homepage
    Before everybody goes nuts bashing the FCC, oops, too late, you should recognize that they have been put in a difficult position by Congress (Democrats and Republicans) and the courts.

    Congress has told them to periodically review and rewrite FCC regulations to make sure that they are still necessary and relevant. That doesn't stop them from bashing the FCC when they don't like the result.

    The courts have been striking down FCC decisions when the courts have decided that the FCC did not backup their decision with objective research and data.

    Whenever a large corporation does not like the result of a FCC decision, they sue, hoping that the court will overturn the FCC's new rule.

    This has turned the FCC into a punching bag for a wide variety of competing interests.

  • Here's how they voted (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bezuwork's friend ( 589226 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @05:34PM (#6979728)
    roll call for S. J. Res. 17 [senate.gov].

    So does it do more bad than good to write and express displeasure at how they voted after the fact?

  • Wha wha wha! (Score:3, Flamebait)

    by Eric Savage ( 28245 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @05:50PM (#6979898) Homepage
    You mean these "senators", who I hear are sometimes "elected" by the "people", did something in the "interest" of these "people"? What about the sacred rulings of the FCC? I mean come on, the guy who runs that is the son of a general! Plus he had the support of at least two other members of this agency, and all for naught.

    This is the last straw, I'm moving to Canada.

Slashdot Top Deals

A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson

Close