FCC Commissioner Stumps For Media Diversity 159
maynard writes, "Speaking at a New York City town hall meeting on corporate media consolidation and its deleterious impact on the expression of minority viewpoints, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps stumped against greater media concentration and instead argued for greater diversity of media outlets and voices. In 2003 the FCC, under Chairman Michael Powell, changed media ownership rules to favor greater corporate media consolidation at the expense of local owners. In an attempt to reverse totally the prior FCC policy, Mr. Copps argued strongly in favor of independent media owners. Read on for what he had to say.
Michael Copps: "The FCC is in the midst of a hugely important proceeding right now to decide what the future of our media, our TV, our radio, our newspapers, our cable, even our internet, are going to look like for a long, long time to come.A little history, just to set the stage for our discussion. Three years ago, under then FCC Chairman Michael Powell and over the objections of my good friend Commissioner Adelstein and myself, the FCC severely cut back — really "eviscerated" is a better word — the rules that were meant to check big media's seemingly endless appetite for more consolidation. It passed new rules, which have allowed a single media giant to own in a single market up to three television stations, eight radio stations, the cable system, the cable channels, even the internet portal, and the local newspaper, which in most cities in the United States of America is already a monopoly. And the agency did all of that behind closed doors and without seeking meaningful input from the American people. Can you imagine that? Authorizing a sea change in how news and entertainment are produced and presented over the people's airwaves, without even involving the people who own those airwaves and who depend so heavily upon them. It was a near disaster for America.
Thankfully, citizens rose up across the land. They sent nearly 3 million protests to the Federal Communications Commission. Congress rose up, too, and then a federal court sent those rules back to the FCC saying they were badly flawed and they needed to be reworked. That was good, and anybody that doesn't believe that citizen action can have an effect should just revisit what happened there. We checked those rules. You checked those rules from going into effect. It was concerned citizens at work, and it was a citizen consumer victory.
But, here's a reality check now. We're right back at square one, and it's all up for grabs again. And if we're going to have a better result this time around, doing something positive for media democracy, it's going to be because of more citizen action and more input from folks like you. So, this time we need to make it an open public process, instead of hiding in our office in Washington like the majority did in 2003. This time, let all the commissioners come to New York City — I wish they were all here tonight — and let all the commissioners get out across America and find out what's happening in the real world, beyond that Beltway that they bemoan so much but seem to love staying behind so much.
So, as we begin our discussion, then begin with that simple reminder: it's all of us who own the airwaves. There is not a broadcaster, a business, a special interest, and any industry that owns one airwave in the United States of America. They belong to you, and they belong to me. And, my friends, now is the time to assert our ownership rights."
In your face, Mike Powell! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Low power community FM (Score:1, Insightful)
If what was meant was "There shouldn't be laws saying 'you can't own X media channel because we don't like you' (or a seemingly plausible reason with the same effect)", then fine, I agree.
If what was meant was "Laws that prevent media from falling into too few hands can silence some voices", this is counter-intuitive (more owners should mean more voices), and I'd like an example of who would be silenced by such a thing.
Re:Bolshevization of North America (Score:4, Insightful)
For decades now the UK has had state own/governed (or at least centrally funded) channels dominating the airwaves. We've also enjoyed independent outlets, so its not like N Korea. But news in particular is the BBC's domain. And for all that time, we have been the envy of America with regards to freedom of press (or at least the Americans who have witnessed both). You want the glossy crap, its there to, but you want more even handed, insightful, in depth news the UK's has beaten the US for a long time. But why?... It doesn't seem right.
It's not that I don't see your point that centralisation is a danger, and can lead to more total loss of objectivity. That is clear and obvious. Yet why is it that the contrary is born out in practise for us? I would say it is something that you do have control over. Your culture. Is it snobbish to think less of someone, you know could care more about world affairs, but who can't be bothered? Or is it your duty as a responsible citizen? Fox News would not get watched here. I know, because they tried something approaching it on channel 5. It stank. No one watches it still (even though its improving slightly). I would be ashamed to do so. If I saw a friend watching it, I'd say don't watch that shit. Its all sensationalist crap. Why watch the news if its not news. Watch kids TV or something. And I'd mean it. My tone would be seen as condescending snobbery to many Americans. It would not to most Brits. THIS is the reason you have "consolidated press". Here we have many Newspapers owned by one corporation, that are politically conflicting even. Why? because people expect varied opinions. This is bolstered by my experience of German news, and attitude to news. Which is an exaggerated version of the UK culture. And they have better news for it.
I do fear that this is fading some. And that the US way of toeing big business/party lines with soundbites and banalities, interspersed with adverts for the very same power mongers, is approaching. But there is still a big enough distinction for us to see the phenomena for what it is. Sadly know one wants to think they are living a lie. Or to pull your bloody socks up! Which is kind of what you are being told by people like me. But there you have it. DON'T watch crap, centralised, sanitised news. e.g. If you're being told everyday how many of your soldiers are being BRUTALLY MURDERED. And vague indications, if that, of civilian "casualties" that there have UNAVOIDABLY been, then your news is not news. Its propaganda. And you really are better off switching of the box and staring at the wall, or better still talking to a real person about what might really be happening in the world. AND EXPECT the same of your friends. EXPECT the same FOR your friends. They deserve better, as do you. I assume.
Re:Bolshevization of North America (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice troll, but you've forgotten that;
1.
2.
3.
Blaming your countries problems on the long since dead communist bogeyman is less than derisable. No sir, your problems are entirely as a result of unrestricted market forces acting upon your society. Enjoy!
Re:THIS STORY IS WRONG (Score:4, Insightful)
no, you need not bother apologizing. No one believed you in the first place.
It is inconceivable that a Republican appointee to the head of the FCC would come out against further consolidation of media ownership. Your story set off all the bullshit detectors of every politcally savvy Slashdaughter. There was simply no way that it could be true, and it wasn't.
I was wondering to myself if it were actually April 1 already. It's an equinox and I pay more attention to the season and the daylength than I do to the months. I was afraid that I had gotten six months out of sync somehow.
Re:Best use of the airwaves (Score:3, Insightful)
Woe the day we get desensitized to naked boobies.
Abolish the FCC (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Bolshevization of North America (Score:3, Insightful)
The beauty of the BBC is that I can see it is left leaning. And as you rightly point out that it admits to this. Thats the point. FOX's tag line is a lie. Plain and simple. It says that it is unbiased. It can't be, is is very far from being so. Do you see?
As for adding them to my viewing list, no. I've watched it once or twice, and I know what to expect. Here we also have C4 news. For example. Its remit, that it has set itself, is to offer the 'other point of view'. And is therefore 'at odds' with the BBC most of the time. And because the BBC is left of where you see centre, and "safe" news, C4 is oftern 'dangerous' and willing to air the radical right's (or left's) arguments. i.e. they would be more willing to have a lengthy debate with BNP leaders, or air the views of a far right, middle eastern commentator. As such I actually do watch it more than the BBC News. The difference is the sane, and unemotive manner in which the facts are broached. News should not be entertainment. As it is treated on Fox. And every News show I've watched in the States.
I have seen both sides, haveing visited America, haveing an American family, and being subjected, as is everyone in the UK (/world) to a great deal of American media. Right or left leaning, vurtually everyone I've spoken to who is in a similar position would agree, that your news over there, just isn't news. In short, your dead wrong.
Re:Bolshevization of North America (Score:5, Insightful)
Britain is dominated by state power. America is dominated by corporate power.
State power is at least somewhat grounded in the people, so varied opinions have their value, because the chief parties can acquire actual power through persuasion and viewpoints.
Corporate power is entirely guided by money. Acquiring more money means no varied opinions - it means one central opinion.
Because of this fundamentally different end goals (and thus the different means needed to acquire them) American news is simply incomparable to British news. They aren't even the same creature.
The flip side to this is that America as a whole is the more economically successful of our two countries. That's cold comfort for most Americans, but that's the guiding spirit of pretty much all of America.
Re:Cite your sources, or risk derision (Score:3, Insightful)
The three are not interchangable.
"Only, not, because they're all owned by titanic media conglomerates run by incredibly wealthy folks who, quite understandably, tend toward a conservative bent. (Fox is merely the most obvious about it.)"
Actually, some are owned by titanic media conglomerates with wealthy folks who have a liberal bent. Quite understandably.
"No, because there's a couple more sources for TV news, there's no consolidation to worry about!"
Exactly. Because there were just a couple in the beginning.
"Nevermind that there's lots of other kinds of news media -- radio stations and newspapers, for example -- which have undergone drastic consolidation in the past few decades"
It's more like deconsolidation. But 'nevermind', as you do not know much about this one either.